Journal of Managerial Psychology

Moral leadership and psychological empowerment in China

Chenwei Li Keke Wu Diane E. Johnson Min Wu

Article information:

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Chenwei Li Keke Wu Diane E. Johnson Min Wu, (2012),"Moral leadership and psychological empowerment
in China", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp. 90 - 108
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211193875
Downloaded on: 15 July 2016, At: 06:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 55 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2346 times since 2012*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2014),"The influence of leader empowering behaviors and employee psychological empowerment on
customer satisfaction", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp.
69-84 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2012-0218
(2014),"Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: the role of psychological empowerment",
Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 3 pp. 377-400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0198
(2010),"The diminished effect of psychological empowerment on the self-empowered", Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp. 531-543 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604521011092875

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:453057 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP
27,1

Moral leadership and

psychological empowerment in
China

90

Chenwei Li

Received July 2010

Revised March 2011
June 2011
Accepted July 2011

Management and Marketing Department, Culverhouse College of Business,

The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Keke Wu
Department of Management, College of Business, Central Washington University,
Ellensburg, Washington, USA

Diane E. Johnson
Management and Marketing Department, Culverhouse College of Business,
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA, and

Min Wu
School of Public Administration, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan,
Peoples Republic of China
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of perceived procedural justice
and interactional justice on the relationship between moral leadership and the four psychological
empowerment dimensions manifested in individuals perceptions of meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact.
Design/methodology/approach Data from 241 subordinates, who reported to 110 supervisors,
were collected from clothing companies in southern mainland China. The subordinates responded to a
self-report survey, which consisted of the variables of interest. Because of the nature of nested data,
hierarchical linear regression (HLM 6.0) was used for analysis.
Findings A fully mediated model of perceived justice was supported. Procedural justice and
interactional justice were found to be differentially associated with the elements of psychological
empowerment. Specifically, while perceived procedural justice accounted for more unique variance in
the empowerment facets of meaning, competence, and impact, perceived interactional justice
accounted for more unique variance in the facet of self-determination.
Originality/value This study contributes to the literature by first examining the relationships
among moral leadership, two types of perceived justice, and the four empowerment dimensions in the
Chinese context. A detailed discussion of the implication for both researchers and practitioners is also
provided.
Keywords Moral leadership, Psychological empowerment, Procedural justice, Interactional justice,
China, Empowerment, Ethics
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2012
pp. 90-108
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941211193875

This research (Project 70701024) is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China
(NSFC).

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

Introduction
Research suggests that psychological empowerment, defined as intrinsic task motivation
manifested in an individuals sense of meaning, competence, self-determination, and
impact (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), is
associated with various positive employee work outcomes. These positive relationships
have been well documented in Chinese samples. For example, empowerment has been
positively associated with organizational commitment, job satisfaction and task
performance, but negatively related to withdrawal behaviors (Aryee and Chen, 2006).
More recently, empowerment was associated with both intrinsic motivation and creative
process engagement, showing a positive relationship, in turn, with employee innovative
behaviors (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Taken together, these results indicate that employee
psychological empowerment is related to important work attitudes and performance
outcomes in modern Chinese organizations.
Given the practical importance of psychological empowerment, and the fact that
businesses in China have started to rely more on employees to enhance competitive
advantages for long-term survival (Gong et al., 2009), researchers have started to
investigate the contributing factors of enhanced employee psychological empowerment
in the Chinese context. Much of this research has focused on leadership as a strong
correlate of psychological empowerment (Aryee and Chen, 2006; Avolio et al., 2004;
Huang et al., 2006; Zhang and Bartol, 2010); however, the relationship between moral
leadership and empowerment has not been fully explained. According to Farh et al.
(2008), moral leadership can be demonstrated in the workplace as a leaders personal
integrity, unselfishness, job devotion, and leading by example. Previous research in the
Chinese context has only examined how leadership is related to the overall
empowerment composite (Aryee and Chen, 2006; Avolio et al., 2004; Zhang and
Bartol, 2010) and not the specific dimensions. Therefore, little is known regarding if and
how each of the four empowerment dimensions is related to moral leadership. Finally,
although recent researchers have emphasized the importance of leadership on
empowerment, the underlying psychological mechanisms linking leadership to employee
perceptions of empowerment have rarely been studied (e.g. Zhang and Bartol, 2010).
As such, the first purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships between
moral leadership and the four empowerment dimensions. In the Confucian culture of
China, moral leadership is particularly important because the moral-oriented nature of
Chinese societies and the absence of legal efficacy make leaders moral excellence an
important basis for employees perception of fairness in the decision making process
(Farh and Cheng, 2000; Farh et al., 2008). Although recent work on Chinese leadership
has suggested that moral leadership should have a strong relationship with positive
employee attitudes and behaviors (for review, see Farh et al., 2006), to our knowledge,
there has been no study of the relationship between moral leadership and psychological
empowerment. The current study is therefore designed to address this shortcoming.
The second purpose of this study is to examine procedural and interactional justice
as intervening mechanisms linking moral leadership to the empowerment dimensions.
Procedural justice is defined as the perceived fairness of the decision procedures that
are critical for outcome distribution (Leventhal, 1980), whereas interactional justice
refers to the fair treatment an employee receives when leaders enact formal procedures
(Bies and Shapiro, 1987; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). Based on Self-Determination
Theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) and Multiple Needs Framework of Justice (Cropanzano

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
91

JMP
27,1

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

92

Figure 1.
A mediation model of
moral leadership,
perceived justice, and
empowerment

et al., 2001), both perceived procedural justice and interactional justice should mediate
the relationship between moral leadership and the empowerment dimensions (see
Figure 1). Information gleaned from this study can provide knowledge beneficial for
Chinese organizations seeking to increase employee performance and also for global
organizations seeking to effectively empower their culturally diverse workforce.
Theoretical background and hypothesis development
Psychological empowerment: a cognitive approach
In the past two decades, although notions of empowerment have been implicit in
research on participative management (Plunkett and Fournier, 1991), power (Bachrach
and Botwinick, 1992), and job enrichment (Hackman and Oldham, 1976), empowerment
has only recently been specifically defined and assessed (Spreitzer, 1996). Following
Conger and Kanugos (1988) line of research, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) described
empowerment as intrinsic task motivation consisting of four dimensions: perceptions of
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Based on this conceptualization,
Spreitzer (1995) developed a scale to measure empowerment: Meaning reflects the value a
task holds in relation to ones own belief system; Competence measures the degree to
which one is able to perform a task successfully with possessed skills and abilities;
Self-determination measures the amount of autonomy or control one has over his/her
tasks/behaviors; Impact estimates the extent to which one is confident that he/she can
make a difference in organizational outcomes at work.
Although some researchers argue that the four empowerment dimensions correspond
closely to elements in the Job Characteristic Model (Hackman and Oldham, 1976), the
empowerment construct addresses its dimensions from a cognitive perspective rather
than an objective job characteristic perspective. The cognitive perspective (Bandura,
1978) suggests that individuals experience of empowerment can be a product of their
perceptions rather than the actuality of their jobs. As such, the cognitive perspective of
empowerment complements the Job Characteristic Model by suggesting that employees
can feel empowered even if their objective job characteristics are not enriched (Spreitzer,
1996). Since the current study examines empowerment from the perspective of
employees rather than job designs, the cognitive perspective is taken, and empowerment
is defined as a psychological construct. As such, the four empowerment cognitions,
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, capture the motivational aspects
of the empowerment experience, and employees perceptions of empowerment should be
intrinsically reinforced when all four components are present.

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

According to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), individuals perceptions of each of the

dimensions of psychological empowerment are results of a cognitive process that not
only follows the individuals assessments of their tasks, but also relies on contextual
factors such as inputs from their leaders and work environments. Deci et al. (1989)
argued that the leader should play a critical role in providing followers with
empowering experiences because the characteristics of the work shaped by the leader
contribute directly to followers intrinsic task motivation. Following this line of
thought, the relationships between moral leadership and each dimension of
empowerment are investigated first. Then, individuals perceptions of procedural
and interactional justice are examined as mediators of these relationships.
Moral leadership and psychological empowerment
The history of moral leadership can be traced back to Silin (1976) who emphasized the
role of unselfish behaviors for moral leaders. It was not until 20 years later that
Westwood (1997) identified two facets of moral leadership, role modeling and not
acting selfishly. Both of these conceptualizations of moral leadership were based on
traditional Chinese family businesses. To accommodate the needs of contemporary
Chinese organizations, Farh et al. (2008) broadened the construct domain of moral
leadership to encompass four components: personal integrity (i.e. the substantive basis
of moral leadership, consisting of values such as honesty, keeping promises,
self-discipline, and kindness), unselfishness (i.e. the use of social power on behalf of the
collective interest of all concerned), job devotion (i.e. treating people fairly and being
responsible for others), and leading by example (i.e. role modeling). In this study, Farh
et al.s (2008) conceptualization of moral leadership is adopted.
Extant research shows that moral leadership has greatly contributed to followers
psychological responses in identification with leaders, commitment to supervisors, and
better job performance (Cheng et al., 2004). However, the relationship between moral
leadership and psychological empowerment has yet to be examined. Although empirical
evidence is sparse supporting the links between moral leadership and dimensions of
empowerment, the theoretical foundation of moral leadership posits positive
relationships. Moral leadership, with its emphasis on leaders personal integrity,
unselfishness, and job devotion, can create a trusting and supportive environment, which
in turn can lead to enhanced psychological empowerment among subordinates (Chan
et al., 2008; Cheng et al., 2004; Corsun and Enz, 1999; Farh et al., 2008).
According to Farh et al. (2008), a moral leader is first unselfish in the process of power
utilization and tends to put collective interests ahead of individual interests, which should
enable followers to assess the compatibility between organizational objectives and their
personal goals so as to derive meaning from their work. Second, a moral leader is
job-devoted and constructive in providing performance feedback, which enables followers
to evaluate their own competence and build efficacy. Third, a moral leader respects
followers and gives them more autonomy over their own work, thus engendering a
greater sense of self-determination. Finally, a moral leader allows followers to participate
in the decision-making process and listens to followers concerns, which should increase
followers sense of impact on organizational outcomes. As such, we propose:
H1a. Moral leadership is positively related to employee perceptions of meaning.
H1b. Moral leadership is positively related to employee perceptions of competence.

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
93

JMP
27,1

H1c. Moral leadership is positively related to employee perceptions of

self-determination.
H1d. Moral leadership is positively related to employee perceptions of impact.

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

94

Mediating role of perceived justice

Moral leadership and perceived justice. In this study, perceived justice is examined in
terms of procedural and interactional justice, as these two facets of overall organizational
justice seem most relevant to moral leadership. Procedural justice refers to the perceived
fairness of the decision procedures that are critical for outcome distribution (Leventhal,
1980; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993) and focuses on the structure of the decision-making
processes within organizations (Leventhal, 1980). Interactional justice refers to the
fairness of the interpersonal treatment followers receive from their leaders in the
enactment of formal procedures (Bies and Shapiro, 1987; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993).
Both of these distinct yet related dimensions (Cropanzano et al., 2001; Farh et al., 1997;
Holmvall and Bobocel, 2008) involve employees perceptions of leaders actions at work.
Given that leaders play the role of policy enforcers, their behaviors should be related to
followers perceptions of both procedural and interactional justice in a similar manner.
Leventhals (1980) work on procedural justice provides theoretical support for the
connection between moral leadership and followers perceptions of procedural justice,
through his six rules of fair procedures: consistency (i.e. the same policy should be
executed across persons and times), ethicality (i.e. the procedure should conform to rules
of proper conduct), representation (i.e. the procedure should ensure that all employees
involved have an opportunity to voice their concerns), bias suppression (i.e. the leader
should not be biased toward a particular outcome/follower, or make decisions based on
personal beliefs), accuracy (i.e. decisions should be made based on truthful and correct
information), and correctability (i.e. bad decisions are allowed to be corrected). Niehoff
and Moorman (1993) suggest that followers consider procedures fair when at least one
rule is satisfied in the workplace; however, based on the theoretical foundation of moral
leadership (Farh et al., 2008), moral leaders may be able to shape followers perceptions of
procedural justice by satisfying more than one of these rules. First, as individuals of
integrity, moral leaders keep promises, which can satisfy the consistency rule. Second,
being unselfish, moral leaders use social power on behalf of the collective interest of all,
which can accommodate the ethicality rule and the representation rule. Finally, because
they are job-devoted, moral leaders allow followers to speak for themselves and also
make unbiased decisions, which follow the representation rule and the bias suppression
rule. As a result, employees under moral leaders may perceive greater procedural justice.
Regarding the link between moral leadership and interactional justice, Masterson
et al. (2000) suggest that followers perceptions of interactional justice should be
directly related to leader behaviors because interactional justice reflects the quality of
the exchange between a leader and a follower. Also, Colquitt et al. (2001) found support
that interactional justice was related to evaluations of authority figures. By definition,
moral leadership requires leaders to lead with integrity, to treat followers with
kindness and respect, to put collective interests ahead of personal interests, and to
demonstrate high levels of trustworthiness by caring about employees (Farh et al.,
2008). Therefore, moral leaders should naturally foster perceptions of interactional
justice among followers.

In the Chinese context particularly, there is perhaps another reason why positive
relationships can be observed between moral leadership and both procedural and
interactional justice. The lack of efficacy of the law in traditional China makes leaders
moral excellence critical for fair decision-making and interpersonal treatment (Farh
and Cheng, 2000). Despite modernization and improvement in the Chinese legal system,
the tendency to regard moral leaders as justice defenders has remained in
contemporary Chinese society to various degrees (Farh and Cheng, 2000). As such,
moral leadership may be more salient to followers perceptions of procedural and
interactional justice in the Chinese context. As such, we propose:

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

H2. Moral leadership is positively related to perceived procedural justice.

H3. Moral leadership is positively related to perceived interactional justice.
Perceived justice and psychological empowerment. The connection between justice
perceptions and psychological empowerment may find support from the Multiple
Needs Framework of Justice (Cropanzano et al. 2001) and Self-Determination Theory
(Deci and Ryan, 2000). Cropanzano et al.s (2001) Multiple Needs Framework identified
three models of justice: the instrumental model where justice influences ones
perception of control over the environment (Tyler, 1987), the relational model where
perceived fairness can preserve and even enhance ones sense of self-worth in relation
to others (Tyler, 1989, 1990), and the moral virtues model where justice can fulfill ones
basic needs for human dignity and a meaningful existence (Folger, 1994, 1998). As
such, justice is an important concern for individuals because perceived fairness helps
to fulfill important psychological needs, such as the needs for control, positive
self-regard, belongingness, and a meaningful existence (Cropanzano et al., 2001). These
psychological needs appear to be closely related to the psychological needs identified
by Deci and Ryans (2000) Self-Determination Theory, which suggests that individuals
have the needs for control, positive self-regard, belonging, and meaning and
emphasizes that intrinsically motivated perceptions are the result of the fulfillment of
these needs. As such, psychological empowerment, as an intrinsic task motivation
(Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), requires the fulfillment of these
psychological needs to function effectively. Psychological empowerment does not
happen as an automatic reaction to external stimuli including leadership. The degree to
which individuals experience empowerment may be a function of the degree to which
leadership supports the fulfillment of these basic psychological needs. Thus, the
Multiple Needs Framework and Self-Determination Theory suggest that justice
perceptions can contribute to the experience of empowerment by fulfilling important
psychological needs. Following is a discussion of how perceptions of procedural and
interactional justice are related to the components of empowerment.
The Multiple Needs Framework of Justice posits positive relationships between the
two justice perceptions and each of the four empowerment dimensions. First, the
relationship between procedural/interactional justice, and meaning, can be supported
by the moral virtues model. Presence of procedural justice implies that
decision-making processes adhere to specific rules, and presence of interactional
justice suggests that followers are treated fairly during the decision-making process,
both of which provide for individuals needs for human dignity and meaningful
experiences (Leventhal, 1980). Fair procedures and interpersonal treatments, coupled
with high moral standards, can increase followers perceived value of the task and

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
95

JMP
27,1

improve the chance of a match between task values with the belief systems held by
followers. Therefore, both procedural and interactional justice should enhance
followers perception of meaning.
H4a. Perceived procedural justice is positively related to employee perceptions of
meaning.

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

96

H4b. Perceived interactional justice is positively related to employee perceptions of

meaning.
Second, the relationships between procedural/interactional justice and impact, as well
as self-determination, are well supported by the instrumental model. The need for
control manifests itself as a desire to have some control over ones own
tasks/behaviors, the decision-making process, and eventual outcomes (Cropanzano
et al., 2001). Whereas procedural justice allows followers autonomy and voice,
interactional justice gives followers a sense of acknowledgement and recognition,
enabling followers to anticipate, more accurately, the allocation of rewards and
punishments. Consequently, both procedural and interactional justice are instrumental
to the fulfillment of followers needs for control, and this fulfillment should enhance
followers perceptions of self-determination over their own tasks, providing a greater
sense of impact over organizational outcomes.
H5a. Perceived procedural justice is positively related to employee perceptions of
impact.
H5b. Perceived interactional justice is positively related to employee perceptions of
impact.
H6a. Perceived procedural justice is positively related to employee perceptions of
self-determination.
H6b. Perceived interactional justice is positively related to employee perceptions of
self-determination.
Finally, the relationship between procedural/interactional justice and competence can
be supported by the relational model. It has long been recognized that people seek to
preserve and enhance self-regard during social interactions (e.g. Steele, 1988). Whereas
fair procedures can foster self-efficacy, by encouraging followers to enrich their jobs
(Tepper et al., 2001), fair interpersonal treatment preserves and enhances self-worth by
emitting a direct signal of respect. Consequently, both procedural and interactional
justice can enhance ones self-efficacy, which in turn should increase ones perceptions
of competence.
H7a. Perceived procedural justice is positively related to employee perceptions of
competence.
H7b. Perceived interactional justice is positively related to employee perceptions of
competence.
Together, the previously mentioned hypotheses produce a mediation model (see Figure 1)
where the relationships between moral leadership and the empowerment dimensions are
mediated by perceived procedural and interactional justice. Moral leadership should be

positively related to followers perceptions of justice, which should, in turn, contribute to

followers experience of empowerment along the four dimensions of meaning,
competence, self-determination, and impact. As such, we propose:
H8. Perceived procedural justice mediates the relationships between moral
leadership and employee perceptions of the four empowerment dimensions.

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

H9. Perceived interactional justice mediates the relationships between moral

leadership and employee perceptions of the four empowerment dimensions.
Method
Sample and procedure
Data were collected from clothing companies in Southern Mainland China. Letters were
attached to the surveys explaining the purpose of the study, requesting participation
and assuring confidentiality of responses. Subordinates were given 15 minutes to
complete the survey at work. A 78 percent response rate of the 310 subordinates
reporting to 110 supervisors provided 241 usable surveys (133 male (55 percent) and
108 female (45 percent). On average, subordinates were 32 years old, had a bachelor
degree or above, and four years tenure with the organization.
Measures
Since all measures, except moral leadership, were originally composed in English, they
were first translated into Chinese and then back-translated to English by a panel of
bilingual experts, following Brislins (1980) procedures. Any resulting discrepancies were
discussed and resolved. Empowerment and moral leadership were measured using a
five-point scale, anchored in 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree), while both justice
measures used a seven- point scale anchored in 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Psychological empowerment was assessed using the 12-item scale developed by
Spreitzer (1995), measuring ones perceived empowerment along four dimensions.
Sample items were: My work activities are personally meaningful to me (meaning); I
am confident about my ability to do my job (competence); I have significant
autonomy in determining how I do my job (self-determination); and I have significant
influence over what happens in my department (impact). Cronbachs alpha estimates
for meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact were 0.74, 0.73, 0.70, and 0.79,
respectively, compared with 0.85, 0.84, 0.80, and 0.85 in Spreitzers sample of 128.
Moral leadership was measured using Cheng et al.s (2000) five-item scale
specifically developed for the Chinese context and characterizing leader morality on
four dimensions. Example items include: My immediate supervisor possesses
integrity (personal integrity); My immediate supervisor does not use personal
relationships or back-door practices to obtain illicit personal gains (unselfishness);
My immediate supervisor treats subordinates in a fair and responsible way ( job
devotion); and My immediate supervisor is our role model for doing the right things
(leading by example). All items were combined into an overall construct of moral
leadership, and Cronbachs alpha estimate for this scale was 0.91, compared with 0.90
in Cheng et al.s (2004) sample of 543.
Procedural justice was assessed with Balkin and Gomez-Mejias (1990) and
Spencers (1986) scales because they have demonstrated sufficient reliability in the
Chinese context. Farh et al. (1997) found, in a sample of 227, the former had 0.71 and the

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
97

JMP
27,1

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

98

latter had 0.81 for Cronbachs alpha estimates. These two scales were combined for this
study, with one negatively worded and reverse coded item dropped due to its factor
loading of 0.21, which was below 0.40 (Hair et al., 2006). A sample item of the adapted
six-item scale is Through various channels, my immediate supervisor tries to
understand employees opinions regarding pay and performance appraisal policies and
decisions. Cronbachs alpha estimate for this scale was 0.79.
Interactional justice was measured using a five-item scale from Niehoff and
Moorman (1993) that assesses the interpersonal behaviors of immediate supervisors
when decisions are made about employees jobs. A sample item is When decisions are
made about my job, my immediate supervisor treats me with kindness and
consideration. Cronbachs alpha estimate for this scale was 0.87, compared with 0.92
in Niehoff and Moormans sample of 213.
Control variables. To minimize potential alternative explanations for the
relationships reported in this study, demographic variables including gender
(1 male, 2 female) and job tenure (in years) were used as controls because they
have been documented as correlates of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995).
Analysis
Prior to hypotheses testing, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with
LISREL 8.8 to test the fit of the measurement model and the discriminant properties of
the measures (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1999). The fit statistics for the seven-factor full
measurement model (x 2 542:63; p , 0:001; CFI 0.97, IFI 0.97, NFI 0.93;
RMSEA 0.052; SRMR 0.067) indicated a good fit for the model ( Joreskog and
Sorbom, 1999; Medsker et al., 1994). Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing
the original seven-factor measurement model, in which the correlations were estimated,
with a series of models in which each had the correlation of one pair of constructs
constrained to be 1.00 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). All chi-square differences
between models were significant at the 0.001 level, indicating discriminant validity
among the seven study variables.
Due to the way our data were collected, there was potential for common method
variance (CMV). To alleviate this concern, precautions suggested by Podsakoff et al.
(2003) were taken by first assuring the respondents anonymity to decrease social
desirability bias and noting that there were no right or wrong answers to the survey
questions to decrease evaluation apprehension. Moreover, Williams et al.s (1989)
procedure was followed to check for CMV, and we found only 5 percent of the total
variance, which is considerably less than the average of 25 percent found by Williams
et al. (1989).
Because the answers of employees were nested within those of supervisors to who
they reported, there could be an inherent group-level effect. Thus, the use of normal
regression (ordinary least squares modeling) was not appropriate due to violation of
the independence assumption (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). As such, hierarchical
linear modeling (HLM 6.0) was used for data analysis. In all models used to test the
hypotheses, the control variables were included. To assess if there was sufficient
supervisor variance to warrant continuing with HLM, intra-class correlation
coefficients (ICC(1)) were calculated using fully unconditional random intercept
models. ICC(1) refers to the variance in outcome variables between groups. Results
showed that subordinates differed significantly across procedural justice (t00 0.27,

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

x 2(109) 167.20, p , 0.001, ICC(1) 0.19), interactional justice (t00 .32,

x 2(109) 189.49, p , .001, ICC(1) 0.24), meaning (t00 0.08, x 2(109) 161.10,
p , 0.01, ICC(1) 0.18), impact (t00 0.08, x2(109) 148.80, p , 0.01, ICC(1) 0.12),
self-determination (t00 0.08, x 2(109) 145.14, p , 0.05, ICC(1) 0.14), and
competence (t00 .03, x 2(109) 132.42, p 0.06, ICC(1) 0.11). The Chi-square
tests for the ICC(1)s indicated that these between-group variances for outcome
variables were significant, warranting the use of HLM hypothesis testing.
To test for mediation, Baron and Kennys (1986) three-step approach was followed
in the HLM analysis: first, the independent variable should be significantly related to
the mediator variable; second, the independent variable should be significantly related
to the dependent variable; and third the mediating variable should be significantly
related to the dependent variable with the independent variable included. In the final
step, if the independent variable remains significant, but the gamma value drops when
the mediator is included, partial mediation is present. However, if the gamma value for
the independent variable becomes non-significant when the mediator is included, full
mediation is present. Given the criticism of this approach (e.g. MacKinnon et al., 2002)
it is acknowledged that our results only address the consistency between the
hypothesized mediation model and covariances among measured variables
(Stone-Romero and Rosopa, 2008). To provide evidence for the indirect effect of the
independent variable on the dependent variable through the mediator (Sobel, 1982),
Sobel tests were conducted for the models.
Results
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for the variables of interest in the
study are shown in Table I. Overall, these correlations support our proposed models.
Moral leadership, procedural justice, and interactional justice were grand mean
centered in HLM to reduce the multicollinearity problems in the following analyses.
Tests of hypotheses
It was hypothesized that procedural and interactional justice would mediate the
relationships between moral leadership and the empowerment dimensions. Table II
shows that, moral leadership was related to procedural justice (g 0:63; p , 0:001) and
interactional justice (g 0:78; p , 0:001) beyond the controls, supporting both H2 and
H3. In the second step, moral leadership was related to the dimensions of empowerment:
meaning (g 0.16, p , 0.01), impact (g 0.18, p , 0.01), self-determination (g 0.25,
p , 0.001), and competence (g 0.08, p , 0.05), providing support for H1a, H1b, H1c,
and H1d. These findings allow us to proceed to the final step in testing for mediation.
For ease of presentation, Table III summarizes the main results with coefficients for
control variables omitted. In the final step, procedural justice was found to be related to
three of the four empowerment dimensions: meaning (g 0:22; p , 0:001), impact
(g 0:14; p , 0:05), and competence (g 0:07; p , 0:05), thus supporting H4a, H5a,
and H7a. The mediation results showed that moral leadership was not related to
meaning, impact, and competence when procedural justice was introduced into the
equation. Specifically, the gamma for moral leadership dropped from g 0.16 to
g 0.01 for meaning, from g 0:18 to g 0:07 for impact, and from g 0:08 to
g 0:01 for competence. These results revealed a full mediation of procedural justice

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
99

1.45
3.77
3.65
4.26
4.61
4.14
4.48
3.54
2.83

Gender
Job tenure
Moral leadership
Procedural justice
Interactional justice
Meaning
Competence
Self-determination
Impact

0.5
1.59
0.88
1.18
1.14
0.69
0.51
0.76
0.83

SD
0.15 *
20.01
20.06
0.02
0.02
0.03
20.04
0.03

0.01
2 0.06
0.09
2 0.01
0.08
0.1
2 0.02

0.91
0.47 * *
0.63 * *
0.21 * *
0.17 *
0.30 * *
0.19 *

0.79
0.68 * *
0.39 * *
0.25 * *
0.31 * *
0.24 * *

0.87
0.24 * *
0.23 * *
0.37 * *
0.19 *

0.74
0.52 * *
0.22 * *
0.26 * *

Note: n 241. * p , 0.05. * * p , 0.01. Alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficients are along the diagonal

Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, and
correlations

Variable

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

0.73
0.35 * *
0.15 *

0.7
0.26 * *

0.79

JMP
27,1

100

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

Variable
Mediator: Procedural justice
Intercept
Controls: Gender
Job tenure
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Mediator: Interactional justice
Intercept
Controls: Gender
Job tenure
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Dep. Var.: Meaning
Intercept
Controls: Gender
Job tenure
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Dep. Var.: Impact
Intercept
Controls: Gender
Job tenure
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Dep. Var.: Self-determination
Intercept
Controls: Gender
Job tenure
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Dep. Var.: Competence
Intercept
Controls: Gender
Job tenure
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership

Estimate

Standard error

4.25
20.14
20.03
0.63

0.07
0.14
0.04
0.09

59.19
2 1.04
2 0.76
6.82

0.000
0.300
0.450
0.000

4.60
0.04
0.06
0.78

0.05
0.12
0.04
0.08

84.05
0.31
1.58
10.33

0.000
0.760
0.120
0.000

4.14
0.05
0.00
0.16

0.05
0.08
0.02
0.05

87.46
0.60
2 0.08
3.29

0.000
0.550
0.940
0.002

2.84
0.03
0.00
0.18

0.05
0.11
0.03
0.06

50.72
0.31
2 0.15
2.94

0.000
0.760
0.880
0.005

3.55
20.07
0.05
0.25

0.05
0.08
0.03
0.05

72.79
2 0.89
1.89
4.90

0.000
0.380
0.060
0.000

4.50
0.03
0.03
0.08

0.03
0.06
0.02
0.03

128.89
0.49
1.26
2.40

0.000
0.630
0.210
0.020

Note: Indep. Var. Independent variable; Dep. Var. Dependent variable. n 241

in the relationships between moral leadership and meaning, competence, and impact,
partially supporting H8.
In addition, interactional justice was found to be related to only one of the four
empowerment dimensions: self determination (g 0:19; p , 0:001), supporting H6b.
The mediation results showed that moral leadership was not related to
self-determination when interactional justice was introduced into the equation.
Specifically, the gamma for moral leadership dropped from g 0:25 to g 0:05 for
self-determination. This finding provides evidence of full mediation of interactional
justice in the relationship between moral leadership and self-determination, lending
partial support for H9.
Finally, the significance of the mediated relationship was tested using Sobel tests
(Sobel, 1982). In essence, Sobel tests examine whether the estimate associated with the
relationship between the independent variable and the criterion variable drop
significantly once the mediators are introduced. Results from the Sobel tests indicated

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
101

Table II.
Results of hierarchical
linear modeling for
mediators and
independent variables
(regressed on controls
and independent
variables)

JMP
27,1

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

102

Table III.
Results of hierarchical
linear modeling for
mediation analysis
(dependent variables
regressed on mediators
with independent
variables included)

Variable
Dep. Var.: Meaning
Intercept
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Mediators: Procedural justice
Interactional justice
Dep. Var.: Impact
Intercept
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Mediators: Procedural justice
Interactional justice
Dep. Var.: Self-determination
Intercept
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Mediators: Procedural justice
Interactional justice
Dep. Var.: Competence
Intercept
Indep. Var.: Moral leadership
Mediators: Procedural justice
Interactional justice

Estimate

Standard error

4.14
0.01
0.22
20.02

0.04
0.07
0.04
0.06

102.86
0.11
6.09
20.30

0.000
0.910
0.000
0.770

2.83
0.07
0.14
20.01

0.05
0.07
0.06
0.06

52.45
1.01
2.33
20.19

0.000
0.320
0.020
0.850

3.55
0.05
0.06
0.19

0.05
0.07
0.06
0.05

76.61
0.73
1.01
3.88

0.000
0.470
0.310
0.000

4.50
20.01
0.07
0.05

0.03
0.05
0.03
0.04

135.94
20.16
2.04
1.10

0.000
0.880
0.040
0.280

Note: Indep. Var. Independent variable; Dep. Var. Dependent variable. N=241

that the relationships among moral leadership and meaning (z 4:48; p , 0:001),
impact (z 2:22; p , 0:05), self-determination (z 3:66; p , 0:001), and competence
(z 1:95; p , 0:05) were all significantly different from zero. As such, the Sobel tests
supported that procedural justice mediated the relationships between moral leadership
and meaning, impact, and competence, whereas interactional justice mediated the
relationship between moral leadership and self-determination.
Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between moral
leadership and the empowerment dimensions: meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact. Based on Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan,
2000) and the Multiple Needs Framework of Justice (Cropanzano et al., 2001),
procedural and interactional justice, were examined, as mediating mechanisms in the
relationships between moral leadership and the empowerment dimensions. In general,
the results provided support for our hypotheses.
Our first major finding was that moral leadership was positively associated with the
four empowerment dimensions. Though expected, this finding refines our knowledge
of moral leadership and followers psychological empowerment. We now have
empirical support that moral leaders may empower followers by enhancing followers
intrinsic task motivation. This finding is consistent with the psychological approach to
the study of empowerment (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse,
1990). In addition, we found that moral leadership was positively related to perceived
procedural and interactional justice. Though the positive relationship between moral

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

leadership and interactional justice is implied in the definition of moral leadership,

such a relationship with procedural justice has only been assumed from Leventhals
(1980) six rules of fair procedures. Thus, our findings add support for existing theories
on organizational justice.
A more interesting finding of this research is that the relationships between moral
leadership and empowerment dimensions were fully mediated by perceived justice.
This result reveals new information about justice perceptions and empowerment. First,
perceived justice contributed positively to followers psychological empowerment.
Second, followers empowerment was not a simple and direct reaction to external
stimuli, including leadership. The relationship between moral leadership and
followers psychological empowerment was mediated by the followers justice
perceptions regarding procedures and interpersonal treatments. These two pieces of
information add support for prior findings on empowerment as a form of intrinsic task
motivation (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) related to the fulfillment of
fundamental psychological needs (Cropanzano et al., 2001) and affirm the cognitive
approach to the study of empowerment (Bandura, 1978).
Perhaps the most noteworthy finding is that perceptions of procedural and
interactional justice were associated with different facets of psychological empowerment.
Specifically, procedural justice fully mediated the relationships between moral
leadership and meaning, impact, and competence, whereas interactional justice fully
mediated the relationship between moral leadership and self-determination. A pattern
may underlie these connections. Procedural justice was connected to the empowerment
facets more related to the job/tasks, meaning, competence, and impact, whereas
interactional justice was connected to the one empowerment facet most closely tied to the
individual. Masterson et al. (2000) provide explanations for this pattern suggesting that
individuals form perceptions of procedural justice based on their exchanges with the
organization and that they form perceptions of interactional justice based on their
exchanges with their leaders. Though connected, as they both take place in a common
organizational context, these two forms of exchanges are fundamentally different. As
such, procedural justice may be perceived as more impersonal and mechanical, having a
more pronounced impact on outcomes that are focused on the job at hand (i.e. meaning,
competence, and impact). In contrast, interactional justice may be considered as more
personal and organic and therefore more likely connected with outcomes involving
interpersonal relationships (i.e. self-determination).
Implications for theory, practice and society
Research on empowerment has become increasingly focused on a psychological
approach (i.e. Zhang and Bartol, 2010). The current study adds to this growing field of
research by focusing on the four empowerment dimensions and suggests that justice
perceptions might play a critical mediating role between moral leadership and
empowerment. Understanding the role of moral leadership and justice can offer
valuable insights into the empowerment process, thus increasing the amount of
variance in empowerment that researchers are able to explain.
This study also provides some practical insights. First, the results highlight the
importance of organizational justice to the practice of moral leadership. The full mediation
model of justice perceptions indicates that, if moral leaders seek followers empowerment
behaviors, they may need to engender positive perceptions of procedural and interactional

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
103

JMP
27,1

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

104

justice among followers. Given the theoretical linkages between moral leadership and
justice perceptions, moral leaders should pay attention to justice issues by demonstrating
fairness in executing policies and interacting with followers. This may be easier said than
done, particularly in the Chinese context, where a high power distance exists (Hui et al.,
2004). Respect has traditionally been one-way in the Chinese leader-follower exchange
relationship: bottom-up. With the knowledge that justice matters to followers, training
should include programs that educate future leaders about organizational justice and how
it relates to followers, especially in terms of empowerment.
Second, leadership practice can capitalize on the differential relationships between
procedural versus interactional justice and the four empowerment dimensions. Our
results suggest that procedural justice is related to job-related dimensions (meaning,
competence, and impact), whereas interactional justice is related to the self-related
dimension (self-determination). If the goal is to promote task performance, moral
leaders should pay more attention to enhancing procedural justice. In contrast, if the
goal is for followers to develop a more mature self identity and image, moral leaders
should focus on preserving interactional justice. In the Chinese context, this suggestion
may have instrumental value to the initiation of managerial practices geared toward
the needs of the new generations of Chinese employees, who have become more
individualistic as China opens up to the west. Due to the nature of the collectivist
culture (Hui et al., 2004) in China, most supervisors have been trained to view their
work groups as smaller collectives in an organization rather than to see the individual
group members. As a result, individual needs for empowerment are often neglected.
Therefore, leadership/managerial training could first instill the idea that followers are
individuals and then draw supervisors attention to the various needs of individuals
and how supervisors can fulfill these needs through organizational justice.
This study is relevant to modern Chinese society, which has opened up to western
influences over the last sixty years. The new generations of Chinese employees, who
are more oriented towards egalitarianism and globalism, have been growing and
maturing as an indispensible part of the Chinese workforce (Liu, 2003). As a
consequence, leaders in China should pay more attention to their own moral behaviors
and how these behaviors contribute to employees perceptions of justice and
empowerment. The current study thus provides some useful implications that may
meet these new needs in the modern Chinese context.
Limitations and future directions
Although this study makes a number of contributions to the extant literature, some
limitations should be noted. Like other studies that utilize cross-sectional data, this
study cannot confirm the causal relationships among moral leadership, perceived
justice, and the four empowerment dimensions. Thus, our hypothesized model may be
better examined with longitudinal data. Also, all the variables of interest were
provided by self-reports, giving rise to concerns about common method bias; however,
our analyses suggest that this was not a major issue in this study. Furthermore,
although some may argue that Baron and Kennys (1986) mediation approach has
drawbacks (Stone-Romero and Rosopa, 2008), we refrained from arguing that our
results suggest causal relationships among variables of interest. Lastly, we did not
measure the impact of individualism versus collectivism on perceptions of justice and
empowerment. As such, future research can help extend the nomological network of

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

moral leadership by including cultural variables. Even with these limitations, the
current study has achieved its primary purpose. The mediating role of procedural and
interactional justice in the relationships between moral leadership and the four
empowerment dimensions was supported by the findings.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2006), Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: antecedents, the
mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59, pp. 793-801.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating
role of structural distance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-68.
Bachrach, P. and Botwinick, A. (1992), Power and Empowerment: A Radical Theory of
Participatory Democracy, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Balkin, D.B. and Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1990), Matching compensation and organizational
strategies, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 153-69.
Bandura, A. (1978), Social learning theory of aggression, Journal of Communication, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 12-29.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bies, R.J. and Shapiro, D.L. (1987), Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal
accounts, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Brislin, R. (1980), Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials, in Triandis, H.C.
and Berrym, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross Cultural Psychology, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA,
pp. 389-444.
Chan, Y.H., Taylor, R.R. and Markham, S. (2008), The role of subordinates trust in a social
exchange-driven psychological empowerment process, Journal of Managerial Issues,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 444-67.
Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F. and Farh, J.L. (2000), A triad model of paternalistic leadership: the
constructs and measurement, Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies,
Vol. 14, pp. 3-64 (in Chinese).
Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., Huang, M.P., Wu, T.-Y and Farh, J.L. (2004), Paternalistic leadership
and subordinate responses: establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations,
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 89-117.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-45.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-82.
Corsun, D.L. and Enz, C.A. (1999), Predicting psychological empowerment among service workers:
the effect of support-based relationships, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 205-24.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. (2001), Moral virtues, fairness
heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 164-209.

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
105

JMP
27,1

106

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), The what and why of goal pursuits: human needs and the
self-determination of behavior, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-68.
Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989), Self-determination in a work organization,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 580-90.
Farh, J.L. and Cheng, B.S. (2000), A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organizations, in Li, J.T., Tsui, A.S. and Weldon, E. (Eds), Management and
Organizations in the Chinese Context, Macmillan, London, pp. 94-127.

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.C. (1997), Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 421-44.
Farh, J.L., Cheng, B.S., Chou, L. and Chu, X.P. (2006), Authority and benevolence: employees
responses to paternalistic leadership in China, in Tsui, A.S., Bian, Y. and Cheng, L. (Eds),
Chinas Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Management and
Performance, M.E. Sharpe, New York, NY, pp. 230-60.
Farh, J.L., Liang, J., Chou, L. and Cheng, B.S. (2008), Paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organizations: research progress and future research directions, in Chen, C.C. and Lee, Y.T.
(Eds), Leadership and Management in China: Philosophies, Theories, and Practices,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 171-205.
Folger, R. (1994), Workplace justice and employee worth, Social Justice Research, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 225-41.
Folger, R. (1998), Fairness as a moral virtue, in Schminke, M. (Ed.), Managerial Ethics: Moral
Management of People and Processes, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 13-34.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C. and Farh, J.-L. (2009), Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 765-78.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), Motivation through the design of work: test of a
theory, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-79.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Holmvall, C.M. and Bobocel, D.R. (2008), What fair procedures say about me: self-construals and
reactions to procedural fairness, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 147-68.
Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z. and Cheung, Y.L. (2006), The impact of participative leadership
behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese
state-owned enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure, Asia Pacific Journal
of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 345-67.
Hui, C., Lee, C. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), Employment relationships in China: do workers
relate to the organization or to people?, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 232-40.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1999), Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command
Language, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), What should be done with equity theory?, in Gergen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S.
and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press,
New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
Liu, S. (2003), Cultures within culture: unity and diversity of two generations of employees in
state-owned enterprises, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 387-417.

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002), A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects, Psychological Methods,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work relationships,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-48.
Medsker, G., Williams, L. and Holahan, P. (1994), A review of current practices for evaluating
causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research,
Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-56.
Plunkett, L.C. and Fournier, R. (1991), Participative Management: Implementing Empowerment,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data
Analysis Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Silin, R.H. (1976), Leadership and Value: The Organization of Large-scale Taiwan Enterprises,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models,
in Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 290-312.
Spencer, D.G. (1986), Employee voice and employee retention, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 488-502.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions,
measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-65.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504.
Steele, C.M. (1988), The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self,
in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New
York, NY, pp. 261-302, Vol. 24.
Stone-Romero, E.F. and Rosopa, P. (2008), The relative validity of inferences about mediaton as
a function of research design characteristics, Organizational Research Method, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 326-52.
Tepper, B.J., Lockhart, D. and Hoobler, J. (2001), Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 789-96.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), Cognitive elements of empowerment, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-81.
Tyler, T.R. (1987), Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural
justice: a test of four models, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 333-44.
Tyler, T.R. (1989), The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 830-8.
Tyler, T.R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance,
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Moral leadership
and
empowerment
107

JMP
27,1

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

108

Westwood, R.I. (1997), Harmony and patriarchy: the cultural basis for paternalistic headship
among the overseas Chinese, Organization Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 445-80.
Williams, L.J., Buckley, R.M. and Cote, J.A. (1989), Lack of method variance in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74
No. 3, pp. 462-7.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 107-28.
About the authors
Chenwei Li is a PhD Student in the Manderson Graduate School of Business at the University of
Alabama. She received her Master in Law from Peking University in China. Her research
interests include leadership, creativity, voice behaviour and family-work balance. Chenwei Li has
published in Psychological Reports and served as an ad hoc journal reviewer for Management and
Organization Review. As a member and reviewer, she has made numerous presentations to the
Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the Western Academy of Management, the
Southern Management Association, the Southwest Academy of Management, and the
International Association for Chinese Management Research.
Keke Wu is an Assistant Professor in the College of Business of Central Washington
University. She received her doctoral training from the University of Alabama, where she was
mentored by Dr Diane E. Johnson. Her major research interest lies in leadership, political
behaviours, and careers. Keke Wu has published in journals such as Psychological Reports and
Management Review, and served as an ad hoc reviewer for Leadership Quarterly. As a member
and reviewer, she has made numerous presentations to the Academy of Management, the Society
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the Western Academy of Management, the
Southern Management Association, the Southwest Academy of Management, and the
International Association for Chinese Management Research. Keke Wu is a corresponding
author and can be contacted at: cocowu@cwu.edu
Diane E. Johnson has made numerous presentations to the Society of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology and the Academy of Management. She has published articles in such
journals as Journal of Applied Psychology, Personality and Individual Differences, and Academy of
Management Journal. She serves as an ad hoc reviewer for the Journal of Management, Personnel
Psychology, and Journal of Applied Social Psychology. She is a member of the Academy of
Management, Southern Management Association, the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychologists, and the Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi, Cornell chapter. She has served as
director of operations of the Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell University.
Min Wu is an Associate Professor in School of Public Administration at Sichuan University.
Her research interests include leadership, justice, trust and cross-cultural study. Min Wu has
published papers in various Chinese management journals and her paper has been accepted by
Management and Organization Review. She served as an ad hoc journal reviewer for Asia Pacific
Business Review and for various international conferences such as the conference of International
Association for Chinese Management Research and the conference of the Academy of HRD. She
also served as an English editor of Soft Science, a Chinese journal. She is a member of the
Academy of Management, Asian Academy of Management, and International Association for
Chinese Management Research, and she has made many presentations. Min Wu is a
corresponding author and can be contacted at: wuminhelen@163.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Downloaded by Saxion University of Applied Sciences At 06:36 15 July 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Angela J. Xu, Raymond Loi, Hang-yue Ngo. 2016. Ethical Leadership Behavior and Employee Justice
Perceptions: The Mediating Role of Trust in Organization. Journal of Business Ethics 134:3, 493-504.
[CrossRef]
2. Huaiyong Wang, Guangli Lu, Yongfang Liu. 2015. Ethical Leadership and Loyalty to Supervisor in
China: The Roles of Interactional Justice and Collectivistic Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics .
[CrossRef]
3. Kumar Alok. 2015. Sttvika Leadership: An Indian Model of Positive Leadership. Journal of Business
Ethics . [CrossRef]
4. Chenwei Li, Keke Wu, Diane E. Johnson, James Avey. 2015. Going Against the Grain Works: An
Attributional Perspective of Perceived Ethical Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
5. Qinxuan Gu, Thomas Li-Ping Tang, Wan Jiang. 2015. Does Moral Leadership Enhance Employee
Creativity? Employee Identification with Leader and LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) in the Chinese
Context. Journal of Business Ethics 126:3, 513-529. [CrossRef]
6. Izhak Berkovich School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel . 2014. A
socio-ecological framework of social justice leadership in education. Journal of Educational Administration
52:3, 282-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Kuo-Wei Lin, Kai-Ping Huang. 2014. Moral judgment and ethical leadership in Chinese management:
the role of Confucianism and collectivism. Quality & Quantity 48:1, 37-47. [CrossRef]