Brown and Mitchell 2010 (Ethical and Unethical Leadership)

Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New Avenues for Euture Research
Michael E. Brown and Marie S. Mitchell

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to review literature that is relevant to the social scientific study of ethics and leadership, as well as outline areas for future study. We first discuss ethical leadership and then draw from emerging research on "dark side" organizational behavior to widen the boundaries of the review to include ethical leadership. Next, three emerging trends within the organizational behavior literature are proposed for a leadership and ethics research agenda: 1 ) emotions, 2) fit/congruence, and 3) identity/ identification. We believe each shows promise in extending current thinking. The review closes with discussion of important issues that are relevant to the advancement of research on leadership and ethics.
HE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP in promoting ethical conduct in organizations has long been understood. Within a work environment, leaders set the tone for organizational goals and behavior. Indeed, leaders are often in a position to control many outcomes that affect employees (e.g., strategies, goal-setting, promotions, appraisals, resources). What leaders incentivize communicates what they value and motivates employees to act in ways to achieve such rewards. It is not surprising, then, that employees rely on their leaders for guidance when faced with ethical questions or problems (Trevio, 1986). Research supports this contention, and shows that employees conform to the ethical values of their leaders (Schminke, Wells, Peyrefitte, & Sabora, 2002). Furthermore, leaders who are perceived as ethically positive influence productive employee work behavior (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009) and negatively influence counterproductive work behavior (Brown & Trevio, 2006b; Mayer et al., 2009). Recently, there has been a surge of empirical research seeking to understand the influence of leaders on building ethical work practices and employee behaviors (see Brown & Trevio, 2006a for a review). Initial theory and research (Bass & Steidlemeier, 1999; Brown, Trevio, & Harrison, 2005; Ciulla, 2004; Trevio, Brown, & Hartman, 2003; Trevio, Hartman, & Brown, 2000) sought to define ethical leadership from both normative and social scientific (descriptive) approaches to business ethics. The normative perspective is rooted in philosophy and is concerned with prescribing how individuals "ought" or "should" behave in the workplace. For example, normative scholarship on ethical leadership (Bass & Steidlemeier, 1999; Ciulla, 2004) examines ethical decision making from particular philosophical frameworks, evaluates the ethicality of particular leaders, and considers the degree to which certain styles of leadership or influence tactics are ethical.
2010 Business Ethics Quarterly 20:4 (October 2010); ISSN 1052-150X
pp. 583-616
584
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
In contrast, our article emphasizes a social scientific approach to ethical leadership (e.g.. Brown et al., 2005; Trevio et al., 2000; Trevio et al, 2003). This approach is rooted in disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and organization science, and it attempts to understand how people perceive ethical leadership and investigates the antecedents, outcomes, and potential boundary conditions of those perceptions. This research has focused on investigating research questions such as: What is ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005; Trevio et al., 2003)? What traits are associated with perceived ethical leadership (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009)? How does ethical leadership flow through various levels of management within organizations (Mayer et al., 2009)? And, does ethical leadership help or hurt a leader's promotability within organizations (Rubin, Dierdorff, & Brown, 2010)? The purpose of our article is to review literature that is relevant to the descriptive study of ethics and leadership, as well as outhne areas for future empirical study. We first discuss ethical leadership and then draw from emerging research on what often is called "dark" (destructive) organizational behavior, so as to widen the boundaries of our review to also include ethical leadership. Next, we discuss three emerging trends within the organizational behavior literature1) emotions, 2) fit/congruence, and 3) identity/identificationthat we believe show promise in extending current thinking on the influence of leadership (both positive and negative) on organizational ethics. We conclude with a discussion of important issues that are relevant to the advancement of research in this domain. A REVIEW OF SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC ETHICAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH The Concept of Ethical Leadership Although the topic of ethical leadership has long been considered by scholars, descriptive research on ethical leadership is relatively new. Some of the first formal investigations focused on defining ethical leadership from a descriptive perspective and were conducted by Trevio and colleagues (Trevio et al., 2000, 2003). Their qualitative research revealed that ethical leaders were best described along two related dimensions: moral person and moral manager. The moral person dimension refers to the qualities of the ethical leader as a person. Strong moral persons are honest and trustworthy. They demonstrate a concern for other people and are also seen as approachable. Employees can come to these individuals with problems and concerns, knowing that they will be heard. Moral persons have a reputation for being fair and principled. Lastly, riioral persons are seen as consistently moral in both their personal and professional lives. The moral manager dimension refers to how the leader uses the tools of the position of leadership to promote ethical conduct at work. Strong moral managers see themselves as role models in the workplace. They make ethics salient by modeling ethical conduct to their employees. Moral managers set and communicate ethical standards and use rewards and punishments to ensure those standards are followed. In sum, leaders who are moral managers "walk the talk" and "talk the walk," patterning their behavior and organizational processes to meet moral standards.
ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP
585
Trevio and colleagues (Trevio et al., 2000, 2003) argued that individuals in power must be both strong moral persons and moral managers in order to be seen as ethical leaders by those around them. Strong moral managers who are weak moral persons are likely to be seen as hypocrites, failing to practice what they preach. Hypocritical leaders talk about the importance of ethics, but their actions show them to be dishonest and unprincipled. Conversely, a strong moral person who is a weak moral manager runs the risk of being seen as an ethically "neutral" leader. That is, the leader is perceived as being silent on ethical issues, suggesting to employees that the leader does not really care about ethics. Subsequent research by Brown, Trevio, and Harrison (2005:120) further clarified the construct and provided a formal definition of 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." They noted that "the term normatively appropriate is 'deliberately vague'" (Brown et al., 2005: 120) because norms vary across organizations, industries, and cultures. Brown et al. (2005) ground their conceptualization of ethical leadership in social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986). This theory suggests individuals can learn standards of appropriate behavior by observing how role models (like teachers, parents, and leaders) behave. Accordingly, ethical leaders "teach" ethical conduct to employees through their own behavior. Ethical leaders are relevant role models because they occupy powerful and visible positions in organizational hierarchies that allow them to capture their follower's attention. They communicate ethical expectations through formal processes (e.g., rewards, policies) and personal example (e.g., interpersonal treatment of others). Effective "ethical" modeling, however, requires more than power and visibility. For social learning of ethical behavior to take place, role models must be credible in terms of moral behavior. By treating others fairly, honestly, and considerately, leaders become worthy of emulation by others. Otherwise, followers might ignore a leader whose behavior is inconsistent with his/her ethical pronouncements or who fails to interact with followers in a caring, nurturing style (Yussen & Levy, 1975). Outcomes of Ethical Leadership Researchers have used both social learning theory (Bandura, 1977,1986) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to explain the effects of ethical leadership on important outcomes (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Trevio, 2006b; Mayer et al, 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). According to principles of reciprocity in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), individuals feel obligated to return beneficial behaviors when they believe another has been good and fair to them. In line with this reasoning, researchers argue and find that employees feel indebted to ethical leaders because of their trustworthy and fair nature; consequently, they reciprocate with beneficial work behavior (e.g., higher levels of ethical behavior and citizenship behaviors) and refrain from engaging in destructive behavior (e.g., lower levels of workplace deviance).
586
Emerging research has found that ethical leadership is related to important follower outcomes, such as employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, willingness to report problems to supervisors, willingness to put in extra effort on the job, voice behavior (i.e., expression of constructive suggestions intended to improve standard procedures), and perceptions of organizational culture and ethical climate (Brown et al., 2005; Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts, & Chonko, 2009; Toor & Ofori, 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). At the group level, supervisory ethical leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior and psychological safety, and negatively related to workplace deviance (Mayer et al., 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Ethical leadership enhances followers' perceptions of important job characteristics such as autonomy and task significance (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010), the later mediating the relationship between ethical leadership and follower effort. At the highest levels of management, executive ethical leadership is positively related to perceived top management team (TMT) effectiveness as well as optimism among TMT members (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Ethical leaders are seen as having greater potential for promotion to senior management positions, especially in contexts in which there is a high pressure to perform (Rubin et al., 2010). Previous research has shown that high pressure contexts are related to unethical behavior (Robertson & Rymon, 2001). According to Rubin et al. (2010), ethical leadership sends a strong signal that an individual is potentially suitable for the pressures of senior management because of his or her ability to maintain strong ethical performance in the face of such pressure. In addition, scholars have investigated the ethical dimensions of various styles of leadership. Most notably, transformational (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993) and charismatic leaders (Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1998) are thought to be ethical leaders who model ethical conduct (Avolio, 1999), engage in ethically positive modes of influence (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996), operate at higher levels of moral reasoning (Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002), and transform their followers into moral leaders (Bums, 1978). Transformational and charismatic leadership have been studied extensively (see Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Judge & Piccolo, 2004 for reviews), and the cumulative findings suggest that transformational and charismatic leadership are positively associated with important ethics-related outcomes such as follower's perceptions of trust in fairness of their leader (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999) and organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). These styles of leadership are also negatively related to outcomes such as employee aggression (Hepworth & Towler, 2004) and workplace deviance (Brown & Trevio, 2006b). A new construct, authentic leadership, also is related to transformational leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wemsing, & Peterson, 2008) and shares its strong emphasis on the ethical dimension of leadership. With the recent development of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ; Walumbwa et al., 2008), future research linking authentic leadership to important ethics-related outcomes is promising.
587
Antecedents of Ethical Leadership Researchers very recently have begun to explore the influences on ethical leadership. Both situational (e.g., role modeling) and individual (e.g., personality traits) predictors of ethical leadership have been proposed (Brown & Trevio, 2006a) but there is little published research testing these and other potential antecedents. In one of the few empirical studies, Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) found that the personality dimensions of agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively related to ethical leadership. Obviously, there are many opportunities for investigating the influences on ethical leadership in future research. Summary Although research on ethical leadership is growing, clearly there is much still to learn about ethical leadership, its antecedents and outcomes. We will discuss some of the unanswered questions and suggest new directions for future research throughout the remainder of this article. Some of the most important questions concern the relationship between and relative influence of ethical and unethical leadership, Detert, Trevio, Burris, and Andiappan (2007) theorized that both ethical and unethical leadership (via abusive supervision perceptions) would influence employees' counterproductive work behavior (for better and for worse, respectively). However, they found that only abusive supervision, not ethical leadership, was related to counterproductive work behavior. These results emphasize the need to understand negative aspects of leadership and their influence on employee behavior, Detert et al, (2007) speculated that perhaps the context in the types of jobs studied in their research influenced the importance of abusive supervision over ethical leadership on employees' deviant behaviors. Fundamentally then, there is a need to understand when and why unethical aspects of leadership influence employees more so than ethical leadership. We believe more research that explores the "dark side" of organizational behavior (and more specifically destructive leader behavior), which we turn to next, is necessary, UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP: INTEGRATION FROM "DARK" ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR RESEARCH "Dark side" research has attempted to understand why organizational members engage in destructive or "deviant" work behavior. Workplace deviance is defined as behavior that violates significant organizational norms and harms organizations and its members (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). A number of deviance constructs have emerged in the literature, such as workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998; O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996), counterproductive work behavior (Fox & Spector, 1999), social undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), and retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). While the majority of this research focuses on employees' behavior, more recent research draws attention to supervisors and leaders as perpetrators of deviant acts (see Tep-
588
per, 2007 for a review). Our review considers theory and research on destructive leader behavior. The Concept of Unethical Leadership The standing literature has not described destructive leader behavior as "unethical"; however, the implication is clear. Unethical behavior involves acts that are illegal and/or are morally inappropriate to larger society (Jones 1991).' Dark side research has uncovered a variety of unethical leader acts. Various terms have evolved in the literature, such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), supervisor undermining (Duffy et al., 2002), toxic leadership (Frost, 2004), and tyrannical leadership (Ashforth, 1994). Research shows these leaders are oppressive, abusive, manipulative, and calculatingly undermining (Tepper, 2007). Their actions are perceived as intentional and harmful, and may be the source of legal action against employers (Tepper, 2007). Therefore, destructive leader behavior is unethical. Unethical leadership, however, transcends beyond the leaders' own behavior. In seeking to accomplish organizational goals, leaders can encourage corrupt and unethical acts within their organizations. For instance, Clement's (2006) review of corporate scandals in Fortune 100 corporations concluded that actions perpetrated by executives, boards of directors, and government officials were the primary cause of such transgressions. Leaders foster unethical behavior among followers without engaging in the behavior themselves and do so by way of rewards, condoning nonconformers, and ignoring unethical acts (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Brief, Buttram, & Dukerich, 2001). For instance, qualitative research shows leaders who reward short-term results, model aggressive and Machiavellian behavior, do not punish followers' wrongdoing, and promote like-minded individuals heighten unethical behavior within organizations (Sims & Brinkmann, 2002). Indeed, research shows employees engage in unethical acts to boost organizational performance or help the organization in some other way (Finney & Lesieur, 1982; Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010; Yeager, 1986). Such embedded practices can insulate leaders from primary blame, essentially providing them "plausible deniability" (Baker & Faulkner, 1993; Braithwaite, 1989). Leaders who engage in, enable, or foster unethical acts within their organizations do not display ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005). Instead, leaders who harness and embed unethical behavior of their followers display unethical leadership (Pinto, Leana, & Pil, 2008). In sum, we define unethical leadership as behaviors conducted and decisions made by organizational leaders that are illegal and/or violate moral standards, and those that impose processes and structures that promote unethical conduct by followers. We now review the consequences and influences of unethical leadership. Outcomes of Unethical Leadership A review of the literature suggests unethical leadership impedes the effective functioning and viability of organizations. For example, scholars estimate unethical leader behavior costs U.S. corporations billions of dollars a year due to increased absenteeism, health care costs, lost productivity, and expended costs associated with
589
defending actionable claims (Detert et al., 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). To be sure, some examples of unethical leadership within the popular press have resulted in the end of the organization altogether (e.g., Enron, WorldCom). The effects of unethical leadership on employees are also considerable. Research shows unethical leadership negatively influences employees' attitudes (e.g.. Pelletier & Bligh, 2008; Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008), task and extra-role performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Zellers, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002), resistance behaviors (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001), psychological well-being (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007), and personal lives (Ferguson, Carlson, & Whitten, 2009; Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Moreover, unethical leadership positively influences deviant and unethical work behavior among employees (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2008; Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu, & Hua, 2009; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). Like research on ethical leadership, theorists draw from learning theories to explain how unethical leadership promotes unethical employee conduct (e.g., social learning theory, Bandura, 1977, 1986; social information processing theory, Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; script theory, Gioia, 1992). Accordingly, employees learn accepted behavior (even if it is unethical) by watching relevant social role models. Leaders are particularly influential because they authorize unethical behavior through their own acts, sanctioning abilities, and legitimate power (Brief et al., 2001; Kelman, 1973). Research supports these arguments and shows unethical leadership provides a baseline of behaviors that influence followers' decisions (Baumhart, 1961; Brenner & Molander, 1977) and actions (Detert et al., 2007; Mitchell, 2008). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960) has also been used to explain consequences of unethical leadership. Like research on ethical leadership, this research focuses on quid pro quo reciprocity patterns between leaders and followers (see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 for a review). When leaders treat employees abusively (or unethically), employees see the exchange relationship as imbalanced or exploited, which affects their work attitudes (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2008) and enhances retaliatory behavior (e.g., deviance, Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2006; Tepper et al., 2008; Tepper et al., 2009; Thau et al., 2009; reduced work effort, Harris et al., 2007; Tepper et al., 2001; Zellers et al., 2002). Lastly, researchers have used principles about self-resources to explain consequences of unethical leadership. In particular, theorists contend unethical leadership drains employees of self-resources (e.g., attention, will-power, esteem) that are needed to maintain appropriate behavior (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2009; Thau & Mitchell, in press). Indeed, ethical decision making theorists often refer to this phenomenon as ego strength and/or depletion (see Trevio, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006 for a review). Some researchers have drawn from self-regulation principles to explain the effects. Accordingly, the act of being victimized or threatened by an unethical leader impairs or marginalizes employees' self-resources (Bandura, 1991; Baumeister, 2001; Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007; Thau & Mitchell, in press). When self-regulatory resources are impaired, victims are unable to maintain appropriate behavior and instead engage in deviant behavior. Moreover, unethical leadership combined with inconsistent information about employees' organiza-
590
tional value (e.g., abused by the leader but being paid fairly) more strongly affects self-resources and makes unethical employee behavior even more likely (Thau & Mitchell, in press). Similarly, conservation of resources theory (HobfoU, 1989) suggests individuals strive to obtain and maintain resources that help them accomplish goals. Experienced stress (via unethical leader treatment) drains these resources and causes a spill-over effect (e.g., frustration-aggression predictions by DoUard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) to employees' work and family lives. They are less able to maintain positive work attitudes (Ferguson et al., 2009; Hoobler & Brass, 2006) and engage in productive work behavior (e.g., deviance, Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), and engage in more work-family conflict (Ferguson et al., 2009; Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Antecedents of Unethical Leadership Some research suggests unethical leader behavior is a reaction to organizational mistreatment (cf. social exchange theory, Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960) (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Tepper et al., 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) found this exchange effect also heightens strain reactions, which increase leaders' feelings of powerlessness and depression and causes leaders to behave more aggressively toward employees. Self-regulation principles have also been used to explain why unethical leadership occurs. In particular, this approach draws from the social cognitive theory of moral thought and action (Bandura, 1991), which suggests that leaders may behave unethically because they disconnect themselves from moral standards and rationalize unethical treatment toward their employees (cf. Bandura, 1991). For example, Mitchell, Vogel, Tepper, and Palmer (2010) found leaders engaged in abusive behaviors and thought doing so was justified against employees who were poor performers. However, these effects were mitigated if leaders also held a strong need for achievement orientation. They surmised need for achievement assists in maintaining self-regulatory abilities and appropriate behavior. Last, research has focused on individual qualities of leaders and subordinates to explain unethical leadership. For example. Hing, Bobocel, Zanna, and McBride (2007) found leaders with a strong social dominance orientation were more likely to engage in unethical behavior, particularly when followers were more agreeable and/ or high in right wing authoritarianism. Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (in press) explain unethical leadership can result from moral exclusion (Opotow, 1990); when leaders do not believe a subordinate is one for whom moral rules apply. Leaders who are dissimilar from subordinates believe abusive treatment is appropriate. Tepper et al. found that deep-level similarity (likeness in values, attitudes, and personality) influenced leader-subordinate relational conflict and associated leader abuse. Summary Much of behavioral ethics' descriptive empirical research focuses on ethical aspects of leadership, with less focus on unethical aspects. Our review included organizational behavior research conducted on unethical leader behavior. This review
591
highlights the need to consider unethical leadership as well as ethical leadership. To be sure, much has been learned about the positive aspects of ethical leadership; however, much more understanding is to be gained by also considering the "dark" or unethical side of leadership. To gain a good grasp of the leadership and ethics phenomenon, more research is needed to understand implications of both ethical and unethical leadership, particularly in terms of uncovering when one is more influential to employees and organizations. For example, decision research suggests that individuals have a proclivity to focus on negatives as opposed to positives (Jordan, 1965; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Kanouse & Hanson, 1972; Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). An age-old Russian adage highlights this: "A spoonful of tar can spoil a barrel of honey, but a spoonful of honey does nothing for a barrel of tar" (restated from Rozin & Royzman, 2001: 296). The results from Detert et al. (2007) show abusive supervision and not ethical leadership influenced employees' behavior. These results may suggest a negative bias; however, other factors may be at play (e.g., hierarchical and physical distance from ethical leaders to employees who engaged in unethical acts; subcultural influences within departments and divisions that proved to be more influential than the overall organization's culture). We believe much more research is needed to uncover the dynamics of leadership and ethicsfrom both a positive and negative angle. To this end, we now turn to three trends in the organizational behavior literature that we believe hold promise for advancing research on ethical and unethical leadership. INTEGRATIVE IDEAS FROM THE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR LITERATURE There are many emerging topics in the organizational behavior and management literatures. We selected three such topics that have great potential to take research on ethical and unethical leadership into new and exciting directions. Specifically, we discuss emerging research on: I) emotions, 2) fit/congruence, and 3) identity/ identification, and make suggestions for incorporating them into the research agenda on ethical and unethical leadership. Emotions, Leadership, and Business Ethics The important influence of emotions on ethical judgments can be traced as far back as Aristotle. Feelings inform us when things are not rightthey act as ethical alarms. Salvador and Folger (2009) highlight this point and discuss the role of emotions on ethical judgments with the human brain. Their review suggests emotions consciously and unconsciously influence ethical decision making and behavior. Understanding the role of emotions then is essential for furthering research on leadership and business ethics. Leaders are in a unique position to influence employees' emotions at work (Bass, 1985; House, 1977; Weber, 1920) and do so through their communications and behavior (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Bass, 1985; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). They can harness an "emotional contagion" that filters throughout organizations (Frijda,
592
1986; Hatfleld, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Emotional contagion is defined as an unconscious transfer of emotion, which fosters mimicry of another's emotional state (e.g,, facial expressions, vocalizations, postures; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Research shows individuals who perceive their leaders displaying more positive than negative emotions experience more positive and less negative moods themselves. Groups with leaders who display positive emotions exhibit more coordination and expend less effort than groups with negatively affective leaders (Sy, Ct, & Saavedra, 2005), Additionally, positive emotional displays from leaders influence followers' perceptions of their leader (e,g,, effectiveness, motivational ability) and important outcomes, such as citizenship behavior and performance (Bono & Hies, 2006; Johnson, 2008, 2009; Lewis, 2000; Madera & Smith, 2009), Leaders are also capable of inciting negative emotions among their followers and when they do these negative emotions are more vivid than positive emotions (Dasborough, 2006), In particular, employees recall more negative than positive events of their leaders, and the feelings associated with the negative memories are more intense than those experienced with positive memories (Dasborough, 2006), Negative emotional reactions to leaders can spread throughout an organization as emotional contagion, ultimately hurting the group's climate and heightening cynicism about the leader (e,g,, Dasborough, Ashkansy, Tee, & Tse, 2009), Emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions to leaders' emotions have been generally explained by affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and emotional transference principles (Hatfleld et al,, 1994), Leaders shape affective events within organizations and these events "transfer" the emotional state of followers. Events trigger emotional as well as impulsive behavioral reactions among employees. Over time, long-term attitudes can be affected. The influence of negative emotions can be even more impactful because negative emotions are felt with greater intensity compared to positive emotions (Peters, 2002), New Avenues for Future Research Research on leadership and business ethics has not fully considered the role that emotions play in employees' perceptions of and reactions to ethical and unethical leadership. There are, however, many potential avenues for integration. For example, Madera and Smith (2009) found that leaders who display certain negative emotions differentially influenced employees' assessments about their leader's effectiveness. Leaders who displayed anger as opposed to sadness during a crisis were seen as less effective. This finding suggests specific leader-displayed emotions may influence whether leaders are seen as ethical or unethical, and poses interesting potential research questions. For example, are there emotions that can enhance a leader's salience and effectiveness as a model of (un)ethical conduct? Which emotions might enhance employee intemalization of organizational ethical principles and codes of conduct? Conversely, which emotions evoked by leaders influence unethical conduct and impede the effective functioning of organizations? Another promising area for future research involves moral emotions (or affective responses linked to the interests or welfare of society as a whole; Haidt, 2003), Three categories of moral emotions have been emphasized in the literature: (1) other-
593
condemning emotions such as anger and disgust; (2) self-focused emotions such as shame and guilt, and (3) other-suffering or -praising emotions, such as compassion, empathy, and gratitude. Research shows moral emotions differentially influence behavior (see Haidt, 2003; Tangney, 1991, for reviews). For example, empathy is related positively to prosocial behavior and negatively to destructive and unethical behavior. Anger motivates behavior to attack, humiliate, or otherwise get back at an offender. Disgust motivates avoidance behavior. Shame elicits self-condoning appraisals and, as such, motivates withdrawal behavior. Guilt, a related cousin to shame, also emphasizes self-condemnation but focuses on the harm or suffering others experience as a consequence of the actor's immoral act and, consequently, invokes reconciliatory behavior. Organizational behavior researchers have recently integrated these ideas. Barclay, Skarlicki, and Pugh (2005) examined negative inward-emotions (affective reactions associated with an individual's self-attributions, such as shame or guilt; Fisher & Tangney, 1995) and negative outward-emotions (affective evaluations of others, such as anger and hostility; Tangney & Dearing, 2002), and found employees experienced less negative inward- and more negative outward-emotions when they were treated unfairly. In contrast, employees experienced more negative inward- and less negative outward-emotions when they were treated fairly. Further, employee retaliatory behaviors were greater with experienced negative outward-emotions. Summary We believe there is merit to adding moral emotions into the leadership and ethics research agenda. Leaders' expressed moral emotions may not only influence how followers react, but also how the leader behaves. Uncovering these dynamics may shed light on why some leaders are perceived as ethical versus unethical, and how leaders influence (un)ethical in organizations. Our review suggests (1) leaders display a range of emotions in their organizations; (2) leaders' affective experiences influence their own behavior; (3) the emotions leaders display arouse employees' emotions and create an emotional contagion effect among followers (whether positive or negative), and (4) followers' emotions, evoked by leaders, influence their (un)ethical conduct. Additionally, research on emotions may build an understanding of the consequences of ethical and unethical leadership. For instance, we expect ethical leadership will trigger more positive follower emotions (e.g., gratitude, awe, enthusiasm, empathy), whereas unethical leadership should affect more negative emotions (e.g., anger, disgust, shame). We also surmise that the relationship between (un)ethical leadership and follower (un)ethical behavior, would be moderated by the level of emotional contagion experienced and harnessed by the leader. Further, our review suggests the type and strength of the emotions evoked by followers will differentially influence their behavior. For instance, experienced anger or disgust (likely reactions to unethical leadership) may lead to employee unethical acts (e.g., retaliation, deviance), whereas experienced compassion or gratitude (likely reactions to ethical leadership) may influence employees to engage in ethical behavior (e.g., volunteerism, prosocial behavior).
594
Examining emotions may also explain why some leaders are considered ethical and others unethical. For instance, certain situations may invoke followers' emotions that are seemingly out of the leader's control. To this end, future research should investigate how leaders yield or manage followers' emotions and whether the techniques used influence how they are perceived by others. This may be particularly relevant in the current economic climate, the consequence of which may force leaders to make tough decisions that affect employees' livelihoods (e.g., layoffs, pay freezes and cuts). Leaders might also have to manage employees' emotional reactions to uncertainty (e.g., declining sales, unfavorable media attention, increased industry competition, inhospitable macro-economic conditions). These ideas also suggest that the way leaders interact with their employees (ethically versus unethically) may invoke emotions that might adversely affect their reactions to "good news" (e.g., promotions, pay raises, successful financial performance). We leave these ideas for future research to consider. Organizational Fit, Leadership, and Business Ethics Research on fit within the organizational behavior literature focuses on the compatibility, similarity, or congruence between two entities (Kristof, 1996). Researchers have predominately studied congruence between persons and jobs, persons and organizations, persons and groups, and persons and supervisors (see Edwards, 2008; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005, for reviews). Despite the growing literature, there has been little published fit research explicitly related to ethics and even less so related to ethics and leadership (see Schminke, Ambrose, & Neubaum, 2005, for an exception). Fit researchers study how fit between an individual and another entity (job, organization, group or supervisor) affects outcomes. Some research examples include assessing fit between individual and organizational values (Cable & Judge, 1997; Chatman, 1991), group goal congruence (Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley, & Barrick, 2008), and leader and employee personality (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002). Research suggests that employees who fit well with their organization, leader, and job experience more positive attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), are less likely to leave the organization, experience less work-related stress, and engage in positive task and citizenship behaviors (see Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, for reviews). We believe that there are many opportunities to integrate fit ideas into a leadership and business ethics research agenda, and explore some possibilities below. New Avenues for Future Research We believe three areas of fit research can inform a leadership and ethics research agenda: understanding the role fit with moral values, with moral reasoning, and in self-other ratings of leadership. Research within the behavioral ethics literature suggests the importance of ethical/moral values on ethical decision making and conduct in organizations (see Trevio et al., 2006 for a review). For example, corporate ethics programs that are aspirational in nature (i.e., appealing to employees' ethical aspirations) are seen as more effective compared to programs that are oriented toward
595
legal compliance (Weaver, Trevio, & Cochran, 1999). Therefore, the implications of ethical value congruence of leaders and their followers should be considered. Values congruence is thought to play an important role in explaining why fit between two entities is related to outcomes (see Edwards & Cable, 2009 for a review). Values congruence has explained the relationship between leader-follower cognitive moral development and follower attitudes (Schminke et al., 2005). And, values congruence was found to mediate the relationship between charismatic leadership and workplace deviance (Brown & Trevio, 2006b). Work group values diversity (incongruence) is associated with decreased member satisfaction, intention to remain, and commitment to the work group (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). Leaders' values have been shown to uniquely shape the organization's environment (Giberson, Resick, & Dickson, 2005). Based on Schneider's (1987) and Schein's (1992) contentions about leader-follower value congruence and organizational homogeneity, Giberson et al. (2005) found that leaders embed their values into the framework of organizations by surrounding themselves with individuals who are similar to them. Indeed, research suggests the more followers align with their leaders, the more career success they experience (Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2004). There are many ways in which future research can explore the congruence of ethical values among leaders and followers. In particular, research might consider which factors bring leaders and followers together on shared values. Previous theory and research suggests that a transformational/charismatic style of leadership plays with values congruence (Bass, 1985; House, 1996). However, there is some evidence that congruence effects are likely to vary depending on the content of the values in question (Brown & Trevio, 2009). So what brings about congruence in leader-follower moral values? Does leadership play a role because leaders communicate, model, and reinforce (un)ethical standards and values? Theory and research suggest that leaders and followers should come to develop similar values and norms through organizational attraction-selection-attrition (Schneider, 1987) and socialization (Chatman, 1991) processes, but these and other antecedents of (un)ethical values fit will require empirical testing. Unfortunately, one of the impediments to research in this area is the lack of an established measure of ethical values that has been rigorously developed and thoroughly tested. And, a measure of what constitutes nethical values has yet to be developed. Future research should also consider values misfit. It is likely that incongruence will promote turnover among employees who do not "fit" the leader's ethical values, but whether or not this is a good thing has yet to be determined. For instance, employees who align with unethical leaders might promote very destructive and unbeneficial work practices, which can transfer to the larger community via costs associated with government oversight and regulation (Thomas, Schermerhorn, & Dienhart, 2004). Fit researchers have grappled with the issue of homogeneity in terms of organizational performance for some time (Kristof, 1996). The downside to fit is that homogeneity within organizations can breed complacency and stifle creativity which would hurt the organization's competitive advantage. We wonder if the same arguments hold for ethical values fit.
596
On the other hand, diversity in moral values is different than other kinds of diversity in that individuals are less tolerant of moral diversity compared to demographic diversity (Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom, 2003). Heterogeneity in ethical values within an organization could work against attempts to foster an effective ethics and compliance program based on shared values (Weaver et al., 1999). However, more research is needed to determine the relationship between ethical values fit/mist, leadership, and important ethical outcomes in organizations. Moral reasoning is another construct that should be considered from afitperspective. In one of the few ethics-related fit studies, Schminke et al. (2005) hypothesized and found that leader and follower moral reasoning congruence was positively related to follower satisfaction and commitment and negatively related to follower turnover. Individuals who share similar ethical thought processes and values are likely to enjoy higher levels of mutual trust and communication (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Schmitike et al., 2005). Thus, it is likely that cognitive moral development fit will be positively related to many other important outcomes as well as follower perceptions of ethical leadership (Jordan, Brown, & Trevio, 2010). However, could there be a dark side to such congruence? For example, consider the case of a leader who reasons at a preconventional level of moral development. At the preconventional level, obedience to authority and self-interest (i.e., "what's right is what provides me with benefit and avoids causing me harm") drive the moral reasoning process (Kohlberg, 1969). Generally speaking, research has found that higher levels of moral reasoning are associated with positive ethical behavior and decision making (Trevio, 1986). Thus, we might ask whether convergence at the preconventional level would be associated with positive outcomes. Future research might also consider the consequences of leader-follower moral reasoning misfit. Does a lack of congruence bring about conflict and distrust? If so, how does this influence behavior and the organizational environment? Theory (Chatman, 1991; Schneider, 1987) and research (see Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) suggest that employees who do not fit leave their organizations. Misfit might cause leaders to build stronger infrastructures for the purpose of bringing followers into alignment, even when the misfit is driven by unethical leadership (Ashforth & Anand, 2003). If employees chose to stay in a misfit situation, how do they cope? If their leader operates at comparatively lower levels of moral reasoning might they endeavor to raise their leader's moral reasoning? Conversely, do employees who operate at lower levels of moral reasoning undergo moral growth when paired with a leader who operates at a higher level of reasoning? Or would these employees remain stuck at a lower level and perhaps seek out ways to undermine their leader's authority? Finally, there are also opportunities beyond the conventional Kohlbergian approach to moral reasoning to consider the impact of leader-follower fit/misfit. Recent theory and research suggest moral reasoning does not always involve careful reflection, as assumed by Kohlberg and others. Rather, moral judgments are often the result of intuitive processes (Haidt, 2001). Deliberate moral reasoning in this case is likely to represent post hoc justifications that support moral intuitions. From this perspective, a leader and follower might operate at the same level of principled
597
moral reasoning, but they might use the same principled reasoning to justify a very different set of moral intuitions. For example, two very principled individuals could make strongly diverging arguments about the fairness of a particular corporate action (e,g,, slashing corporate philanthropy during an economic downturn) to employees (e,g,, we ought to be loyal to our employees by saving as much money as we can so as to minimize layoffs) versus the recipients of such charity (e,g,, we ought to maintain such spending because to do otherwise would cause great harm to those charities that need our support). Thus, congruence in moral reasoning (especially at the postconventional or principled level), might actually cause more friction and problems between individuals if diverging moral intuitions are involved. Future research might examine how leader-follower moral intuitions fit/misfit is related to ethical and unethical leadership and related workplace outcomes. In order to do this, scholars will need to move beyond the traditional ways of defining ethics in terms of harm and fairness to consider other types of moral intuitions that people have, such as those based on purity/sanctity, obedience to authority, and loyalty to one's in-group (see Haidt & Graham 2007; Weaver & Brown, in press), A final way to incorporate fit into leadership research is to examine self-other agreement between leader and follower ratings of ethical or unethical leadership. Self-enhancement bias (Greenwald, 1980) might cause a leader to see him/her as more moral than they are actually seen by others. Leaders who suffer from such bias see themselves as strong moral persons and presume that those around them easily recognize their goodness. These leaders might suffer from moral complacency, which would result in less active moral management (Brown, 2007; Mayer et al,, 2009), In such cases, leader self-ratings of (un)ethical leadership can be divorced from follower-ratings of (un)ethical leadership. This discrepancy is but one type of the broader phenomenon of self-other disagreement that has been observed in leadership and management research (Ashford, 1989;Atwater&Yammarino, 1992; Harris & Shaubroeck, 1988), Previous research suggests that over-estimators (i,e,, leaders who rate themselves more favorably compared to follower ratings) are seen as less effective by their superiors (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998), We expect divergence between leader and follower ratings of (un)ethical leadership will be associated with key ethics-related outcomes. Summary Overall, there is much to learn about the antecedents and consequences of leader-follower agreement and its relationship to ethical and unethical leadership. Examining thefitbetween leaders and followers on key aspects such as moral values, moral reasoning, and ratings of leadership are just some of the potential avenues for future research. Researchers might also consider convergence/divergence on other relevant dimensions, such as ethical frameworks (e,g,, consequentalism and formalism) and moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002), which we will discuss next. Identity and Identification, Leadership, and Business Ethics Research on the concepts of identity and identification has proliferated within the organizational behavior literature (see Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008 for a
598
review). Broadly speaking, individuals have both personal and social identities. Personal identity refers to an individual's sense of self (Postmes & Jetten, 2006), while social identity derives from the value and emotional significance of membership associated with a specific social group (Tajfel, 1978, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). Within the organizational behavior literature, much of the research on social identity focuses on an employees' organizational identity. We believe both personal and organizational identity research has relevance to understanding leadership and business ethics and elaborate on these ideas below. New Avenues for Future Research Theory and empirical evidence in behavioral ethics highlights the importance of individuals' personal identity based on their ethical values, called moral identity (see Shao, Aquino, & Freeman, 2008, for a review). Moral identity research investigates individuals' sense of self in relation to their personal moral beliefs. Most empirical research integrates Aquino and Reed's (2002) conceptualization, which considers the degree to which moral traits are embedded in one's self-concept and behavior. Their research highlights two dimensions of moral identity: intemalization (the degree moral traits are central to the self-concept) and symbolization (the degree moral traits are expressed publicly). Aquino and Reed contend these dimensions serve as an individual's benchmark and guide of moral behavior. Research supports these arguments and shows that moral identity neutralizes moral disengagement tendencies and associated unethical decision making (Detert, Trevio, & Sweitzer, 2008). Further, moral identity positively influences volunteerism (Aquino & Reed, 2002) and moral conduct (Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007), and negatively influences inappropriate, hostile, and destructive behavior (Reed & Aquino, 2003; Verona, Reed, & Aquino, 2003). Recent research suggests, however, behavioral differences occur depending on the strength one holds in the different dimensions of moral identity. Specifically, Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, and Walker (2008) found a three-way interaction among customer mistreatment (a form of injustice) and the two moral identity dimensions (symbolization and intemalization) on sabotage such that the relationship between injustice and sabotage was strengthened for employees with high (rather than low) symbolization. However, the effect was weaker for employees with high (rather than low) intemalization. They argued that the effects demonstrate intemalization as more of an intemal qualifier of moral standards; those who held high intemalization resisted sabotage most likely because they felt such behavior was unethical. In contrast, symbolization was predicted (and found) to strengthen destructive reactions to injustice because such an orientation reflects a reactive, active behavioral state in ethically significant situations. Because customer mistreatment (injustice) threatened individuals' moral self-standards, those high in symbolization felt sabotage an appropriate, behavioral reaction. Moral identity is relevant to the study of leadership and particularly business ethics. Yet, research has not explored whether moral identity influences whether leaders are perceived as more or less ethical. Given the tendency for symbolization to invoke strong reactive behaviors, it would be interesting to see whether such tendencies
599
negatively influence employees' perceptions of their leaders' ethicality. For example, is it possible for leaders to consider themselves to hold a strong moral identity, but still be considered unethical by their followers? Skariicki et al.'s (2008) findings suggest this might be possible because high symbolization individuals can react unethically to "unethical" situations. If leaders display unethical behaviorseven if reacting to an unethical situationemployees might perceive them as unethical rather than ethical. Worse, employees might believe that such reactions are appropriate and then engage in these behaviors as well in a kind of "monkey see, monkey do" effect (cf. Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). Furthermore, research is needed to see if moral identity, particularly the intemalization dimension, can serve to benefit ethics in organizations generally. Research suggests intemalization mitigates leaming effects of unethical leaders. For example, Mitchell (2008) theorized and found the relationship between perceived unethical leader behavior (employees' perceptions of their organizational leaders in general) and employee deviance was weakened when followers were high in intemalization. Her research did not examine the effects of symbolization, but based on the findings of Skariicki et al. (2008), it is possible that followers who hold strong symbolization identities might react quite destmctively to unethical leaders, making deviant reactions more likely. We suspect that moral identity will impact follower reactions to their leaders, as well as the leader's engaged behavior. Part of an individual's self-concept derives from their membership with salient and meaningful social groups (Tajfel, 1982). Organizational identification is one type of identity from which individuals derive meaning. It is their sense of connection with the membership of their employing organization. Individuals who hold a strong organizational identification intemalize their organization's successes and failures (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The more employees identify with their organization, the more they adapt their behavior to the organization's norms and values (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Individuals who hold a strong organizational identification want to help the viability of their organization. Social identity theory suggests people generally want to be associated with positive and prestigious identities and do what they can to maintain that prestige (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Research supports these arguments and shows organizational identification promotes beneficial work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, work adjustment; Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007; Efraty & Wolfe, 1988) and behaviors (e.g., in-role and extra-role performance, Riketta, 2005). There are "dark" side implications to organizational identification. In particular, researchers have found that employees who hold a strong organizational identity may fall prey to over-escalation of commitment to failed projects (Haslam, Ryan, Postmes, Spears, Jetten, & Webley, 2006) and resist change (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003). Over-identification with the organization may also promote questionable behavior from employees, such as tolerating the unethical acts from others and losing the ability to challenge the ethicality of organizational decisions and practices (Ashforth &Anand, 2003; Brief, Dukerich,& Doran, 1991; Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998; Vardi & Weitz, 2005). Recent research supports these ideas. Umphress et al. (2010) theorized and found that employees who held a strong organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs were more likely to engage in unethical behavior
600
that is intended to benefit the organization in some way (which they term unethical pro-organizational behavior, e.g., misrepresenting the truth to make the organization look good, lying to customers about company information or its products, or concealing damaging information about the company from the public). As much as too much identification can be problematic, too little or under-identification is likely related to negative outcomes as well (Elsbach, 1999; Dukerich et al., 1998). Under-identification occurs when employees do not align in any way with the organization's values or see their self-concept as being defined by the organization's membership. Dukerich et al. (1998) argue there are psychological and behavioral ramifications of individuals who are disconnected from organizational values and goals. Hewlin (2003: 634) argues that employees who do not embrace organizational values put on a facade of conformity, which involves "false representations created by employees to appear as if they embrace organizational values." These facades contribute to emotional exhaustion and increased tumover (Hewlin, 2009). Hewlin's research implies employees who dis- or under-identify with their leaders and organizations may engage in behaviors that are potentially detrimental to their organizations. Overall, our review suggests the relationship between ethical and unethical leadership, organizational identification, and employee conduct is likely to be strong. However, the nature of these relationships (positive or negative) is less certain. We believe investigating the role of ethical and unethical leadership is critical to organizational identification research. Leaders communicate what is valued and provide the connection that builds followers' identification with their organizations (Lord & Brown, 2004; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Employees who strongly identify with their organizations want to do what they can to make them succeed. Strong organizational identification increases employees' desires to emulate their leaders' behavior. Employees who engage in prototypical behaviors are more likely to emerge and be effective as leaders (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Thus, strong organizational identification might facilitate the effectiveness of an ethical leader in promoting ethical conduct to employees. On the other hand, strong organizational identification might influence employees to engage in behaviors that attempt to protect the organization at whatever the cost (Umphress et al., 2010). Weak identification might be positive, especially for employees with strong moral identities who work with unethical leaders. Such under-identification might serve as a buffer against pressure to perform in ways that are unethical. Conversely, under-identification might encourage unethical employees to disengage from organizations with strong ethical leadership and work climates, causing them to behave in non-prototypical and perhaps unethical ways. Summary Overall, there are ample opportunities to integrate identity and identification into research on ethical and unethical leadership. Such work should examine identity at the individual (e.g., moral identity), group (e.g., group identification), and organizational levels (e.g., organizational identification). Research suggests moral identity can inform us on a potential individual orientation that influences leaders'
601
behavior, which then influences whether leaders are perceived as ethical or unethical. Furthermore, research suggests leaders play an intricate role in building followers' identificationwhether within a group or with the organization as a whole. Identification with the leader and organization can present beneficial and detrimental outcomes to organizations. More research is needed to determine how exactly ethical versus unethical leaders yield influence to build employees' identification and how their identification influences outcomes. The relationships between ethical leadership, unethical leadership, identity/identification as well as their impact on organizational decisions, structures, and employee behaviors represent fertile ground for future research. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH We believe (un)ethical leadership research can be furthered by addressing various issues that have arisen in other areas of the leadership and organizational behavior literatures. In particular, we believe scholars should consider issues involving the variability of leadership ratings, multi-source and longitudinal data, levels of management, and cross-cultural sampling. Doing so will strengthen inferences made and advance the field further in understanding of the dynamics of leadership and business ethics. How Much Do Eollowers Agree? Researchers have studied the variability in the quality of relationships between a leader and his/her followers. Some have observed that followers' ratings of leadership are likely to vary greatly across individual followers (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). According to this perspective, leaders have favorites. They form high quality relationships with a select group of their subordinates that are characterized by mutual trust, liking, and respect (see Erdogan, & Liden, 2002; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 for reviews). Other subordinates do not enjoy similar high quality relationships with their leaders. As a result, follower perceptions of their leaders' qualities, behaviors, and performance are likely to vary depending on whether they are in the leader's in-group or out group. However, much leadership research is based on an assumption of average leadership effects across followers. From this perspective, as long as there is some level of similarity in follower perceptions (which is usually assessed by statistical measures of consistency or agreement; Bliese, 2000), variations can safely be ignored and the leader's style of leadership is measured as the average of all follower ratings. There is nothing problematic with taking an average approach when measuring styles of leadership (such as charisma). Some employees might consider a leader to be charismatic, while others might not. We contend, however, that researchers need to think more carefully when interpreting variance in ratings of ethical and unethical leadership. For example, what does it mean if some followers perceive their leader to be abusive or otherwise unethical while others do not? What does it mean if some followers perceive leaders to be highly ethical while others do not? Can a leader abuse one or more of their followers (even if the majority of the group
602
is treated positively) and still be considered an ethical leader? Or, do leaders need to be seen as consistently ethical by all their employees to be considered ethical? Furthermore, what causes variability in follower perceptions? Are these variations due to follower characteristics such as moral identity or different standards of what constitutes normatively appropriate behavior? Can it be explained by personality or other individual differences? Does follower variability in ratings contribute to negative outcomes? These questions suggest that researchers might want to consider variability in follower ratings of (un)ethical leadership as focus for future research. It is important to note that these issues reflect more than methodological concerns. Rather they raise important questions about the very nature of what it means to be an ethical (or unethical) leader, which is the very basis of the descriptive social scientific approach. Whom Should We Be Asking? As we mentioned earlier, we believe that empirical research on ethical and unethical leadership could benefit from including multiple types of rating sources. Within organizations, multiple sources are often used in 360-degree performance assessments which solicit feedback from leaders, peers, subordinates, customers, and the individual being rated to assess the focal individual's performance. At higher organizational levels, researchers could consider collecting data from multiple external sources (e,g,, stockholders, media, other stakeholders) to evaluate an organization's executive leadership. Research suggests that different raters might employ different evaluative criteria for assessing leader performance (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994), so including other rating sources in future research might provide insight on missing antecedents, processes, and consequences of (un)ethical leadership from the current literature. Leaders versus Managers? According to upper echelons theory, executives think and act differently compared to lower level leaders (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978), Do those differences extend to ethical leadership as well? How does level in the organization affect a leader's values, perceptions, and beliefs regarding organizational ethics? For example Trevio, Weaver, & Brown (2008) found that executives have more positive assessments of the ethical well-being of their organizations compared to lower-level employees. Do executives and lower level leaders experience different ethical realities in other ways as well? If so, what are the consequences of these differing perceptions? Levels of management also raise questions about the impact of distance (physical distance, social distance and frequency of interaction; Antonakis & Atwater, 2002) on the leader-follower relationship and outcomes. Compared to lower level managers for whom most if not all of their followers are direct reports, senior managers are also responsible for leading more distant employees who fall within their chain of command. How does distance affect ethical leadership? If ethical and unethical leadership is, in part, based on learning processes, how does such learn-
603
ing take place when followers have few opportunities to observe senior managers in action? Similarly, how does distance affect the relationship between (un)ethical leadership and outcomes? Overall, there is much to be gained by studying ethical and unethical leadership at different levels of management and varying degrees of leader-follower distance. Researchers should also look for similarities and differences in as well as interrelationships between multiple levels of management (e.g., supervisory, middle management, executive-level leadership) in ethical and unethical leadership. An example of this type of research was published by Mayer et al. (2009) who found that the influence of top management ethical leadership on group-level deviance and citizenship behaviors was mediated by supervisory ethical leadership. Future research should investigate to see if this mediation effect holds for other outcomes. How Much Time Does It Take? One of the greatest challenges for future research is to consider the temporal nature of ethical and unethical leadership. There are many unanswered questions that can only be answered with longitudinal research designs. How does (un)ethical leadership develop over time? Although research points to the importance of personality (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), how does upbringing, education, and work experience shape the ethicality of leaders? Can ethical leadership be developed and if so, how? Can unethical leaders be trained to be ethical and if so, how? Indeed, scholars suggest both are a possibility. Specifically, Mitchell and Palmer (2010) argue that sustained ethical behavior and confidence to engage in ethical behavior can be strengthened, similar to a "muscle" in the body. Based on self-regulation theory and research (e.g., Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), they contend ethical exercise can strengthen leaders' moral core, which then can ensure behavior holds integrity to moral values. The key, however, is time and practice. Much more research is needed, based on pattemed events over time to fully understand the dynamics of how followers' perceptions of leaders' ethics are formed. For example, in terms of followers, how long does it take perceptions of a leader's ethics to form? Do (un)ethical leadership perceptions form quickly? Or does it require repeated interactions for followers to see their leader as an (un)ethical leader? Can one salient event (negative or positive) change how the leader is perceived in terms of ethics? How long do the effects of (un)ethical leadership last? Can leaders recover from ethical lapses and if so, how long does it take to regain the confidence of followers? Are Ethical and Unethical Leadership Universal? Cultural differences play an important role in organizational behavior research (Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Therefore, national cultures and subcultures are likely to impact how people think about and react to (un)ethical leadership. Research suggests the general content of ethical leadership is universal, but specific facets of ethical leadership are emphasized differently across
604
cultures (Resick, Hanges, Dickson, & Mitchelson, 2006). However, there is much that we do not know about the relationship between culture and leadership. Previous research has investigated how definitions of effective leadership vary across national cultures (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dormn, & Gupta, 2004; Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, & House, 2006). However, research has not adequately explored how cultural differences between leaders and followers might impact employees' perceptions of leaders. For example, if a leader and follower come from different cultures, how might this influence the leader's effectiveness as an ethical leader? This seems highly relevant for global organizations. Further, would such differences hinder a leader's ability to set a strong ethical tone or can they be overcome? What about unethical leadershipmuch like ethical leadership (Resick et al., 2006), are there similarities in how cultures perceive unethical leadership? Are the antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of (un)ethical leadership universal as well? Or, are there likely to be important cultural differences? We also expect culture affects the influence of (un)ethical leadership on outcomes. For instance, differences in cultural values such as power distance (Hofstede, 1980) may influence the impact that (un)ethical leadership has on important follower outcomes. For example, reporting problems to a manager is likely to be easier in low compared to high power distance cultures. Furthermore, followers in high power distance cultures might be more willing to tolerate abusive and other unethical styles of leadership compared to those in low power distance cultures. Future research is needed to investigate these questions further. CONCLUSION The social scientific study of ethical and unethical leadership has grown tremendously. Although researchers have made many discoveries, we suggest that there are many opportunities for future research. Integrating three emerging trends in the organizational behavior literatureemotions,fit/misfit,and identity/identification into a leadership and ethics research agenda will provide countless opportunities to expand what we know about the domain. Additionally, we outlined additional considerations (variability of ratings, multi-source and longitudinal data, levels of management, and cross-cultural sampling) that we believe have merit in extending the literature. We concede to have only scratched the surface of identifying research questions and proposing new directions. There are, of course, many other possibilities that we have not set forth in this review. We hope our review inspires others to build on the foundation we have presented here and extend the advances that have already been made in these areas. NOTE
1. Consistent with previous descriptive behavioral ethics theorizing (e.g., Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007; Trevio et al., 2006), we adopt this general definition as it captures both lay expectations of what is unethical (such as lying, cheating, stealing) and social scientific precedent (e.g., Jones, 1991).
605
REFERENCES Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. 2002. Leader distance: A review and proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 673-704. Aquino, K. F., & Reed, A., II. 2002. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 1423^0. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 191-201. Ashford, S. 1989. Self-assessments in organizations: A literature review and integrative model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11: 133-74. Ashforth, B. E. 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47: 755-79. Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. 2003. The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-52. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundatnental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-74. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20-39. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. 2000. Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Theory, research and practice: 221-35. Westport, CT: Quorum. Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C , Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. 1998. Self-other agreement: Does it really matter! Personnel Psychology, 51: 577-98. Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. 1992. Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45: 141-64. Avolio, B. J. 1999. Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research, and future dnections. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421-49. Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. 1993. The social organization of conspiracy: Illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. American Sociological Review, 58: 837-60. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efftcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84: 191-215. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1991. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. 2005. Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 629-43.
606
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 181-218. Baumeister, R. F. 2001. Ego-depletion, the executive function, and self-control: An energy model of the self in personality. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace: Decade of behavior: 299-316. Washington, DC: APA. Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. 2006. Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects on traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74: 17731801. Baumhart, R. C. 1961. How ethical are businessmen? Harvard Business Review, 39: 6-8. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bliese, P. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: 349-81. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bono, J. E., & Hies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 317-34. Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. R. 2003. Escaping the identity trap. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44: 20-26. Braithwaite, J. 1989. Criminological theory and organizational crime. Justice Quarterly, 6: 333-58. Brenner, S. N., & Molander, E. A. 1977. Is the ethics of business changing? Harvard Business Review, 55: 57-71. Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. 2001. Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research: 471-99. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brief, A. P., Dukerich, J. M., & Doran, L. J. 1991. Resolving ethical dilemmas in management: Experimental investigations of values, accountability, and choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21: 380-96. Brown, M. E. 2007. Misconceptions of ethical leadership: How to avoid potential pitfalls. Organizational Dynamics, 36: 140-55. Brown, M. E., & Trevio, L. K. 2006a. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 595-616. 2006b. Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 95462. 2009. Leader-follower value congruence: Are socialized charismatic leaders better able to achieve it? Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94: 478-90.
607
Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 117-34. Bums, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1997. Interviewers' perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 546-61. Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. 2007. The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 972-92. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perceptionbehavior link in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 893-910. Chatman, J. 1991. Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459-84. Ciulla, J, B. (Ed.) 2004. Ethics, the heart of leadership (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger. Clement, R. 2006. Just how unethical is American business? Business Horizons, 49: 31327. Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. 2008. CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 81-96. Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 145-79. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31: 874-900. Dansereau, E., Graen, G,, & Haga, W. J. 1975, A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78. Dasborough, M. T. 2006, Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. Lea</crs/ii/> OMflrter/y, 17: 163-78. Dasborough, M, T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E, Y J., & Tse, H. H. M. 2009. What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 57185. De Hoogh, A. H. B., & 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, 19: 297-311. Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. 2007. Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unitlevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 993-1005,
608
Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 374-91. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. 1939. Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C , & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 331-51. Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R., & Parks, J. M. 1998. The dark side of organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations: 245-56. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Edwards, J. R. 2008. Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 167-230. Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. 2009. The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 654-77. Efraty, D., & Wolfe, D. M. 1988. The effect of organizational identification on employee affective and performance responses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3: 105-12. Elsbach, K. D. 1999. An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 163-200. Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2004. Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57: 305-32. Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. 2002. Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. Neider, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership, 65-114. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press. Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., & Whitten, D. 2009. The fallout from abusive supervision through work-family conflict: An examination of job incumbents and their parents. Paper presented at the meeting of Southem Management Association, Asheville, NC. Unpublished manuscript. Finney, H. C , & Lesieur, H. R. 1982. A contingency theory of organizational crime. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1: 255-99. Fisher, K. W, & Tangney, J. P. 1995. Self-conscious emotions and the affect revolution: Framework and overview. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fisher (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride: 3-22. New York: Guilford Press. Fox, S., & Speetor, P. E. 1999. A model of work frustrationaggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 915-31. Frijda, N. H. 1986. The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frost, P. J. 2004. New challenges for leaders and their organization. Organization Dynamics, 33: 111-27. Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. 1998. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Acade/Mj' of Management Review, 23: 32-58.
609
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. 2005. Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1002-10. Gioia, D. A. 1992. Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 379-89. Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161-78. Graen, G.B.,&Uhl-Bien,M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-47. Greenwald, A. G. 1980. The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35: 603-18. Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108: 814-34. 2003. The moral emotions. In R. J. Davison, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences: 852-70. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. 2007. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20: 98-116. Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. 2003. Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 33, 1-36. Hambrick, D. C , & Mason, P. A., 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. 2007. An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 252-63. Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. 1988. A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41: 43-62. Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T, Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P 2006. Sticking to our guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to faltering organizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 607-28. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. 1994. Emotional contagion. New York: Bantam Books. Hepworth, W, & Towler, A. 2004. The effects of individual differences and charismatic leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
9: 176-85. Hewlin, P. E. 2003. And the award for the best actor goes to . . . : Facades of conformity in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 28: 63342. 2009. Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating facades
of conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 72741. Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., & McBride, M. V. 2007. Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92: 67-81.
610
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44: 513-24. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. 1994. What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49: 493-504. Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91:1125-33. House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge: 189-207. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 323-52. House, R. J., Hanges, P J., Javidan, M., Dormn, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. 2006. In the eyes of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20: 67-90. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741-63. Johnson, S. K. 2008. I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect at work on leader and follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 1-19. 2009. Do you feel what I feel? Mood contagion and leadership outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 814-27. Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An xs&ue.contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16: 366-95. Jordan, J., Brown, M. E., & Trevio, L. K., 2010. The executive as ethical leader: The relationship between leader-follower ethical reasoning and perceived ethical leadership. University of Groningen. Unpublished manuscript. Jordan, N. 1965. The asymmetry of liking and disliking. A phenomenon meriting further reflection and research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29: 315-22. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalysis of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 755-68. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47: 263-91. Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson, L. 1972. Negativity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, S. Valins, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior: 47-62. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Kanungo, R., & Mendonca, M. 1996. Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The Social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
611
Kelman, H. C. 1973. Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29: 25-61. Kohlberg, L. 1969. State and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research: 347^80. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1-49. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C , 2005. Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, persongroup, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342. Lewis, K. M. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior,21:221-34. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. 2004. Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. 2003. Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new disciple: 241-58. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler. Madera, J. M., & Smith, D. B. 2009. The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 103-14. Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103-23. Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. 2009. How low does ethical leadership now? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 1-13. Mitchell, M. S. 2008. Unethical leader behavior and employee workplace deviance and the moderating effects of need for affiliation and moral identity. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual conference, San Francisco, CA. Unpublished manuscript. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1159-68. Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. 2010. Understanding the managerial relevance of ethical efficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (vol. 2): 89-108. New York: Routledge. Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., Tepper, B. J., & Palmer, N. F 2010. Justifying supervisor abuse: Subordinate performance, moral disengagement, and need for achievement. Presentation at the meeting of Academy of Management, Montral, CA. Unpublished manuscript. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. Self-regulatory and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126: 247-59.
612
Neubert, M. J,, Carlson, D, S,, Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. 2009, The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90: 157-70. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. 1998. Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24: 391^19. O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. 1996. Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21: 22553, Opotow, S. 1990. Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46: 1-20. Pelletier, K. L., & Bligh, M. C. 2008, The aftermath of organizational corruption: Employee attributions and emotional reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80: 823-44. Peters, G, 2002. From good and bad to can and must: Subjective necessity of acts associated with positively and negatively valued stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 125-36. Piccolo, R, F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R., 2010. The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 259-78. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S, 1999, Fairness percepfions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25: 897-933. Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. 2008. Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33: 685-709. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformafional leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Laders/ii/; uarter/y, 1: 107-42. Postmes, T., & Jetten, J, 2006, Reconciling individuality and the group. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity: 258-69. London: Sage. Reed, A,, II, & Aquino, K. F. 2003. Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 1270-86. Resick, C , Hanges, P., Dickson, M., & Mitchelson, J. 2006. A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63: 345-59. Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. 2007. The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1610-24. Riketta, M. 2005, Organizafional idenfificafion: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 358-84. Robertson, D. C , & Rymon, T. 2001. Purchasing agents' deceptive behavior: A randomized response technique study. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11: 455-79.
613
Robinson, S., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 658-72. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling siuy. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555-72. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. 2001. Negafivity bias, negafivity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5: 296-320. Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C , & Brown, M. E., 2010. Do ethical leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 215-36. Salancik, G. J., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-53. Salvador, R., & Folger, R. 2009. Business ethics and the brain. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 1-31. Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. 2002. How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1120-36. Schein, E. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Neubaum, D. O. 2005. The effect of leader moral development on ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 135-51. Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyreffite, J., & Sebora, T. C. 2002. Leadership and ethics in work groups: A longitudinal assessment. Group and Organization Management, 27: 272-93. Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-53. Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. 2008. Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18:513^0. Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. 2002. Leaders as moral role models: The case of John Gutfreund at Salomon Brothers. Journal of Business Ethics, 35: 327-39. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and inteTactiona] justice. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82: 43443. Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D., & Walker, D. 2008. Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93: 1335^7. Sy, T., Ct, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 295-305. Tajfel, H. 1978. Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations: 61-76. London: Academic Press.
614
1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Psychology, 33: 1-39.
Review of
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of group relations: 33-47. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tangney, J. P. 1991. Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61: 598-607. Tangney, J. R, & Dearing, R. L. 2002. Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford Press. Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178-90. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33: 261-89. Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C , Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C , & Hua, W. 2009. Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees' workplace deviance: A power/ dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109: 156-67. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. 2006. Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59: 101-23. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. 2001. Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 974-83. Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. 2008. Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 721-32. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. In press. Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. 2007. Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1169-80. Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. 2007. Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: The relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92: 840-47. Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. 2009. How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 79-92. Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. In press. Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Examining two explanations of the supervisor abuse-employee deviance relationship through distributive justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology.
615
Thomas, T., Schermerhorn, J. R., & Dienhart, J. W. 2004. Strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business. Academy of Management Executive, 18: 56-66. Toor, S., & Ofori, G. 2009. Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90: 533-47. Trevio, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11: 601-17. Trevio, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. 2003. A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 55: 5-37. Trevio, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. 2000. Moral person and moral manager: How executive develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management
Review, 42: 128^2.

Trevio, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Brown, M. E. 2008. It's lovely at the top: Hierarchical levels, identities, and perceptions of organizational ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18:233-53. Trevio, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. 2006. Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32: 951-90. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. 2002. Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 304-11. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106: 1039-61. Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs influencing unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 769-80. van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. 2003. A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 243-95. Vardi, Y, & Weitz, E. 2005. Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Verona, E., Reed, A., II, & Aquino, K. F. 2003. Automatic and controlled processes of aggression activation and regulation: The role of negative affect, ruminative content and identity driven self-control mechanisms. University of Pennsylvania. Unpublished manuscript. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wemsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. 2008. Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34: 89-126. Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological sai&ty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1275-86.
616
Weaver, G. R., and Brown, M. E. In press. Moral foundations at work: new factors to consider in understanding the nature and role of ethics in organizations. In A. Tenbrunsel & D. De Cremer (Eds.), Behavioral business ethics: Ideas on an emerging field. Psychology Press/Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Weaver, G. R., Trevio, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. 1999. Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 41-57. Weber, M. 1920. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Weiss, H., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18: 1-74. Yeager, P. C. 1986. Analyzing corporate offenses: Progress and prospects. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 8: 93-120. Yussen, S. R., & Levy Jr., V. M. 1975. Effects of warm and neutral models on the attention of observational learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20: 66-72. Zellers, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1068-76.
Copyright of Business Ethics Quarterly is the property of Philosophy Documentation Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Brown and Mitchell 2010 (Ethical and Unethical Leadership)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brown and Mitchell 2010 (Ethical and Unethical Leadership)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New Avenues for Euture Research

Michael E. Brown and Marie S. Mitchell

2010 Business Ethics Quarterly 20:4 (October 2010); ISSN 1052-150X

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Psychology, 33: 1-39.

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Review, 42: 128^2.

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

You might also like