The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Ethical and
Ethical and empowering empowering
leadership and leader leadership
effectiveness
133
Shahidul Hassan
John Glenn School of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Received July 2012
Ohio, USA Revised September 2012
Revised September 2012
Rubiná Mahsud Accepted October 2012
Department of Management, Albers School of Business, Seattle University,
Seattle, Washington, USA
Gary Yukl
Department of Management, Business School,
New York State University at Albany, Albany, New York, USA, and
Gregory E. Prussia
Department of Management, Albers School of Business, Seattle University,
Seattle, Washington, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how ethical leadership and empowering
leadership are related to leader-member exchange relations (LMX), affective commitment, and leader
effectiveness.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using questionnaires filled out by 259
subordinates of public and private sector managers. Relationships among variables were analyzed
using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The results indicated that ethical leadership and empowering leadership have positive
associations with LMX, subordinate affective commitment, and perception of leader effectiveness.
Originality/value – This study is the first to examine the independent and joint relationships of
empowering leadership and ethical leadership with leadership effectiveness and the mediating role of
LMX.
Keywords Leadership, Ethics, Empowerment, Ethical leadership, Affective commitment,
Empowering leadership, Leader effectiveness
Paper type Research paper

The financial crisis, economic downturn and repeated scandals involving leaders from
business and government organizations have led organizational researchers to
re-examine how leaders can enhance employee loyalty and commitment to the
organization (De Cremer et al., 2011). Increasing attention now is being paid to the role
of ethical leadership (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Treviño and Brown, 2004) and Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 28 No. 2, 2013
empowering leadership (Arnold et al., 2000; Huang et al., 2010; Konczak et al., 2000) in pp. 133-146
fostering cooperative attitudes and behaviors among employees. Recent research q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
indicates that ethical leadership and empowering leadership are each associated with a DOI 10.1108/02683941311300252
JMP variety of important outcomes, including subordinate motivation, satisfaction,
28,2 performance, pro-social behaviors, and deviant or counter-productive behaviors
(Chen et al., 2011; Den Hartog and De Hoogh, 2009; Huang et al., 2010; Kim and Brymer,
2011; Konczak et al., 2000; Mayer et al., 2012; Mayer et al., 2009; Piccolo et al., 2010;
Walumbwa et al., 2011; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009).
Ethical and empowering leader behaviors are likely to be associated with
134 high-quality leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships based on trust, mutual
liking, and respect (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Graen and Scandura, 1987; Liden et al.,
1997). Research on the correlates of LMX found that leaders with favorable exchange
relationships are more likely to be perceived to be effective and induce affective
subordinate commitment than leaders with unfavorable exchange relationships
(Gerstner and Day, 1997). However, previous studies did not examine ethical and
empowering leadership as distinct types of behavior that may be related to LMX,
affective subordinate commitment and perception of leader effectiveness in different
ways. The purpose of the present research was to examine these relationships in the
same study and the possibility that LMX mediates the other relationships.

Theory and hypotheses

Ethical leadership and LMX
Leadership research has long suggested that leaders’ honesty, integrity, and
trustworthiness are important predictors of leadership effectiveness (Kirkpatrick and
Locke, 1991; Kouzes and Posner, 1992; Posner and Schmidt, 1992). Brown et al. (2005,
p. 120) conceptualized 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”. According to this perspective, ethical
leadership consists of certain traits and behaviors. Ethical leaders are altruistic,
honest, trustworthy and principled decision-makers who care about the well-being of
their followers and broader society (Treviño et al., 2000, 2003). In addition, ethical
leaders proactively try to transform followers by communicating ethical standards,
modeling ethical behavior, and holding followers accountable for ethical actions
(Brown and Treviño, 2006; Treviño et al., 2003).
LMX theory describes the dyadic process through which roles and expectations are
developed with each subordinate (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen and Cashman, 1975;
Graen and Scandura, 1987). The theory suggests that dyadic exchanges can fall along a
continuum from low-quality economic exchanges based on employment contracts to
high-quality social exchanges based on trust, mutual liking, and respect (Erdogan et al.,
2006: Liden et al., 1997). A high-quality exchange relationship is beneficial for both the
leader and the subordinate, and the benefits may include increased performance,
commitment, satisfaction (Gerstner and Day, 1997) and helping behaviors (Masterson
et al., 2000).
High-quality exchange relationships are more likely to occur when leaders are
honest, trustworthy, and genuinely concerned about the well-being of their followers
(Erdogan et al., 2006; Wayne et al., 2002). Ethical leaders are likely to develop
high-quality exchange relationships with their subordinates through honest and open
communication and principled decision-making (Brown and Treviño, 2006). One recent
study found a strong positive association between ethical leadership and LMX
(Walumbwa et al., 2011), and that LMX partially mediated the linkage of ethical Ethical and
leadership with ratings of subordinate performance by the leader. Another recent empowering
study (Mahsud et al., 2010) found that ethical leadership had both direct and indirect
positive relationships with LMX. Based on LMX theory and results from prior leadership
research, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Ethical leadership is related positively to LMX.
135
Empowering leadership and LMX
Considerable research suggests that empowering leaders try to enhance subordinate
work motivation and performance through delegating authority for job-related
decisions (Chen et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2010; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Konczak et al.,
2000; Yukl and Becker, 2006) and involving subordinates in making decisions about
the work (Chen et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2010; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Konczak et al.,
2000). Other research found that leaders who develop high-quality exchange relations
consult more with their subordinates about important decisions and use their ideas and
suggestions (Yukl and Fu, 1999; Yukl et al., 2009). Such behavior signals that the leader
has confidence and trust in the subordinate’s skills and motivation to accomplish a
difficult task or project (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Yukl, 2009). Research on the
relationship between empowering leadership and LMX is limited, but several studies
found a positive relationship between consultation and LMX (Yukl et al., 2009; Yukl
and Fu, 1999), and a number of studies found a significant positive relationship
between delegation and LMX (O’Donnell et al., 2012; Yukl et al., 2009; Yukl and Fu,
1999; Schriesheim et al., 1998). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed and
tested in the current study:
H2. Empowering leadership is related positively to LMX.

Ethical and empowering leadership and affective commitment

Organizational commitment refers to employees’ emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in their organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991;
Porter et al., 1974). It reflects the strength of employees’ beliefs in their organization’s
goals, the shared sense of the importance of its values, and the feeling of personal
satisfaction derived from their involvement in the organization (Meyer and Allen,
1991). Organizational commitment is a multi-dimensional concept that consists of
affective, normative, and continuance components (Meyer and Allen, 1991). In this
study, we focused on affective commitment because it captures the emotional
attachment that employees feel towards their organization and work unit. Affective
commitment is more likely to develop through shared values and social exchange
between the leader and subordinate than normative (based on perceived obligation) or
continuance commitment (based on cost calculation). Research has shown that
affective commitment has stronger relationships with employee performance and
citizenship behaviors than the other two forms of commitment (Meyer et al., 2002).
It is likely that ethical leadership will have a positive association with subordinates’
affective commitment toward their organization and work unit. Mayer et al. (2009)
noted that individuals emulate the behavior of ethical leaders who are attractive and
legitimate role models in organization. Brown et al. (2005) also suggested that ethical
leaders are likely to positively induce affective commitment of subordinates because of
JMP their altruism, honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and compassion. However, few
28,2 studies have examined how ethical leadership relates to followers’ affective
commitment. In one example, research by Kim and Brymer (2011) found ethical
leadership weakly related to employees’ affective organizational commitment. Another
study by Khuntia and Suar (2004) showed a positive linkage between ethical leadership
and affective commitment, but this study confounded ethical leader behaviors with
136 empowering and supportive leader behaviors. Moreover, neither of these studies
elucidated the mechanism through which ethical leadership may relate to followers’
organizational and work unit commitment.
Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961), we posited that ethical
leadership would have a positive relationship with subordinate affective commitment,
and this relationship would be mediated by LMX. Brown and Treviño (2006) suggested
that the relationship between ethical leaders and their followers is likely to be
characterized by social rather than economic exchanges. Economic exchanges are
largely impersonal, whereas social exchanges depend on mutual affection, trust, and
respect (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). Because ethical leaders are altruistic, trustworthy,
fair decision makers, and care for the personal well-being of others, they are likely to be
involved in high quality social exchanges with subordinates, which in turn are
expected to be positively related to loyalty for the leader and commitment to the work
unit and organization. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3. LMX mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinate
affective commitment.
Empowering leaders share decision-making authority with their subordinates, consult
with subordinates regarding important decisions that may relate to their work, allow
subordinates more autonomy, and remove unnecessary bureaucratic constraints (Arnold
et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2011; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Konczak et al., 2000; Yukl and
Becker, 2006; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). These empowering behaviors have beneficial
outcomes, and a positive association between participative leadership and affective
commitment has consistently been shown in previous research (Chen et al., 2007, 2011;
Konczak et al., 2000; Den Hartog and De Hoogh, 2009; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999).
However, possible mediators of this relationship have not been investigated thoroughly
in previous studies. As mentioned earlier, empowering leader behaviors provide
subordinates with important cues about the extent to which their ideas are valued and
respected by the leader. This feedback is likely to relate positively to the quality of
exchange relationship between leaders and their subordinates, which in turn may
enhance subordinate affective commitment. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4. LMX mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and
subordinate affective commitment.

Ethical and empowering leadership and perceived leader effectiveness

Ethical and empowering leadership have long been suggested as important predictors
of leader effectiveness. Empirical research has confirmed that ethical and empowering
leader behaviors are each positively related to leader effectiveness (Brown et al., 2005;
De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2008; Kalshoven et al., 2011; Kim and Yukl, 1995). However,
no previous study has investigated whether LMX mediates these linkages. As
mentioned earlier, ethical and empowering leaders are likely to develop high-quality
exchange relationships with some or all of their subordinates. Thus, one may expect Ethical and
that the relationships between ethical and empowering leadership and follower empowering
perception of leader effectiveness will be mediated by LMX.
leadership
H5. LMX mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinate
perception of leader effectiveness.
H6. LMX mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and 137
subordinate perception of leader effectiveness.

Method
Participants
The sample for this study were 259 graduate students who were enrolled in the evening
MBA program of a private university in the US Northwest and in the evening MPA
program of a large public university in the Midwest. The respondents were from a large
variety of private and public sector organizations; 132 of the respondents (51 percent)
worked for medium to large corporations and small businesses, 95 (37 percent) worked
for state government agencies, and 32 (12 percent) worked for nonprofit organizations.
The respondents had full-time jobs during the day. Almost half of them were between 25
and 30 years old, and 65 percent of them had worked for their current manager for more
than one year. The gender composition of the respondent sample was 45 percent male
and 47 percent of the supervisors rated by respondents were female. More than half of
the respondents (52 percent) held professional/technical jobs, 26 percent held first-level
management positions (team leader, supervisor, or section head), 14 percent held
middle-management positions, and 4 percent were upper-level managers.

Procedure
Data for this study were collected in two time periods to reduce common biases when
same source data are used to assess both the predictors and the criteria (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). In the first wave of data collection, respondents completed questionnaires
measuring ethical and empowering leadership. Two weeks later, respondents
completed another questionnaire in which they rated the quality of their exchange
relationship with their manager, affective commitment towards their work unit, and
the overall effectiveness of their manager. A vast majority of the respondents (more
than 80 percent) who completed the first questionnaire also completed the second,
resulting in the matched sample of 259.

Measures
Ethical leadership was measured with ten items from the Ethical Leadership
Questionnaire (ELQ) developed by Yukl et al. (2012). The ELQ items capture different
aspects of ethical leadership and contain both traits and behaviors including honesty,
integrity, accountability, consistency of actions with values, and providing ethical
guidance. All of the ELQ items have a six-point Likert-style response format
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 6 ¼ strongly agree). Sample items included:
.
“Holds members accountable for using ethical practices in their work”;
.
“Communicates clear ethical standards for members”; and
.
“Insists on doing what is fair and ethical even when it is not easy”.
JMP Empowering leadership was measured with six items from the Managerial Practices
Survey (MPS) developed by Yukl and colleagues (Kim and Yukl, 1995; Yukl et al., 2002)
28,2 that involve two key components of empowering leadership, namely consultation and
delegation. Each item has a five-point response format with an anchor for each choice
indicating how much the behavior described by the item is used by the focal manager
(1 ¼ not at all, 5 ¼ to a very great extent). Each item also has a “don’t know or not
138 applicable” option that was scored the same way as the “not at all” response. Sample
items included:
.
“Trusts you to make an important decision without getting prior approval”; and
.
“Consults with you before making important decisions that will affect you”.

LMX was measured with the LMX-7 instrument developed by Scandura and Graen
(1984). The questionnaire has seven items, and each item has five anchored response
choices with unique anchors that are appropriate for the item. The wording for the
response choices in a few items was changed slightly to reduce ambiguity. Sample
items were:
.
“How willing are you to do extra work to help your boss deal with a difficult
problem?”;
.
“How would you describe the relationship between you and your boss”; and
.
“How much are you willing to defend the decisions and actions of your boss to
other people?”.
Affective commitment was assessed with five items adapted from the Organizational
Commitment Scale developed by Meyer and Allen (1991). These five items measure a
subordinate’s emotional attachment toward the work unit. Each item has a six-point
Likert type response format (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 6 ¼ strongly agree). Sample items
included:
.
“I really feel as if my work unit’s problems are my own”;
.
“I feel a strong sense of belonging to my work unit”; and
. “I feel emotionally attached to my work unit”.

Leader effectiveness was measured with two items that have been used successfully in
several earlier studies (Kim and Yukl, 1995; Mahsud et al., 2010; Yukl et al., 2012). The
first item asked subordinates to rate the overall effectiveness of their manager in
carrying out his/her job responsibilities and it had a nine-point response format
(1 ¼ the least effective manager I have known; 9 ¼ the most effective manager I have
known). The second item asked subordinates to rate the overall effectiveness of their
manager (1 ¼ ineffective; 9 ¼ very effective). The scale score for all multi-item scales
was the mean item score.

Results
Preliminary analysis and descriptive statistics
Table I presents the means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients (a values) and
correlation coefficients for all five measures included in the study. Prior to testing the
hypotheses, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess convergent and
discriminant validity of the five measures. The CFA results showed that all scale items
had statistically significant factor loadings (p , 0:01) for their respective latent Ethical and
constructs (l values ranged from 0.62 to 0.97; only three items had l values below 0.70). empowering
Following recommendations provided by Kline (2005), we relied on multiple indices to
assess the fit of the measurement model. Kline (2005) suggested that a satisfactory model leadership
fit can be inferred when the x 2/df ratio is below 3.00 and values for the comparative fit
index (CFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) are above 0.90 and the value for the
standardized root mean square residual (SMSR) is below 0.10. In addition to these fit 139
indexes, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne and Cudeck,
1992) assessed model lack of fit. For the RMSEA, values of 0.05 or less indicate close fit,
values between 0.05 and 0.08 indicate reasonable fit, and values between 0.08 and 0.10
indicate marginal fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1992). The values obtained for the CFI, IFI
and RMSEA from the CFA results were 0.94, 0.94, and 0.06, respectively. Additionally,
the value for the x 2/df ratio was 1.98. These results suggested that the measurement
model had a satisfactory fit to the data. Additionally, we compared the fit of the
measurement model with alternative one-factor and four-factor models. The one-factor
model fitted the data significantly worse than the proposed five-factor model
(Dx 2 ¼ 1; 485:20 (9), p , 0:01, CFI ¼ 0:69, IFI ¼ 0:70, and RMSEA ¼ 0.14). The
five-factor model also fitted the data significantly better than an alternative four-factor
model in which the correlation between ethical and empowering leadership was set equal
to one (Dx 2 ¼ 466:60 (4), p , 0:05, CFI ¼ 0:86, TLI ¼ 0:86, and RMSEA ¼ 0:10).

Test of research hypotheses

We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesized relationships
between ethical and empowering leadership and LMX, affective commitment and
leader effectiveness. The SEM results indicated that the hypothesized structural model
(i.e. full mediation model) provided a satisfactory fit to the data (x 2 =df ¼ 2:0,
RMSEA ¼ 0:06, CFI ¼ 0:94, and IFI ¼ 0:94). We compared the results of the full
mediation model with several alternative partial mediation models and found that the
relationship between ethical leadership and perceived leader effectiveness was only
partially mediated by LMX (Dx 2 ¼ 11:30 (1), p , 0:01, x 2 =df ¼ 1:96, RMSEA ¼ 0:06,
CFI ¼ 0:94, and IFI ¼ 0:94). Figure 1 summarizes SEM results in the form of a path
model. As shown in Figure 1, ethical leadership (b ¼ 0:33, p , 0:05) and empowering
leadership (b ¼ 0:52, p , 0:05) had significant positive associations with LMX
(R2 ¼ 0:56) and LMX was found to have significant positive linkages with subordinate
affective commitment (b ¼ 0:56, p , 0:05) and perceived leader effectiveness
(b ¼ 0:78, p , 0:05). Ethical leadership also had a significant positive relationship
with perceived leader effectiveness (b ¼ 0:18, p , 0:05).

Measures Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Ethical leadership 4.75 1.02 (0.96)

2. Empowering leadership 3.57 0.93 0.53 * (0.90)
3. LMX 3.84 0.85 0.62 * 0.68 * (0.91)
4. Affective commitment 4.16 1.17 0.34 * 0.41 * 0.50 * (0.91)
5. Leader effectiveness 6.31 1.98 0.67 * 0.67 * 0.83 * 0.40 * (0.96) Table I.
Means, standard
Notes: n ¼ 259; Cronbach’s a values for the measures are shown in parentheses along the diagonal; * deviations, and
p , :05 correlation coefficients
JMP
28,2

140

Figure 1.
Partial mediation model

We calculated Sobel’s (1982) Z statistics in order to detect whether the indirect

relationships of ethical and empowering leadership with affective subordinate
commitment and perceived leader effectiveness through LMX were statistically
significant. Table II summarizes the results of the mediation analyses. As shown in
Table II, the indirect relationships between ethical leadership and affective
commitment (b ¼ 0:19, p , 0:05) and perceived leader effectiveness (b ¼ 0:26,
p , 0:05) were statistically significant. The indirect relationships between
empowering leadership and affective commitment (b ¼ 0:29, p , 0:05) and
perceived leader effectiveness (b ¼ 0:41, p , 0:05) were also statistically significant.
The direct and indirect relationships together accounted for 24 percent of the total
variance in affective subordinate commitment and 74 percent of the total variance in
perceived leader effectiveness.

Discussion
Implications for theory
The results are consistent with social exchange theory predictions (Blau, 1964;
Homans, 1961). Specifically, findings indicate that the quality of the social exchange
between leader and subordinate is critical to the relationship between leader behaviors
and important outcomes. The findings also support the notion that the relationship
between ethical leaders and their followers is a social one rather than one dependent on
economic exchange (Brown and Treviño, 2006). The findings are consistent with the

Indirect relationships/paths b

Ethical leadership ! LMX ! Affective commitment 0.19 * (4.82)

Ethical leadership ! LMX ! Leader effectiveness 0.26 * (5.29)
Table II. Empowering leadership ! LMX ! Affective commitment 0.29 * (6.10)
Indirect relationships of Empowering leadership ! LMX ! Leader effectiveness 0.41 * (7.16)
ethical and empowering
leadership Notes: n ¼ 259; Sobel’s (1982) Z values are shown in parentheses; *p , 0:05
idea that ethical and empowering leader behaviors provide subordinates with Ethical and
important cues about the extent to which they can develop open and trusting empowering
relationships with their leader and such cues, in turn, may strengthen their emotional
attachment to the work unit and modify their perception of leader effectiveness. leadership
Aside from these mediation results, an additional contribution of the current study
is establishing the distinction between ethical and empowering leader behaviors.
Recent research on ethical leadership utilized measures that either included a priori 141
power sharing dimensions (e.g. De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2008; Kalshoven et al., 2011)
or used exploratory factor analysis to create ethical leadership measures that included
empowering behavior items (e.g. Den Hartog and De Hoogh, 2009; Khuntia and Suar,
2004). In contrast, we utilized separate measures of each construct, and confirmatory
factor analysis results support the discriminant validity of the constructs. Moreover,
results from the current study show that ethical and empowering leadership have
separate and significant positive associations with LMX. These findings support the
conceptual distinction of ethical and empowering leadership and highlight the
importance of maintaining their independence for training and development purposes.

Implications for practice

The findings of this research have important managerial implications. With the
ongoing economic downturn and repeated scandals involving leaders from both the
private and public sectors, managers are facing difficulty in finding ways to enhance
subordinate work motivation and organizational commitment. Our research suggests
that managers in public and private organizations can use ethical and empowering
behaviors to create quality social exchange relationships that are associated with
positive organizational outcomes. The content of the scales used to measure ethical and
empowering leadership practices provide suggested guidelines for using these
behaviors effectively, and other guidelines can be found in Yukl (2013). Empowering
behaviors have been included in management development programs for decades, but
programs to develop ethical behaviors are a relatively new. Ethical leadership
behaviors that managers can learn to use more effectively include: communicating
relevant values and ethical guidelines, modeling ethical behavior, encouraging ethical
practices, holding subordinates accountable for ethical practices, and opposing
unethical practices.

Implications for society

Members of society are linked to organizations in significant ways as customers,
employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Organizations are not inherently good or bad,
but they reflect the values and behaviors of the people who lead them and who work
for them (Grojean et al., 2004). Most people prefer to work for organizations that are
socially responsible and have ethical leaders. Our research suggests that organizations
led by ethical and empowering leaders are more likely to maintain positive
relationships with employees and in return may benefit from their trust and loyalty.
Such relationships may also help organizations in attracting the best and the brightest
employees and facilitating lasting relationships with external stakeholders. Finally,
leaders who encourage ethical and empowering practices may benefit society by
developing organizations that are more socially responsible (Carlson and Perrewe,
1995).
JMP Limitations and future research directions
28,2 The findings should be considered in light of some limitations of the survey method
used for them. First, our study used student samples, which may call into question the
external validity of the results. However, the vast majority of the respondents were
graduate students who were enrolled in part-time academic programs while working
full-time in various business, government, and not for profit organizations. The second
142 limitation is the possibility that same-source biases might have inflated the research
findings. To address this potential problem, we collected data in two time periods and
followed recommendations by Podsakoff et al. (2003) for avoiding or detecting common
method bias. Finally, Doty and Glick (1998) and Spector (2006) have concluded that
problems caused by common method variance are somewhat overstated and seldom
serious enough to invalidate research findings based on the well-designed measures.
The third limitation pertains to the use of cross-sectional data. The use of
cross-sectional data limits the extent to which causality can be inferred. While our
research results suggest that ethical and empowering leadership relate positively with
LMX, which subsequently relates to the two outcomes, the direction of causality
between these variables cannot be determined in a survey study such as ours.
Based in part on these limitations, the proposed model should be tested in future
research using stronger methods. Survey studies in an organizational setting should
collect data from multiple sources in order to avoid common method bias. To assess
causal relationships a good research method is a longitudinal experiment using real
groups or students in a multi-week group simulation. The two types of leadership
behavior could be manipulated independently in a crossed design, and LMX and
commitment could be measured at an intermediate time as well as in the final time
period, along with objective measures of group performance. Finally, despite the focus
on LMX in this research, subsequent studies might examine mediators other than LMX
in the model. For example, the relationships between leadership behavior and
indicators of subordinate commitment and leader effectiveness may be mediated by
other perceptual variables such as psychological empowerment, personal identification
with the leader, acceptance of decisions, quality of decisions, and internalization of
ethical values.

References
Arnold, J.J., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowering leadership
questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader
behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 249-69.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brown, M.E. and Treviño, L.K. (2006), “Ethical leadership: a review and future directions”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 595-616.
Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K. and Harrison, D. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning
perspective for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 97, pp. 117-34.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1992), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, Sociological
Methods and Research, Vol. 21, pp. 230-58.
Carlson, D.S. and Perrewe, P.L. (1995), “Institutionalization of organizational ethics through
transformational leadership”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 14, pp. 829-38.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B.L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D. and Rosen, B. (2007), “A multilevel study of Ethical and
leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92, pp. 331-46. empowering
Chen, G., Sharma, P.N., Edinger, S., Shapiro, D. and Farh, J. (2011), “Motivating and demotivating leadership
forces in teams: cross-level influence of empowering leadership and relationship conflict”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96, pp. 541-57.
Dansereau, F. Jr, Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. (1975), “A vertical dyad linkage approach to 143
leadership with formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making
process”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13, pp. 46-78.
De Cremer, D., Van Dick, R., Tenbrunsel, A., Pillutla, M. and Murnighan, J.K. (2011),
“Understanding ethical behavior and decision making in management: a behavioral
business ethics approach”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 22, pp. 1-4.
De Hoogh, A.H.B. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2008), “Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships
with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’
optimism: a multi-method study”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 297-311.
Den Hartog, D.N. and De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2009), “Empowering behavior and leader fairness and
integrity: studying perceptions of ethical leader behavior from a levels-of-analysis
perspective”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 199-230.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 611-28.
Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1998), “Common method bias: does common methods variance really
bias results?”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1, pp. 374-406.
Erdogan, B., Liden, R.C. and Kraimer, M.L. (2006), “Justice and leader-member exchange:
the moderating role of organizational culture”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49,
pp. 395-406.
Gerstner, D.R. and Day, D.V. (1997), “Meta-analytic review of leader member exchange theory:
correlates and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 827-44.
Graen, G.B. and Cashman, J.F. (1975), “A role making model of leadership in formal
organizations: a developmental approach”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds), Leadership
Frontiers, Kent State University, Kent, OH, pp. 143-65.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1987), “Towards a psychology of dyadic organizing”, Research
in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 175-208.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 25, pp. 161-78.
Grojean, M.W., Resick, C.J., Dickson, M.W. and Smith, D.B. (2004), “Leaders, values, and
organizational climate: examining leadership strategies for establishing an organizational
climate regarding ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55, pp. 223-41.
Homans, G.C. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace & World, New
York, NY.
Huang, X., Yun, J., Liu, J. and Gong, Y. (2010), “Does participative leadership enhance work
performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial
and non-managerial subordinates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 122-43.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, N. and De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2011), “Ethical leadership at work
questionnaire (ELW): development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 51-69.
Khuntia, R. and Suar, D. (2004), “A scale to assess ethical leadership for Indian private and public
sector managers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49, pp. 13-26.
JMP Kim, H. and Yukl, G. (1995), “Relationships of self-reported and subordinate reported leadership
behaviors to managerial effectiveness and advancement”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6,
28,2 pp. 361-77.
Kim, W.G. and Brymer, R.A. (2011), “The effects of ethical leadership on manager job
satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30, pp. 1020-6.
144 Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999), “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 58-74.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991), “Do traits matter?”, Executive, Vol. 5, pp. 48-60.
Kline, R. (2005), The Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Konczak, L.J., Stelly, D.J. and Trusty, M.L. (2000), “Defining and measuring empowering leader
behaviors: development of an upward feedback instrument”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60, pp. 301-13.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1992), “Ethical leadership. An essay about being in love”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, pp. 479-84.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T. and Wayne, S.J. (1997), “Leader-member exchange theory: the past
potential for the future”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
Vol. 15, pp. 47-119.
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G. and Prussia, G. (2010), “Leader empathy, ethical leadership, and
relation-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader-member exchange quality”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 561-77.
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 on work relationships”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 738-48.
Mayer, D.M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R.L. and 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, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 151-71.
Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R.L., Bardes, M. and Salvador, R. (2009), “How low does
ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108, pp. 1-13.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 20-52.
O’Donnell, M., Yukl, G. and Taber, T. (2012), “Leader behavior and LMX: a constructive
replication”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 143-54.
Piccolo, R.F., Greenbaum, R.L., Den Hartog, D.N. and Folger, R. (2010), “The relationship between
ethical leadership and core job characteristics”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31,
pp. 259-78.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, R.V. (1974), “Perceived control by
employees: a meta analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.
Posner, B.Z. and Schmidt, W.H. (1992), “Values and the American managers”, California Ethical and
Management Review, Vol. 34, pp. 80-94.
empowering
Scandura, T.A. and Graen, G.B. (1984), “Moderating effects of initial leader member exchange
status on the effects of a leadership intervention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, leadership
pp. 428-36.
Schriesheim, C.A., Neider, L.L. and Scandura, T. (1998), “Delegation and LMX: main effects,
moderators, and measurement issues”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, 145
pp. 298-318.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models”, in Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, American Sociological
Association, Washington, DC.
Spector, E.P. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9, pp. 221-32.
Treviño, L.K. and Brown, M.E. (2004), “Managing to be ethical: debunking five business ethics
myths”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, pp. 69-204.
Treviño, L.K., Brown, M. and Hartman, L.P. (2003), “A qualitative investigation of perceived
executive ethical leadership: perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite”,
Human Relations, Vol. 56, pp. 5-33.
Treviño, L.K., Hartman, L.P. and Brown, M. (2000), “Moral person and moral manager: how
executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership”, California Management Review,
Vol. 42, pp. 128-42.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Schaubroeck, J. (2009), “Leader personality traits and employee voice
behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, pp. 1275-86.
Walumbwa, F.O., Mayer, D.M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, C. and Christensen, A.L. (2011),
“Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: the roles of LMX, self efficacy, and
organizational identification”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 115, pp. 204-13.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Boomer, W.H. and Tetrick, L.E. (2002), “The role of fair treatment and
rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 590-8.
Yukl, G. (2009), “Leadership and organizational learning: an evaluative essay”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 49-53.
Yukl, G. (2013), Leadership in Organizations, Vol. 8/E, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Yukl, G. and Becker, W. (2006), “Effective empowerment in organizations”, Organization
Management Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 210-31.
Yukl, G. and Fu, P.P. (1999), “Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 219-32.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A. and Taber, T. (2002), “A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
integrating a half century of behavior research”, Journal of Leadership and Organization
Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 15-32.
Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M. and Taber, T. (2009), “Influence of leader behaviors on leader member
exchange relationship”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 289-99.
Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S. and Prussia, G. (2012), “An improved measure of ethical
leadership”, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 4, DOI:
10.1177/1548051811429352.
JMP Zhang, X. and Bartol, K. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative
28,2 engagement process”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 107-28.

Further reading
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A. and Gong, Y. (2010), “Does participative leadership enhance work
146 performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial
and non-managerial subordinates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 122-43.
Mowday, R.T. and Steers, R.M. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.

About the authors

Shahidul Hassan currently serves as an Assistant Professor of Public Management at the John
Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University. He received his PhD in Public
Administration and Policy from the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs at the University at
Albany. His research focuses on the role of leadership and management practices on motivation,
commitment and performance of employees in public and non-profit organizations. He is a
member of the Academy of Management and Public Management Research Association and
serves on the Editorial Board for International Public Management Journal. Shahidul Hassan is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: hassan.125@osu.edu
Rubiná Mahsud is Assistant Professor in the Albers School of Business and Economics at
Seattle University. She received her PhD in Strategic Management from New York State
University at Albany. She teaches MBA capstone courses on Competitive Strategy and senior
synthesis classes on Business Policy and Strategy. Prior to Albers Business School, she held a
visiting position at the Tobin College of Business Administration at St John’s University, New
York. Her work appeared in journals including Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, Business and Society Review, The Independent Review,
and Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research on topics including the determinants of
firm performance, flexible leadership, ethical leadership, and corporate social responsibility. She
is a member of Strategic Management Society and Academy of Management.
Gary Yukl received a PhD in Industrial-Organizational Psychology from the University of
California at Berkeley. He is currently a Professor of Management at UAlbany and his research
interests include leadership, influence processes, and management development. He has
published many journal articles and is the author or coauthor of several books, including
Leadership in Organizations, 7th ed. (Prentice Hall, 2010). He has received several awards for his
research and is a fellow of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychological
Society, the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, and the Academy of Management.
His leadership development programs are used in many organizations.
Gregory E. Prussia teaches in the Management Department and holds the O’Brien Chair in
the Albers School of Business and Economics at Seattle University. He has a BA in Economics
and an MBA from California State University, Chico, and a PhD in Human Resource
Management from Arizona State University. His publications appear in several journals
including Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied
Psychology and Personnel Psychology. He is a member of the Academy of Management, the
American Psychological Association, and the Decision Sciences Institute, and serves on the
Editorial Board for Academy of Management Journal.

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.