J Bus Ethics (2016) 137:743755

DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2747-5

The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications

for Supervisors Performance and Promotability Evaluations
Chaim Letwin1 David Wo2 Robert Folger3 Darryl Rice4 Regina Taylor5
Brendan Richard3 Shannon Taylor3

Received: 30 November 2013 / Accepted: 28 June 2015 / Published online: 7 July 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Substantial research demonstrates that ethical

leaders improve a broad range of outcomes for their
employees, but considerably less attention has been devoted to the performance and success of the leaders themselves. The present study explores the extent to which
being ethical relates to leaders performance and promotability. We address this question by examining ethical
leadership from the two ethical perspectives most common
in Western traditionsi.e., the right and the good
and whether one might be more closely associated than the
other with performance and promotability evaluations.
Results from 117 employee-supervisor-manager triads
show that supervisors with a deontological outlook are
more likely to be seen as ethical leaders (given current
conceptualizations of the construct) and that utilitarian
leaders are more likely to earn higher performance evaluations (above these current conceptions). We discuss the
implications of these findings for research on ethical
leadership.

& Chaim Letwin

cletwin@suffolk.edu
1

Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Suffolk

University, Boston, MA 02108, USA

Department of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse,

NY 13244, USA

Department of Management, University of Central Florida,

Orlando, FL 32816, USA

Department of Management, Farmer School of Business,

Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA

Management & Marketing Department, Heider College of

Business, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178, USA

Keywords Deontology
Ethics
Ethical leadership

Leadership
Performance
Promotability
Utilitarianism
All ethical doctrines worth our attention take consequences into account
in judging rightness. One which did not would simply be irrational, crazy.
Rawls (1971, p. 30).

Introduction
What is the ethical way to behave? Philosophers have long
noted that the two most prominent perspectives on ethics,
known as the right and the good (Audi 2009; Brandt
1979; Ross 2002), can yield conflicting answers. The former perspective is deontological, and its most famous
exponent is Immanuel Kant. It classifies behaviors into the
categories of right (ethical) and wrong (unethical). Lying,
cheating, and stealing, for example, would fall into the
unethical category. The alternative perspective is called
consequentialist because of its premise that no action can
be declared ethical or unethical without considering the
results. A utilitarian version of consequentialism (famously espoused by J. S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham) calls
for examining the results of various behaviors to determine
which one(s) lead to the greatest good for the greatest
numberthat benefits outweigh harms. If a lie in a given
situation would cause only limited harm offset by substantial benefit for the good of all, then a utilitarian consequentialist would disagree with a deontologists
inclination to call lying unethical (at least in that case).
Thus, the words right and good might be used
somewhat interchangeably in ordinary conversation, but as
opposing ethical viewpoints they might often be in conflict
with one another.

123

744

In organizations, leaders are likely to feel a similar tension.

By virtue of their positions in the middle of the organizational
hierarchy, supervisors are caught between constituents with
different goals and approaches to ethics. Naturally, the
managers to whom supervisors report want them to do
good, to accomplish the best outcomes for the organization
and its stakeholders. Managers perspective on leader effectiveness is likely often more utilitarian in the ethical sense, in
that it reflects performance of the work unit and contribution
to the broader organization. At the same time, the subordinates who report to supervisors want them to do what is
right, such as being fair in their interactions with them, and
providing them examples of appropriate ethical behavior.
Subordinates perspective on leader effectiveness is likely to
be more deontological in the ethical sense, namely reflecting
principled behavior such as being honest with and dedicated
to followers (Brown et al. 2005).
Given this potential for conflicting views about ethical
leaders and their effectiveness, it is not surprising that
research on the subject has produced mixed results. Whereas
several studies show that ethical leaders improve outcomes
for subordinates (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, task, and contextual performance; Brown et al.
2005; Ruiz et al. 2011), the direct repercussions for supervisors are less clear. Prior attempts to link ethical leadership
with leader-level outcomes, such as favorable manager
evaluations of performance and promotability, have yielded
weak or inconsistent results (Detert et al. 2007; Rubin et al.
2010). Thus, it seems that research on ethical leadership
could enhance understanding and contribute to theory and
practice if it considered both bottom-up (i.e., subordinate)
and top-down (i.e., manager) perspectives.
The present study broadly explores the tensions leaders
face in trying to serve those to whom they report and those
who report to them. More specifically, the current research
examines the relationships ethical leadership has with
supervisor performance and promotability, and how
supervisors ethical ideologies (viz., utilitarianism, deontology) influence these important leader-level outcomes.
Some might suggest that supervisors waste their time trying to behave ethically (e.g., fail to affect their performance
evaluations and promotability) because the managers who
determine their fate give ethics a low priority, at least
relative to pressures to meet the bottom line. We suggest,
however, this view is not only cynical but also simplistic,
partly because the relevant evidence requires taking into
account the type of ethical outlook that guides a given
supervisors behavior. We propose that although supervisors with a deontological outlook are more likely to be seen
as ethical leaders by some standards, those who adopt a
utilitarian approach are more likely to be seen as effective
(i.e., to achieve higher performance and promotability
evaluations).

123

C. Letwin et al.

In attempting to answer recent calls for a broader perspective on ethical leadership (Fehr et al. 2015), our study
makes three contributions to the ethical leadership literature.
First, we provide a more complete theoretical account of
ethical leadership by jointly considering the perspectives of
subordinates and managers. By considering both viewpoints,
we elucidate a theoretical perspective that supplements traditional bottom-up explanations (e.g., Brown et al. 2005) and
extends the relatively neglected top-down view of supervisors ethical behavior (see Fig. 1). In doing so, we build on
the few studies to explore leader-level outcomes of ethical
leadership (e.g., Rubin et al. 2010) in an attempt to clarify
previous results. Our theorizing and results support the
notion that managers perceptions of ethical leadership are
more strongly associated with leader performance than are
subordinates views of ethical leaders. Moreover, our
investigation offers insights into ethical leadership regarding
the right and the good as twin pillars of Western ethical
philosophy. Thus, our second contribution stems from our
exploring the extent to which supervisors ethical ideologies
are associated with their (perceived) leadership behavior,
and whether they explain variance in leader outcomes (i.e.,
performance and promotability) above and beyond ethical
leadership. As we later explain, integrating the long history
of utilitarian and deontological moral philosophy with more
recent research on ethical leadership has important theoretical, empirical, and practical implications. Finally, testing
our predictions with data from subordinate-supervisormanager triads across a variety of industries and organizations extends the generalizability of prior research that has
relied on vignettes (Brady and Wheeler 1996; Fritzsche and
Becker 1984; Groves et al. 2008; Premeaux 2004; Premeaux
and Mondy 1993).

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Ethical Leadership: Views from Above and Below
To date, researchers have primarily considered ethical leadership from subordinates point of view, or what we refer to as
the bottom up (see Brown and Mitchell 2010, for a review).
The tendency to assess ethical leadership from subordinates
viewpoint naturally flows from the theoretical perspective on
which it is based, social learning theory (Bandura 1977,
1986), which focuses on how supervisors influence their
followers via modeling behaviors (Brown et al. 2005). This
view of ethical leadership is appropriate when considering
employee-level outcomes such as employee job satisfaction,
but Brown and Trevino (2006) observed that others views
may provide interesting insights and be more appropriate
when other types of outcomes are being considered. Thus, to
determine how ethical supervisors influence their managers

The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance

745

Manager
perceptions of
ethical leadership

Deontology

Leader outcomes
Performance
Promotability

Utilitarianism

Subordinate
perceptions of
ethical leadership
Fig. 1 Conceptual model

perceptions and the outcomes that flow from this influence

(viz., supervisor performance and promotability), we suggest
that the traditional theoretical approach must be supplemented with a perspective that also considers ethical leadership from managers point of view, or what we label a topdown perspective.
There are several reasons why a top-down account of
ethical leadership offers a unique and meaningful complement to the existing bottom-up perspective. First, managers
and subordinates have opportunities to observe different
leader behaviors (Craig and Hannum 2006; Oh and Berry
2009). Theory suggests individuals develop beliefs as a
function of their own social context, the information available to them, and their current and past reality (Salancik and
Pfeffer 1978). Clearly, members at different levels within
organizational hierarchies live in different social contexts,
have different information available to them, and experience
unique realities. In particular, managers are often in a better
position to judge the impact that supervisors can have on the
good of the organization as a whole. In contrast, the ethical
leadership behaviors viewed by subordinates more often
focus on subordinate-level outcomes, which may be less
directly related to leader-level or organizational outcomes.
For example, ethical leaders discipline employees who violate ethical standards (Brown et al. 2005). Whereas subordinates may have many opportunities to view leaders
informally disciplining employees for minor ethical infractions (e.g., taking office supplies home), the manager may
never become aware of such disciplinary actions and,
moreover, may not consider them to have serious implications for the organization. Alternatively, managers may be
aware of formal disciplinary actions regarding severe ethical
violations (e.g., fraud) to which the leaders subordinates are
not privy. Such infractions, however, have potentially serious unit-level or organization-wide consequences. We

acknowledge that it might be possible under some long-term

conditions for even minor ethical infractions to become
related to performance (cf. Skarlicki and Folger 1997);
however, the predominant impact on performance seems
especially likely for major infractions.
Other literature suggests that managers and subordinates
may have different views about what constitutes appropriate
leadership behavior (Alimo-Metcalfe 1998; Hauenstein and
Foti 1989). For instance, Burnes and By (2012) suggest that
subordinates may judge ethical leaders by their adherence to
ethical rules, whereas managers may evaluate leaders ethicality by the results they achieve or other benefits they bring
to an organization. Consistent with this notion, research
suggests managers may be more attuned to ethical leadership
behaviors that have organizational consequences and, as
such, may be related to ratings of leader performance
(Groves et al. 2008; Premeaux 2004; Premeaux and Mondy
1993). Subordinates may not be aware of, attuned to, or care
about such consequences and the criteria by which managers
judge such consequences. For example, ethical leaders are
thought to act with the best interests of employees in mind
(Brown et al. 2005). A manager may view a leaders firing of
unproductive workers as having employees best interests in
mindand, hence, deem the act as ethicalbecause the
manager understands low unit productivity could result in
lower firm performance or additional layoffs. Subordinates,
however, may not understand the consequences of the leaders actions, and as such may not view termination of fellow
employees as an ethical leadership behavior. Given their
different frames of reference (see also Lord and Maher
1991), it seems likely managers and subordinates may differ
in regard to what behaviors they view as ethical leadership.
This likewise implies that ethical behaviors viewed by
managers may be more strongly related to important leaderlevel outcomes such as performance and promotability.

123

746

Finally, managers and subordinates may have different

views because ethical leaders behave in ways that take into
account the various needs of multiple stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston 1995; Jones and Wicks 1999). Although
typically focused at the organization level, research in this
tradition suggests that leaders who effectively manage various
stakeholder interests simultaneously are more likely to
achieve personal and organizational success (e.g., performance) and growth (e.g., promotion). Of course, leaders might
behave fairly or ethically without regard for such consequences (e.g., Folger 1998, 2001). Regardless of which of
these reasons shapes the behavior (see Donaldson and Preston
1995), the results can converge to demonstrate leaders moral
and practical effectiveness, especially to the managers who
assess leaders and the organizations performance (Jones and
Wicks 1999). Thus, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 1 Managers perceptions of ethical leadership will be positively and more strongly related than
subordinates perceptions of ethical leadership to leader
(a) performance and (b) promotability.
Leaders Ethical Ideologies: Ethical Leadership
in terms of Right and Good
The arguments above make reference to two motives or ideologies underlying the behaviors of ethical leaders. One focuses on the means, or behaviors that seem right by their very
nature, whereas the other focuses on the ends, or achieving
what is good. Brady and Wheeler (1996, p. 927) maintain
that this is perhaps the single most important distinction in the
history of the development of ethical theory. Although many
different terms describe variations of these ideologies, we
follow Brady and Wheeler (1996) in using the terms utilitarianism and deontology to represent families of ideological
positions. Utilitarianism emphasizes the creation of good
consequences (e.g., the greatest good for the greatest number
is one version), which thus becomes the touchstone for classifying a behavior as being moral (Baron 1993; Gaus 2001a, b).
In contrast, deontology evaluates ethical situations with regard
to their consistent conformity to some formal feature such as a
pattern or rule. According to this ideology, morality depends on
the intrinsic nature of an act itself (Kant 1959).
Ethical leadership scholars recognize the distinction
between these two ethical ideologies and their importance.
Trevino and Brown (2004), for instance, noted that leaders
apply both utilitarian and deontological frameworks when
considering ethical dilemmas. They further noted that in
the most challenging ethical dilemmas, the solutions provided by each framework might conflict with each other.
We suggest it is this complexity that makes the consideration of both frameworks essential when examining ethical
leadership (see also Brown and Trevino 2006).

123

C. Letwin et al.

The most widely employed definition of ethical leadership was developed by Brown et al. (2005), who define
ethical leadership as the demonstration of normatively
appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct
to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making (p. 120). We suggest this and
other (e.g., Kalshoven et al. 2011) conceptualizations of
ethical leadership tend to emphasize a deontological perspective. For instance, ethical leaders are widely thought to
explain, follow, and hold subordinates accountable to
codes of ethical conduct (e.g., Brown et al. 2005; Kalshoven et al. 2011). Moreover, ethical leaders are believed
to possess high levels of character and integrity, which
dispose them to do the right thing or otherwise act in
accordance with moral rules (e.g., Brown et al. 2005;
Resick et al. 2006). These sorts of leadership behaviors are
deontological in nature, in that they reflect the importance
of ethical standards or guidelines.
This is not to say, however, that ethical leaders cannot
possess utilitarian ideologies. For instance, Brown et al.
(2005) maintain that when making decisions, ethical leaders
consider the ethical consequences of their actions. By and
large, however, deontology is embodied in the entire notion
of ethical leadership (Resick et al. 2006, p. 348, emphasis
added). We suggest the weight given to the deontological
perspective is due in large part to prior works reliance on
social learning theory, which focuses on the degree to which
supervisors demonstrate and uphold ethical rules. Thus,
although scholars appear to have envisioned ethical leadership as incorporating both the consequences of leaders
behaviors and the behaviors themselves, the extent to which
supervisors guide their behavior according to the ethics of
utilitarianism will likely be less strongly related to their
(perceived) ethical leadership than will the extent to which
they act according to the ethics of deontology. In other words,
we expect leaders deontological ideology to be more
strongly associated with managers and subordinates perceptions of their ethical leadership than will their utilitarian
ideology. Based on the previous reasoning and available literature, we therefore hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2 Leaders deontological ideology will be
positively and more strongly related to ethical leadership
than leaders utilitarian ideology, considering either
(a) manager perceptions or (b) subordinate perceptions of
ethical leadership.
Utilitarianism, Ethical Leadership, and LeaderLevel Outcomes
By most accounts (Brown et al. 2005; Kalshoven et al.
2011; Resick et al. 2006), the decisions and behaviors of

The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance

ethical leaders seem more oriented toward a deontological

perspective and less toward utilitarian principles. Although
the former might be more closely aligned with supervisors
(perceived) ethical leadership, the latter should more
strongly relate to their assessments of performance and
promotability. Thus, utilitarianism seems likely to explain
supervisors performance and promotability above and
beyond their ethical leadership behavior. A utilitarian
outlook seems particularly relevant to leader-level outcomes because supervisors consideration of the consequences for the overall good of the organization is likely to
be a key factor taken into account when managers assess
their performance and promotability. Moreover, because
utilitarian leaders tend to assess the benefits and costs of
possible action, aiming to maximize the interests of various
stakeholders (e.g., subordinates, managers, the leaders
themselves; Brady and Wheeler 1996; Burnes and By
2012; Fritzsche and Becker 1984), their ethical ideology is
likely to explain performance and promotability beyond
other, more deontologically oriented ethical leadership
behaviors.
From a deontological point of view, maximizing various
stakeholders interests is less likely to be determinative in
the ethical decision-making process and more characteristically the byproduct of an ethical decision. That is, a
utilitarian might consider the outcome for the organization,
society, or employees when judging whether a decision is
ethical, whereas a deontologist might be less inclined to do
soand would instead be more attuned to principles for
evaluating the ethicality of the behavior itself. Thus, any
positive outcome related to a deontologists ethical decision might be a side-effect of behaving ethically but not the
point of or direct result of the ethical decision. This
assertion seems to be supported by research, which has
noted that ethical behavior may be a supportive rather
causal mechanism in regard to job performance (Rubin
et al. 2010, p. 227). Accordingly, we suggest that the
utilitarian thinking of ethical leaders is more directly
related to leader-level outcomes such as performance and
promotability. In light of these considerations, we anticipate that supervisors utilitarian ideology will predict their
job performance and promotability over and above subordinate and manager perceptions of ethical leadership,
which seem less directed toward the considerations central
to utilitarian ethical criteria. Therefore, based on the logic
and findings above, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3 Leaders utilitarian ideology will be positively related to job performance above and beyond
(a) manager perceptions or (b) subordinate perceptions of
ethical leadership.
Hypothesis 4 Leaders utilitarian ideology will be positively related to promotability above and beyond

747

(a) manager perceptions or (b) subordinate perceptions of

ethical leadership.

Method
Sample and Procedure
We collected data from 117 triads working at organizations
in the southeastern U.S. Each triad consisted of an
employee, his or her supervisor (the focal leader), and the
supervisors supervisor (the manager). Participants were
employed in financial, insurance, real estate, retail, food
service, and healthcare organizations. Data collection
began by having student participants at a large southeastern
university, identified a contact employee who worked at
least 20 h per week. Each contact employee was given a
unique and confidential identification number and asked to
complete our subordinate survey. We also asked that each
subordinate forward to his or her direct supervisor the
unique identification number, an invitation, and the link to
the supervisor survey. Participating supervisors in turn
forwarded to their direct supervisor (the manager) the
unique identification number, an invitation, and the link to
the manager survey. A number of behavioral ethics
researchers have used similar approaches when collecting
data (e.g., Grant and Mayer 2009; Mayer et al. 2009;
Piccolo et al. 2010). Subordinate participants provided
ratings of their supervisors (focal leaders) level of ethical
leadership. The participants who were the focal leaders (the
supervisors) provided ratings of their own ethical ideology
(utilitarian and deontological) as well as their moral identity. Managers provided ratings of their subordinates (the
focal leaders) level of ethical leadership, job performance,
and promotability. All respondents were assured
confidentiality.
Two hundred and eighty-two subordinates (contact
employees) were identified and completed our subordinate
survey out of a total of 1041 students who were invited to
identify a contact employee (27 %). Associated with these
282 subordinates, 177 of their direct supervisors completed
the supervisor survey (63 %), and 155 pairs of supervisors
and managers completed both the supervisor and manager
survey (55 %). This led to a complete sample of 155 triads.
Consistent with recommendations by Meade and Craig
(2012), we removed nine cases where subordinates indicated that we should not use their data (6 %), 18 cases
where they incorrectly answered a question that instructed
them to Disagree (12 %), and 25 cases where a global
review of the IP addresses, the start and finish times of
different surveys, and the time it took to complete each
survey suggested we had not obtained unique respondents
(16 %). Cumulatively, 38 triads were removed (25 %),

123

748

resulting in a final sample of 132 subordinate-supervisor

dyads and 117 triads.
The subordinate sample was 63 % female; 54 % Caucasian/White, 20 % Hispanic, 13 % African American,
5 % Asian, and 8 % identified as other. On average, subordinates were 27 years old, had 5 years of experience with
their current employer, had worked for their direct supervisor for 3 years, and worked 32 h per week. The supervisor sample was 56 % female; 64 % Caucasian/White,
21 % Hispanic, 8 % African American, and 5 % identified
as other. On average, supervisors were 39 years old, had
9 years of experience with their current employer, had
worked for their direct supervisor for 4 years and worked
43 h per week. The manager sample was 65 % male; 65 %
Caucasian/White, 16 % Hispanic, 5 % African American,
and 5 % identified as other. On average, managers in our
sample were 45 years old and had 12 years of experience
with their current employer.
Measures
Ethical Leadership
Managers and subordinates assessed the supervisors ethical leadership with a 10-item measure developed by Brown
et al. (2005). Participants were asked to rate the extent to
which they agreed that the focal leader, for instance,
Conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner and
When making decisions, asks what is the right thing to
do. These statements were anchored on a 5-point
response format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree).
Deontological and Utilitarian Ethical Orientations
To assess supervisors deontological and utilitarian orientations, we utilized the character trait version of Brady and
Wheelers (1996) Measure of Ethical Viewpoints. This
measure assesses levels of utilitarian and deontological
predispositions by asking supervisors to indicate the extent
to which they agreed that certain character traits are
important on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree;
5 = strongly agree). We calculated scores for each factor
by averaging the responses to the items of each scale.
Job Performance
Managers assessed supervisor job performance with three
items from Williams and Andersons (1991) measure.
Managers were asked to rate the extent to which they
agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with
statements about their subordinate (i.e., the supervisor).
Sample items include Fulfills the responsibilities in his/

123

C. Letwin et al.

her job description

expectations.

and

Meets

performance

Promotability
Managers assessed supervisor promotability with a threeitem measure from Harris et al. (2006). Participants were
asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with statements about the focal supervisor such as If I had to select
a successor for my position, it would be this employee
and I believe that this subordinate will have a successful
career using a 5-point response format (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Control Variables
In all of our analyses, we controlled for supervisor age and
sex. We also controlled for supervisors moral identity, as
it has been shown to be an antecedent of ethical leadership
(Mayer et al. 2012). We assessed moral identity with the
five-item internalization dimension of Aquino and Reeds
(2002) measure.

Results
Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the study variables.
Although we collected data from subordinates, supervisors,
and managers, the proposed relationships in Hypothesis 1
concern predictor and outcome variables rated by the same
source (i.e., managers). To determine whether these relationships were influenced by same-source bias, we followed Podsakoff et al.s (2003) recommendation to
examine common method variance in our data with Harmans single-factor test. We did so by entering the study
variable items into an unrotated principle components
exploratory factor analysis. As Williams et al. (1989)
explain, a problematic amount of same-source bias would
be indicated by the emergence of a single factor or one that
accounts for more than 25 % of the total item variance. The
results of our analysis revealed that multiple factors
emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and that no
factor accounted for more than 25 % of the total variance.
These results suggest that same-source bias is unlikely to
confound our ensuing hypothesis tests.
Hypothesis Tests
We tested our hypotheses using multiple regression analysis. We should note that for each hypothesis test, all

The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance

749

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

M

SD
11.64

Supervisor age

38.98

Supervisor sex

1.56

0.49

-.02

Supervisor moral identity

4.40

0.62

-.03

-.07

Ethical leadership (subordinaterated)

4.00

0.72

-.02

.10

.05

Ethical leadership (manager-rated)

4.27

0.55

.13

.12

.13

.42**

Utilitarian ideology

4.33

0.64

.05

-.06

.45**

.03

7
8

Deontological ideology
Job performance

4.59
4.52

0.62
0.62

.12
.01

-.02
.15

Promotability

4.15

0.70

.02

.14

(.92)
.12

(.97)

(.73)
(.91)

.61**
-.06

.16
.14

-.09

.08

(.92)
.05

(.91)

.20*
.36**

.76**
.15

.32**

.01

.01

.64**

(.78)

n = 117 for manager variables and n = 132 for subordinate/supervisor variables. Sex was coded 1 = male, 2 = female
Alpha reliabilities appear in parentheses

p \ .10

* p \ .05
** p \ .01

variance inflation factor statistics were below 10, suggesting multicollinearity was unlikely (Chatterjee and Price
1977). We also employed formal tests to determine whether one predictor was more strongly related than another
to a particular outcome. Specifically, the Clogg test (Clogg
et al. 1995) compares regression coefficients between
models (i.e., raters), and the Wald test compares regression
coefficients within models (i.e., raters). Thus, we employed
the former to test Hypothesis 1, which compares manager
and subordinate ratings of ethical leadership, and the latter
to test Hypothesis 2, which compares the difference
between deontology and utilitarian ideologies (both rated
by supervisors).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that manager ratings of ethical
leadership would be more strongly related than subordinate
ratings to leader performance and promotability. The
regression results reported in Table 2 provide preliminary
support for this hypothesis, as managers perceptions of
ethical leadership appear more strongly associated with
leader performance (b = .37, p \ .01) and promotability
(b = .34, p \ .01) than do subordinate perceptions of
ethical leadership (b = .12 and .06, both ns). To formally
test Hypothesis 1, we followed procedures suggested by
Clogg et al. (1995) by conducting Z-test significance difference comparisons for the type of rater (managers vs.
subordinates). Z-scores were derived by dividing the difference between the unstandardized coefficients (for manager and subordinate ratings of ethical leadership) by the
square root of the sum of their squared standard errors.
Based on the Z-scores, manager and subordinate ratings of
ethical leadership were significantly different in predicting
job performance (Z = 2.34, p \ .05) and promotability

(Z = 2.40, p \ .05).1 As manager perceptions of ethical

leadership were more strongly associated than subordinate
perceptions with leader-level outcomes, Hypothesis 1 was
supported.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that supervisors deontological
ideology would be positively and more strongly related to
subordinate and manager ratings of ethical leadership than
would supervisors utilitarian ideology. These results are
reported in Table 3. In testing this hypothesis, we entered
control variables in step 1 and the main effects for both
utilitarian and deontological ideologies in step 2. As seen
in the table, deontological ideology was positively associated with subordinate (b = .36, p \ .05) and manager
(b = .35, p \ .05) ratings of ethical leadership. Results
further revealed that utilitarian ideology demonstrated nonsignificant relationships with subordinate (b = -.20, ns)
and manager (b = -.24, ns) ratings of ethical leadership.
We then conducted multiple Wald tests to confirm that the
relationships between these ethical ideologies and ethical
leadership were significantly different (see Chatterji and
Toffel 2010). Wald statistics revealed that deontological
ideology was significantly more related to ethical leadership than utilitarian ideology when rated by subordinates
(F = 4.54, p \ .05) or managers (F = 4.22, p \ .05).
These results support Hypothesis 2.
1

Z-scores were computed according to Clogg et al.s method from

the following statistics: In predicting job performance, the unstandardized regression coefficient for subordinate ratings of ethical
leadership was .11 with a standard error of .09; the coefficient for
manager ratings was .42 with a standard error of .10. For promotability, the coefficients for subordinate and manager ratings of ethical
leadership were .06 (SE = .10) and .42 (SE = .11), respectively.

123

750

C. Letwin et al.

Table 2 Regression results

predicting job performance and
promotability

Job performance
1

2a

Promotability
2b

2a

2b

Control variables
Age

.01

.00

-.06

.01

.01

Sex

.15

.13

.10

.14

.13

.09

-.04

-.16

-.08

-.11

-.17

Moral identity

-.21*

-.04

Independent variables
Subordinate-rated ethical leadership

.12

Manager-rated ethical leadership

Utilitarian ideology
R2

.06
.37**

.02

DR2

.23*

.24*

.08

.20

.06*

.17**

.34**
.03

.07

.08

.03

.14

.01

.11**

n = 117 or 132 depending on the level of the variable. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. DR2
values may not sum exactly to R2 values due to rounding

p \ .10

* p \ .05
** p \ .01

Table 3 Regression results predicting subordinate and manager ratings of ethical leadership
Subordinate ratings

Manager ratings

Control variables
Age

-.01

-.05

.13

.10

Sex

.10

.09

.14

.12

Moral identity

.06

-.07

.15

.04

utilitarian ideology and job performance after accounting

for the effects of ethical leadership when rated by subordinates (b = .23, p \ .05) and managers (b = .24,
p \ .05). These results provide support for Hypothesis 3.
Shown in the right panel of Table 2, models 2a and 2b
illustrate that utilitarian ideology did not predict promotability after accounting for the effects of ethical leadership
when rated by subordinates (b = .07, ns) or managers
(b = .08, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Independent variables
Utilitarian ideology

-.20

Deontological ideology
2

.01

DR2

-.24

.36*
.06
.04*

.35*
.06

.09
.04

n = 117 or 132 depending on the level of the variable. Standardized

regression coefficients are shown. DR2 values may not sum exactly to
R2 values due to rounding

p \ .10

* p \ .05
** p \ .01

Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted that supervisors utilitarian ideology would be positively related to job performance and promotability, respectively, above and beyond
ethical leadership, as rated by either subordinates or managers. In testing these hypotheses, we entered control
variables in step 1 and the main effects for ethical leadership (subordinate- or manager-rated) and utilitarian ideology in step 2. As shown in the left panel of Table 2,
models 2a and 2b reveal a positive relationship between

123

Discussion
As Fehr et al. (2015) recently observed, current research
has primarily adopted a narrow conceptualization of
ethical leadership, founded on specific assumptions about
the content of the moral domain (p. 38). They further
maintain that although anyone can moralize a leaders
actions, to date research has exclusively considered the
bottom-up perspective from subordinates. In building on
Fehr et al.s (2015) work, we point to avenues that consider
[the] need to take a broader perspective on ethical leadership (p. 7). Specifically, in highlighting the importance
of both bottom-up and top-down perspectives, our study
points to the value of considering leader-level outcomes
that flow from ethical leadership. We pursued this research
because bottom-up perspectives do not incorporate the
tensions leaders likely face when trying to serve two
masters (those to whom they report and those who report to
them). Top-down perspectives and the ethical underpinnings related to these perspectives incorporate these tensions; this more holistically captures the competing

The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance

challenges of ethical leadership and appears predictive of

leader-level outcomes.
Theoretical Implications
Our study demonstrates the value of the view from above
when considering the influence that ethical leadership has
on leader-level outcomes. Specifically, our findings showed
manager perceptions of supervisors ethical leadership to
be more strongly related than subordinate perceptions to
the supervisors performance and promotability. Interestingly, and in line with prior findings, we did not find
subordinates perceptions of ethical leadership to have any
relation with leader-level outcomes. Brown and Trevino
(2006) have noted that employee perceptions of ethical
leadership are particularly appropriate for employee-related outcomes (e.g., prosocial behavior), but that the
perceptions of others, such as senior level managers, may
be more appropriate for other outcome variables (e.g.,
organization-level decisions). Thus, our results suggest that
managers perceptions of ethical leadership may be more
appropriate thanor at least should be considered in
concert withsubordinates perceptions when evaluating
the impact that ethical leadership has on supervisors job
performance and promotability.
The view from above may be particularly valuable when
considering leader-level outcomes for multiple reasons.
First, managers and subordinates operate at different levels
within organizational hierarchies and have different information available to them. As such, they have unique vantage points when it comes to viewing supervisors actual
ethical leadership behaviors. Further, managers are likely
better situated to glean information related to how supervisors behaviors affect organizational outcomes. Second,
managers and subordinates also live in different social
contexts and experience unique realities; thus, they may
perceive the same information differently. Specifically, a
manager may be particularly attuned to the ethicality of
behaviors that have consequences for multiple stakeholders, whereas a subordinate is likely more attuned to the
ethicality of supervisor behaviors that affect the subordinate. As such, subordinates and managers may not notice
or may differently interpret the same information. This
appears particularly relevant as supervisors who effectively
manage various stakeholder interests simultaneously are
more likely to both personally succeed and help the organization succeed.
In further assessing the value of a top-down perspective
to ethical leadership, we considered how ethics scholars
have incorporated moral philosophy (i.e., deontology and
utilitarianism) into the conceptualization that underlies
ethical leadership. Specifically, we note that managers have
a tendency to rely on a utilitarian perspective, so

751

considering managers perspectives in concert with subordinates perspectives provides a more ethically balanced
discussion of ethical leadership. Our results are consistent
with the conclusion that current approaches to ethical
leadership tend to emphasize deontological considerations
and not those of utilitarianism, which may limit how well
the construct would relate to leader-level outcomes such as
performance and promotability. Our results thus suggest
that a more balanced approach to ethical leadership in
organizational settings might shed new light on the relationships with leader-level outcomes.
A review of the literature showed that multiple conceptualizations of ethical leadership have emphasized the
importance of a deontological perspective as compared to a
utilitarian one (De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Kalshoven et al. 2011; Resick et al. 2006). For the purposes of
this paper, we specifically considered the behaviors that
flow from Brown et al. (2005) conceptualization of ethical
leadership because of its widespread use. Support for
Hypothesis 2 shows that perceptions of supervisors ethical
leadership, whether by managers or subordinates, were
exclusively related to the deontological tendencies of
supervisors and not to their utilitarian tendencies. Although
current definitions and conceptualizations of ethical leadership research would not necessarily lead one to suspect
the construct to be wholly unrelated to utilitarianism, this
finding may not be surprising to some given the way ethical
leadership is operationalized (see Empirical Implications below for further discussion of this point). This
result suggests that it is possible for some perspectives on
ethical leadership to cast supervisors with a deontological
ideology in a more favorable light relative to those with a
utilitarian one. If a utilitarian ideology does give legitimate
ethical guidance, as one stream of modern philosophy
maintains, perhaps the leadership of at least some utilitarian supervisors will be viewed as less ethical than what a
more balanced perspective on ethics would warrant.
Our results also show that a utilitarian ideology predicted job performance over and above ethical leadership,
supporting Hypothesis 3. As noted, leaders with a utilitarian ethical ideology may focus on achieving the greatest
good and maximizing the best interests of various stakeholders and the organization as a whole (e.g., Burnes and
By 2012; Fritzsche and Becker 1984). Furthermore, utilitarians consider the consequences of their actions, and
hence this outcome maximization may be the direct result
of their ethical decision-making process. Thus, it appears
that the utilitarian portion of the ethical leadership construct may be the portion that is most positively related to
performance and that the ethical leadership constructs
limited ability to predict leader performance may be partially caused by a relative emphasis on a deontological
perspective. In other words, these results suggest that

123

752

incorporating more utilitarian aspects of ethics into the

conceptualization (and operationalizations) of ethical
leadership may allow the construct to better predict job
performance. Exploring ethical leadership based on utilitarianism and not only deontology is necessary for a more
thorough understanding of the links between ethical leadership and performance.
To our surprise, we did not find a utilitarian ethical
ideology to predict promotability over and above ethical
leadership. It is notable that job performance focuses on
leaders performing their current job duties, whereas promotability focuses on leaders long-term potential. Thus, it
appears that leaders high in a utilitarian ideology perform
better in their current position but are not viewed to have
any greater long-term potential than less utilitarian leaders.
We suggest two potential reasons for this interesting result.
First, managers may believe leaders will develop a more
outcome-oriented/greatest good perspective as they move
up the corporate ladder and become more aware of the
ethical consequences related to their decisions. Alternately,
it is possible that different types of high-level positions are
best suited to leaders with different ethical perspectives.
Thus, a utilitarian or deontological perspective may not be
related to long-term potential generally, but instead may be
related to future success in specific types of leadership
roles.

C. Letwin et al.

Thus, we want to be clear: we are not criticizing these

authors work. To the contrary, we believe their research
has provided numerous theoretical and empirical contributions to advance understanding of ethical leadership.
Rather, we wish to point out that the current conceptualization and operationalization of ethical leadership have
empirical implications for future research. As one example,
we suggest the incorporation of utilitarianism into the
operationalization of ethical leadership might enable better
predictions of important leader-level outcomes. Such
research would be in line with Fehr et al. (2015) recommendation to expand measures of ethical leadership to
include a broader array of moral foundations and would
be welcome among studies of ethical leadership (see Rubin
et al. 2010) and leadership more generally (e.g., Wilson
et al. 2010). We believe that supplementing the philosophical make-up of ethical leadership by incorporating
utilitarianism would better reflect top-down perspectives,
which along with considering the view from above should
allow the construct to better predict leader-level outcomes.
We certainly do not suggest that the deontological principles currently incorporated in measures of ethical leadership are inappropriate or should be replaced by utilitarian
principlesonly that both sets of principles should be
considered.
Practical Implications

Empirical Implications
Our research question focused on leaders ethical ideologies as theoretical underpinnings of ethical leadership and
its association with leader-level outcomes. Although
scholars have acknowledged the utilitarian ideologies
inherent to ethical leadership, a utilitarian perspective is
largely missing from measures used to assess the construct.
Resick et al. (2006), for example, argued that ethical
awareness, which involves being sensitive to the impact
moral issues have on others, is a key attribute characterizing ethical leadership. When developing their measure,
however, this attribute was not addressed (see Resick et al.
2006, Table 1). Kalshoven et al. (2011) similarly stressed
that ethical leaders should be concerned with the impact
they have on stakeholders, the environment, and society. In
designing their measure, however, items related to this
aspect of ethical leadership were ultimately dropped,
resulting in a dimension that more closely resembles corporate social responsibility (e.g., being environmentally
friendly) than focusing on the ethical consequences of
ones actions. Thus, it appears that the operationalizations
of ethical leadership leave utilitarianism metaphorically on
the cutting room floor.
By no means does this minimize the very significant
impact this work has had on the study of ethical leadership.

123

This research also provides a number of practical implications. First, our findings suggest rewarding ethical leadership is important with respect to organization
performance. Second, we demonstrate that supervisors are
not wasting their time trying to behave ethicallybecause
the managers who determine their fate do, in fact, give
ethics a noticeable priority. More specifically, we found
that being an ethical leader (especially in the eyes of ones
manager) is favorable to the leaders themselves, as it is
more likely to be rewarded with higher performance and
promotion evaluations. Third, this research shows managers the importance of considering both the ethicality of
the means (ones actual behaviors) and the ends (the results
of ones actions) when making decisions. In doing so, we
highlight the potential disconnect between subordinates
and managers views of focal leaders in regard to ethical
leadership, which further indicates to organizations the
importance of considering both top-down and bottom-up
perspectives.
In discussing this latter point, supervisors face an
interesting dilemma: Should they strive to gain favor from
the managers who rate their performance and make
important decisions about their career, or should they seek
to be ethical in the eyes of their subordinates, in order to
enhance their satisfaction, commitment, task performance,

The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance

and citizenship behavior? Similarly, should organizations

try to align managers and lower-level employees perceptions of ethical leadership by, for instance, explicitly
stating in the organizations core values or mission statement what actions constitute ethical leader behavior? We
suggest future research explore the cohabitation of multipleand possibly contradictoryvisions of ethical leadership within the same organization. Research along these
lines could add further insights into bottom-up and topdown perspectives of ethical leadership.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research
Directions
This study has both strengths and weaknesses. One strength
is that it is the first study to consider both subordinates and
managers ratings of ethical leadership in relation to leaderlevel outcomes. Second, we examine how leaders different
ethical ideologies are associated with ratings of their ethical leadership. Third, it is the only study of which we are
aware that considers the effect of these ethical ideologies
on leader-level outcomes above and beyond the effect of
ethical leadership. Fourth, our collection and use of subordinate-supervisor-manager triadic data allowed us to test
our proposed relationships with data obtained from separate sources.
Despite these strengths, our study also has some limitations. One limitation is that our analysis might be subject
to common method variance, especially when considering
the relationships between managers ratings of ethical
leadership and leader-level outcomes, which were also
rated by managers. Although we followed several steps
recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) to reduce method
biases and we demonstrated empirically (through Harmans
single-factor test) that our findings were not the result of
method bias, the strength of our conclusions could be
further enhanced by collecting outcome data from different
(e.g., archival) sources. As prior research has found mixed
evidence regarding the relationship between subordinates
perceptions of ethical leadership and leader success indicators (e.g., Detert et al. 2007; Rubin et al. 2010), additional studies investigating the impact that managers
perceptions of ethical leadership have on such outcomes
would be especially welcome. Thus, although our findings
should be taken cautiously given the above noted concerns,
we suggest they provide preliminary support for the proposed linkages and offer interesting avenues for future
research regarding the relationship between ethical leadership and leader outcomes.
A second limitation concerns the cross-sectional nature
of our data, which prevents us from making definite
statements about the causal order of our proposed relationships. As observed by an anonymous reviewer,

753

alternative conceptualizations among our focal variables

might be possible. Although ethical orientation is an individual difference and, as such, is likely stable and unaffected by situational forces, it is possible that leader
outcomes (viz., performance and promotability evaluations) could have a reciprocal influence on supervisors
ethical leadership behaviors. Future research should
empirically test these possibilities by employing longitudinal or experimental designs.
In regard to other future directions, we recommend
continued investigation into the relationship between ethical leadership and leader-level outcomes. Specifically, we
suggest considering potential moderators to this relationship, such as an organizations ethical climate or its life
cycle stage. The former, for example, has been suggested
to have a direct effect on ethical decision-making intentions and to influence the continued employment of leaders
(Brown and Trevino 2006; Flannery and May 2000).
Regarding the latter, research suggests that a leaders
performance and potential for career advancement can
change across time, in part because an organizations
demands of its leaders change as the organization grows
and evolves (Van Velsor and Leslie 1995). We therefore
suggest future researchers examine whether these factors
influence the effects ethical leadership has on these or other
important outcomes.
One final area of possible future research does not
follow directly from the present results; nonetheless, it
relates at least indirectly to considerations about alternative ideological perspectives on ethical leadership. Ethical
leadership has been defined in relation to normatively
appropriate conductthat is, taking the nature of the situation into account (Brown et al. 2005). The more that the
situations might vary according to nuances of context and
the types of possible consequences, the more important it
becomes to take utilitarian considerations into account
when addressing how to conceptualize and measure ethical
leadership. From a purely deontological point of view,
leaders ethical behaviors should not depend on the context; instead the behavior either adheres to or does not
adhere to an ethical rule. From a utilitarian perspective,
however, different contexts may affect the utility that can
be gained from a behaviorthe net benefit relative to
harm or cost. We would expect such ethical decisions to
depend on the context. It seems likely that different contexts or cultures may place different levels of importance
on either or both deontology and utilitarianism (Axinn
et al. 2004). It is extremely important, therefore, to include
both dimensions of ethical ideology when the nature of
leadership varies widely across different contexts and
introduces a complex mix of competing demands. The
study of cultural variations might reveal the necessity of
doing so.

123

754

Conclusion
Although prior research has shown some of the benefits of
ethical leadership as they relate to employee outcomes (job
satisfaction, commitment), far less progress has been made
in attempts to establish empirical links between ethical
leadership and important leader outcomes, such as favorable performance and promotability evaluations. A skeptic
(or cynic) might suggest that ethical leadership should be
largely irrelevant because managers who determine leaders fates give ethics a low priority. The present research,
however, implies that this assertion seems to be wrong.
Distinguishing bottom-up and top-down views of ethical
leadership, we found that managers perceptions of ethical
leadership were more strongly associated with these leaderlevel outcomes than were subordinates perceptions. Our
results also suggested that incorporating both pillars of
Western ethical philosophy (deontology and utilitarianism)
into conceptualizations of ethical leadership could further
enhance understanding of the construct and its consequences. Overall, our work illustrates how and why ethical
leadership might be important for leaders themselves,
thereby contributing to research and demonstrating the
wide-reaching positive effects that ethical leadership can
have on organizations and their members.

References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership
development. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
6(1), 3544.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6),
14231440.
Audi, R. (2009). The good in the right: A theory of intuition and
intrinsic value. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Axinn, C. N., Blair, M. E., Heorhiadi, A., & Thach, S. V. (2004).
Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 103119.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, J. (1993). Morality and rational choice (Vol. 18). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical
predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927940.
Brandt, R. (1979). A theory of the right and the good. Amherst, NY:
Prometheus.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical
leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583616.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595616.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct

123

C. Letwin et al.
development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 97(2), 117134.
Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for
greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2),
239252.
Chatterjee, J., & Price, B. (1977). Regression analysis by example.
New York: Wiley.
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being
rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 917945.
Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods
for comparing regression coefficients between models. American
Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 12611293.
Craig, S. B., & Hannum, K. (2006). Research update: 360-degree
performance assessment. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(2), 117124.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and
despotic leadership, relationships with leaders social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates
optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3),
297311.
Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007).
Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in
organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 9931005.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the
corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of
Management Review, 20(1), 6591.
Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., & Dang, C. (2015). Moralized leadership: The
construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions.
Academy of Management Review. Advance online publication.
doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0358.
Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical
decision-making in the U.S. metal-finishing industry. Academy
of Management Journal, 43(4), 642662.
Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.),
Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and processes (pp.
1334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D.
D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in
management (pp. 331). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Fritzsche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior
to ethical philosophyAn empirical investigation. Academy of
Management Journal, 27(1), 166175.
Gaus, G. F. (2001a). What is deontology? Part 1, orthodox views.
Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(1), 2742.
Gaus, G. F. (2001b). What is deontology? Part two, reasons to act.
Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(2), 179193.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors:
Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive
predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(4), 900912.
Groves, K., Vance, C., & Paik, Y. (2008). Linking linear/nonlinear
thinking style balance and managerial ethical decision-making.
Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 305325.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). An
examination of temporal variables and relationship quality on
promotability ratings. Group and Organization Management,
31(6), 677699.
Hauenstein, N. M. A., & Foti, R. J. (1989). From laboratory to
practice: Neglected issues in implementing frame-of-reference
rater training. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 359378.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory.
Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206221.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).
Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development

The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance
and validation of a multidimensional measure. Leadership
Quarterly, 22(1), 5169.
Kant, I. (1959). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information
processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York:
Routledge.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012).
Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An
examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151171.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,
R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a
trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108(1), 113.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses
in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437455.
Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality
and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of
360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(6), 14981513.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R.
(2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job
characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(23),
259278.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879903.
Premeaux, S. R. (2004). The current link between management
behavior and ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics,
51(3), 269278.
Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. (1993). Linking management
behavior to ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics,
12(5), 349357.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.

755

Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K.

(2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of
ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345359.
Ross, W. D. (2002). The right and the good. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010). Do ethical
leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 215236.
Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martinez, R. (2011). Improving the leaderfollower relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical
leadership trickle-down effect on follower job response. Journal
of Business Ethics, 99(4), 587608.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing
approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 23(2), 224253.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace:
The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434443.
Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical:
Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Management
Executive, 18(2), 6981.
Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail:
Perspectives across time and cultures. Academy of Management
Executive, 9(4), 6272.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17(3), 601617.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method
variance in self-reported affect and perceptions of work: Reality
or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462468.
Wilson, K. S., Sin, H., & Colon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader
in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges
and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management
Review, 35(3), 358372.

123

Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.