Article 13 Review:

The ‘‘Right’’ and the ‘‘Good’’ in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors’ Performance and
Promotability Evaluations. Chaim Letwin, David Wo, Robert Folger, Darryl Rice, Regina Taylor, Brendan
Richard, Shannon Taylor.Journal of Business Ethics

Motivation
Prior attempts to link ethical leadership with leader-level outcomes, such as favorable manager evaluations
of performance and promotability, have yielded weak or inconsistent results (Detert et al. 2007; Rubin et al.
2010). Moreover, prior research has found mixed evidence regarding the relationship between subordinates’
perceptions of ethical leadership and leader success indicators.
Theory and Logic Behind Hypothesis
Theory
Utilitarianism emphasizes the creation of good consequences, which thus becomes the touchstone for
classifying a behaviour as being moral (Baron 1993; Gaus 2001a, b). In contrast, deontology evaluates ethical
situations with regard to their consistent conformity to some formal feature such as a pattern or rule.
According to this ideology, morality depends on the intrinsic nature of an act itself (Kant 1959).
Logic behind Hypothesis
H1: Based on “top-down” perspective, managers are often in a better position to judge the impact that
supervisors can have on the good of the organization as a whole.
H2: Brown et al. (2005) maintain that when making decisions, ethical leaders consider the ethical
consequences of their actions. By and large, however, “deontology is embodied in the entire notion of ethical
leadership” (Resick et al. 2006, p. 348, emphasis added).
H3&H4: A utilitarian outlook is relevant to leader-level outcomes because supervisors’ consideration of the
consequences for the overall good of the organization is a key factor taken into account when managers assess
their performance and promotability.
Methodology
Sample and Procedure: 117 triads (subordinates, supervisors, and managers) working at financial, insurance,
real estate, retail, food service, and healthcare organizations in the south-eastern U.S. They were asked to
complete the survey, where the subordinates provided ratings of their supervisors’ level of ethical leadership,
the supervisors provided ratings of their own ethical ideology (utilitarian and deontological) as well as their
moral identity, and the managers provided ratings of their subordinates’ (the supervisors’) level of ethical
leadership, job performance, and promotability.Measure: The supervisors’ ethical leadership was assessed
with a 10-item measure developed by Brown et al. (2005), the supervisors’ deontological and utilitarian
orientations were assessed with the character trait version of Brady and Wheeler’s (1996), the supervisor job
performance was assessed with three items from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) measure, and the supervisor
promotability was assessed with a three-item measure from Harris et al. (2006), and the supervisors’ moral
identity was assessed with the five-item internalization dimension of Aquino and Reed’s (2002) measure.

Result
All hypotheses (H1, H2, and H3) were supported, except H4 that was not supported.
Conclusion
Distinguishing bottom-up and top-down views of ethical leadership, the authors found that managers’
perceptions of ethical leadership were more strongly associated with these leader-level outcomes than were
subordinates’ perceptions.
Limitations and Future Research
Limitation: First, the authors’ analysis might be subject to common method variance, especially when
considering the relationships between managers’ ratings of ethical leadership and leader-level outcomes,
which were also rated by managers. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the authors’ data prevents them
from making definite statements about the causal order of their proposed relationships.
Future Research: First, provide preliminary support for the proposed linkages and offer interesting avenues
regarding the relationship between ethical leadership and leader outcomes. Second, empirically test the
possibilities of alternative conceptualizations among the authors’ focal variables, by employing longitudinal
or experimental designs. Third, investigate into the relationship between ethical leadership and leader-level
outcomes, specifically, considering potential moderators to this relationship. Fourth, consider about
alternative ideological perspectives on ethical leadership.