Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New · PDF fileEthical 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 socialscientific study of ethics and leadership, as well as outline areas for future study. We firstdiscuss ethical leadership and then draw from emerging research on "dark side" organi-zational behavior to widen the boundaries of the review to include ««ethical leadership.Next, three emerging trends within the organizational behavior literature are proposed fora leadership and ethics research agenda: 1 ) emotions, 2) fit/congruence, and 3) identity/identification. We believe each shows promise in extending current thinking. The reviewcloses with discussion of important issues that are relevant to the advancement of researchon leadership and ethics.

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP in promoting ethical conduct in orga-nizations has long been understood. Within a work environment, leaders set

the tone for organizational goals and behavior. Indeed, leaders are often in a posi-tion to control many outcomes that affect employees (e.g., strategies, goal-setting,promotions, appraisals, resources). What leaders incentivize communicates whatthey value and motivates employees to act in ways to achieve such rewards. It is notsurprising, then, that employees rely on their leaders for guidance when faced withethical questions or problems (Treviño, 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 asethically positive influence productive employee work behavior (Mayer, Kuenzi,Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009) and negatively influence counterproductivework behavior (Brown & Treviño, 2006b; Mayer et al., 2009).

Recently, there has been a surge of empirical research seeking to understand theinfluence of leaders on building ethical work practices and employee behaviors (seeBrown & Treviño, 2006a for a review). Initial theory and research (Bass & Steidle-meier, 1999; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Ciulla, 2004; Treviño, Brown,& Hartman, 2003; Treviño, Hartman, & Brown, 2000) sought to define ethicalleadership from both normative and social scientific (descriptive) approaches tobusiness ethics. The normative perspective is rooted in philosophy and is concernedwith 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 philosophicalframeworks, evaluates the ethicality of particular leaders, and considers the degreeto 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; Treviño et al., 2000; Treviño et al, 2003). This approachis rooted in disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and organization science, andit attempts to understand how people perceive ethical leadership and investigatesthe antecedents, outcomes, and potential boundary conditions of those perceptions.This research has focused on investigating research questions such as: What is ethi-cal leadership (Brown et al., 2005; Treviño et al., 2003)? What traits are associatedwith perceived ethical leadership (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009)? How doesethical leadership flow through various levels of management within organizations(Mayer et al., 2009)? And, does ethical leadership help or hurt a leader's promot-ability within organizations (Rubin, Dierdorff, & Brown, 2010)?

The purpose of our article is to review literature that is relevant to the descriptivestudy of ethics and leadership, as well as outhne areas for future empirical study. Wefirst discuss ethical leadership and then draw from emerging research on what oftenis called "dark" (destructive) organizational behavior, so as to widen the boundariesof our review to also include ««ethical leadership. Next, we discuss three emergingtrends within the organizational behavior literature—1) emotions, 2) fit/congruence,and 3) identity/identification—that we believe show promise in extending currentthinking on the influence of leadership (both positive and negative) on organizationalethics. We conclude with a discussion of important issues that are relevant to theadvancement 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, de-scriptive research on ethical leadership is relatively new. Some of the first formalinvestigations focused on defining ethical leadership from a descriptive perspectiveand were conducted by Treviño and colleagues (Treviño et al., 2000, 2003). Theirqualitative research revealed that ethical leaders were best described along tworelated dimensions: moral person and moral manager.

The moral person dimension refers to the qualities of the ethical leader as a per-son. Strong moral persons are honest and trustworthy. They demonstrate a concernfor other people and are also seen as approachable. Employees can come to theseindividuals with problems and concerns, knowing that they will be heard. Moralpersons have a reputation for being fair and principled. Lastly, riioral persons areseen as consistently moral in both their personal and professional lives.

The moral manager dimension refers to how the leader uses the tools of the posi-tion of leadership to promote ethical conduct at work. Strong moral managers seethemselves as role models in the workplace. They make ethics salient by modelingethical conduct to their employees. Moral managers set and communicate ethicalstandards 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," pat-terning their behavior and organizational processes to meet moral standards.

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP 585

Treviño and colleagues (Treviño et al., 2000, 2003) argued that individuals inpower must be both strong moral persons and moral managers in order to be seen asethical leaders by those around them. Strong moral managers who are weak moralpersons 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 themto be dishonest and unprincipled. Conversely, a strong moral person who is a weakmoral 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 employeesthat the leader does not really care about ethics.

Subsequent research by Brown, Treviño, and Harrison (2005:120) further clarifiedthe construct and provided a formal definition of ethical leadership as "the demonstra-tion of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonalrelationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-waycommunication, reinforcement, and decision-making." They noted that "the termnormatively appropriate is 'deliberately vague'" (Brown et al., 2005: 120) becausenorms vary across organizations, industries, and cultures.

Brown et al. (2005) ground their conceptualization of ethical leadership in sociallearning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986). This theory suggests individuals can learnstandards of appropriate behavior by observing how role models (like teachers,parents, and leaders) behave. Accordingly, ethical leaders "teach" ethical conductto employees through their own behavior. Ethical leaders are relevant role modelsbecause they occupy powerful and visible positions in organizational hierarchiesthat allow them to capture their follower's attention. They communicate ethical ex-pectations 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 crediblein terms of moral behavior. By treating others fairly, honestly, and considerately,leaders become worthy of emulation by others. Otherwise, followers might ignorea leader whose behavior is inconsistent with his/her ethical pronouncements or whofails 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 socialexchange theory (Blau, 1964) to explain the effects of ethical leadership on impor-tant outcomes (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006b; Mayer et al , 2009;Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). According to principles of reciprocity in socialexchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), individuals feel obligated to returnbeneficial behaviors when they believe another has been good and fair to them. Inline with this reasoning, researchers argue and find that employees feel indebtedto ethical leaders because of their trustworthy and fair nature; consequently, theyreciprocate with beneficial work behavior (e.g., higher levels of ethical behaviorand citizenship behaviors) and refrain from engaging in destructive behavior (e.g.,lower levels of workplace deviance).


Emerging research has found that ethical leadership is related to important fol-lower outcomes, such as employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment,willingness to report problems to supervisors, willingness to put in extra effort onthe job, voice behavior (i.e., expression of constructive suggestions intended toimprove standard procedures), and perceptions of organizational culture and ethi-cal 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 citizenshipbehavior and psychological safety, and negatively related to workplace deviance(Mayer et al., 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Ethical leadership enhancesfollowers' perceptions of important job characteristics such as autonomy and tasksignificance (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010), the later mediatingthe relationship between ethical leadership and follower effort. At the highest levelsof management, executive ethical leadership is positively related to perceived topmanagement 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 man-agement 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 arerelated to unethical behavior (Robertson & Rymon, 2001). According to Rubin etal. (2010), ethical leadership sends a strong signal that an individual is potentiallysuitable for the pressures of senior management because of his or her ability tomaintain strong ethical performance in the face of such pressure.

In addition, scholars have investigated the ethical dimensions of various stylesof leadership. Most notably, transformational (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993)and charismatic leaders (Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1998) are thoughtto be ethical leaders who model ethical conduct (Avolio, 1999), engage in ethi-cally positive modes of influence (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996), operate at higherlevels of moral reasoning (Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002),and transform their followers into moral leaders (Bums, 1978). Transformationaland charismatic leadership have been studied extensively (see Avolio, Walumbwa,& Weber, 2009; Judge & Piccolo, 2004 for reviews), and the cumulative findingssuggest that transformational and charismatic leadership are positively associatedwith important ethics-related outcomes such as follower's perceptions of trust infairness of their leader (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999) and organizationalcitizenship behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Thesestyles of leadership are also negatively related to outcomes such as employee ag-gression (Hepworth & Towler, 2004) and workplace deviance (Brown & Treviño,2006b). A new construct, authentic leadership, also is related to transformationalleadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wemsing, &Peterson, 2008) and shares its strong emphasis on the ethical dimension of leader-ship. With the recent development of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ;Walumbwa et al., 2008), future research linking authentic leadership to importantethics-related outcomes is promising.


Antecedents of Ethical Leadership

Researchers very recently have begun to explore the influences on ethical leader-ship. Both situational (e.g., role modeling) and individual (e.g., personality traits)predictors of ethical leadership have been proposed (Brown & Treviño, 2006a) butthere is little published research testing these and other potential antecedents. Inone of the few empirical studies, Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) found thatthe personality dimensions of agreeableness and conscientiousness were positivelyrelated to ethical leadership. Obviously, there are many opportunities for investigat-ing the influences on ethical leadership in future research.

Summary

Although research on ethical leadership is growing, clearly there is much still tolearn about ethical leadership, its antecedents and outcomes. We will discuss someof the unanswered questions and suggest new directions for future research through-out the remainder of this article. Some of the most important questions concernthe relationship between and relative influence of ethical and unethical leadership,Detert, Treviño, Burris, and Andiappan (2007) theorized that both ethical and un-ethical 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 tocounterproductive work behavior. These results emphasize the need to understandnegative aspects of leadership and their influence on employee behavior, Detert etal, (2007) speculated that perhaps the context in the types of jobs studied in theirresearch influenced the importance of abusive supervision over ethical leadershipon employees' deviant behaviors. Fundamentally then, there is a need to under-stand when and why unethical aspects of leadership influence employees more sothan ethical leadership. We believe more research that explores the "dark side" oforganizational behavior (and more specifically destructive leader behavior), whichwe turn to next, is necessary,

UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP:INTEGRATION FROM "DARK" ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR RESEARCH

"Dark side" research has attempted to understand why organizational membersengage in destructive or "deviant" work behavior. Workplace deviance is definedas behavior that violates significant organizational norms and harms organizationsand its members (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). A number of deviance constructshave emerged in the literature, such as workplace deviance (Robinson & Ben-nett, 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). Whilethe majority of this research focuses on employees' behavior, more recent researchdraws attention to supervisors and leaders as perpetrators of deviant acts (see Tep-


per, 2007 for a review). Our review considers theory and research on destructiveleader 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 illegaland/or are morally inappropriate to larger society (Jones 1991).' Dark side researchhas uncovered a variety of unethical leader acts. Various terms have evolved inthe literature, such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), supervisor undermin-ing (Duffy et al., 2002), toxic leadership (Frost, 2004), and tyrannical leadership(Ashforth, 1994). Research shows these leaders are oppressive, abusive, manipula-tive, and calculatingly undermining (Tepper, 2007). Their actions are perceived asintentional 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 andunethical acts within their organizations. For instance, Clement's (2006) review ofcorporate scandals in Fortune 100 corporations concluded that actions perpetratedby executives, boards of directors, and government officials were the primary causeof such transgressions. Leaders foster unethical behavior among followers withoutengaging in the behavior themselves and do so by way of rewards, condoning non-conformers, and ignoring unethical acts (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Brief, Buttram,& Dukerich, 2001). For instance, qualitative research shows leaders who rewardshort-term results, model aggressive and Machiavellian behavior, do not punishfollowers' wrongdoing, and promote like-minded individuals heighten unethicalbehavior within organizations (Sims & Brinkmann, 2002). Indeed, research showsemployees engage in unethical acts to boost organizational performance or help theorganization in some other way (Finney & Lesieur, 1982; Umphress, Bingham, &Mitchell, 2010; Yeager, 1986). Such embedded practices can insulate leaders fromprimary blame, essentially providing them "plausible deniability" (Baker & Faulkner,1993; Braithwaite, 1989). Leaders who engage in, enable, or foster unethical actswithin their organizations do not display ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005).Instead, leaders who harness and embed unethical behavior of their followers dis-play unethical leadership (Pinto, Leana, & Pil, 2008). In sum, we define unethicalleadership as behaviors conducted and decisions made by organizational leadersthat are illegal and/or violate moral standards, and those that impose processesand structures that promote unethical conduct by followers. We now review theconsequences and influences of unethical leadership.

Outcomes of Unethical Leadership

A review of the literature suggests unethical leadership impedes the effective func-tioning and viability of organizations. For example, scholars estimate unethicalleader behavior costs U.S. corporations billions of dollars a year due to increasedabsenteeism, health care costs, lost productivity, and expended costs associated with


defending actionable claims (Detert et al., 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert,2006). To be sure, some examples of unethical leadership within the popular presshave resulted in the end of the organization altogether (e.g., Enron, WorldCom).

The effects of unethical leadership on employees are also considerable. Researchshows 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), psychologicalwell-being (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007), and personallives (Ferguson, Carlson, & Whitten, 2009; Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Moreover, un-ethical leadership positively influences deviant and unethical work behavior amongemployees (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 explainhow unethical leadership promotes unethical employee conduct (e.g., social learn-ing theory, Bandura, 1977, 1986; social information processing theory, Salancik &Pfeffer, 1978; script theory, Gioia, 1992). Accordingly, employees learn acceptedbehavior (even if it is unethical) by watching relevant social role models. Leadersare particularly influential because they authorize unethical behavior through theirown acts, sanctioning abilities, and legitimate power (Brief et al., 2001; Kelman,1973). Research supports these arguments and shows unethical leadership provides abaseline 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 ex-plain consequences of unethical leadership. Like research on ethical leadership, thisresearch focuses on quid pro quo reciprocity patterns between leaders and followers(see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 for a review). When leaders treat employeesabusively (or unethically), employees see the exchange relationship as imbalancedor 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; reducedwork effort, Harris et al., 2007; Tepper et al., 2001; Zellers et al., 2002).

Lastly, researchers have used principles about self-resources to explain conse-quences of unethical leadership. In particular, theorists contend unethical leadershipdrains employees of self-resources (e.g., attention, will-power, esteem) that areneeded to maintain appropriate behavior (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2009; Thau &Mitchell, in press). Indeed, ethical decision making theorists often refer to thisphenomenon as ego strength and/or depletion (see Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds,2006 for a review). Some researchers have drawn from self-regulation principlesto explain the effects. Accordingly, the act of being victimized or threatened byan unethical leader impairs or marginalizes employees' self-resources (Bandura,1991; Baumeister, 2001; Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007; Thau & Mitchell, inpress). When self-regulatory resources are impaired, victims are unable to maintainappropriate behavior and instead engage in deviant behavior. Moreover, unethicalleadership combined with inconsistent information about employees' organiza-


tional value (e.g., abused by the leader but being paid fairly) more strongly affectsself-resources and makes unethical employee behavior even more likely (Thau &Mitchell, in press).

Similarly, conservation of resources theory (HobfoU, 1989) suggests individualsstrive to obtain and maintain resources that help them accomplish goals. Experiencedstress (via unethical leader treatment) drains these resources and causes a spill-overeffect (e.g., frustration-aggression predictions by DoUard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer,& Sears, 1939) to employees' work and family lives. They are less able to maintainpositive work attitudes (Ferguson et al., 2009; Hoobler & Brass, 2006) and engage inproductive work behavior (e.g., deviance, Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), and engagein 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 organizationalmistreatment (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 increaseleaders' feelings of powerlessness and depression and causes leaders to behave moreaggressively toward employees.

Self-regulation principles have also been used to explain why unethical leader-ship occurs. In particular, this approach draws from the social cognitive theoryof moral thought and action (Bandura, 1991), which suggests that leaders maybehave unethically because they disconnect themselves from moral standards andrationalize unethical treatment toward their employees (cf. Bandura, 1991). Forexample, Mitchell, Vogel, Tepper, and Palmer (2010) found leaders engaged inabusive behaviors and thought doing so was justified against employees who werepoor performers. However, these effects were mitigated if leaders also held a strongneed for achievement orientation. They surmised need for achievement assists inmaintaining self-regulatory abilities and appropriate behavior.

Last, research has focused on individual qualities of leaders and subordinatesto explain unethical leadership. For example. Hing, Bobocel, Zanna, and McBride(2007) found leaders with a strong social dominance orientation were more likely toengage in unethical behavior, particularly when followers were more agreeable and/or high in right wing authoritarianism. Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (in press) explainunethical leadership can result from moral exclusion (Opotow, 1990); when lead-ers do not believe a subordinate is one for whom moral rules apply. Leaders whoare dissimilar from subordinates believe abusive treatment is appropriate. Tepperet 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 aspectsof leadership, with less focus on unethical aspects. Our review included organi-zational behavior research conducted on unethical leader behavior. This review


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 ethicsphenomenon, more research is needed to understand implications of both ethicaland unethical leadership, particularly in terms of uncovering when one is moreinfluential to employees and organizations.

For example, decision research suggests that individuals have a proclivity to focuson 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 ofhoney, 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 supervi-sion and not ethical leadership influenced employees' behavior. These results maysuggest a negative bias; however, other factors may be at play (e.g., hierarchicaland physical distance from ethical leaders to employees who engaged in unethicalacts; subcultural influences within departments and divisions that proved to be moreinfluential than the overall organization's culture).

We believe much more research is needed to uncover the dynamics of leadershipand ethics—from both a positive and negative angle. To this end, we now turn tothree trends in the organizational behavior literature that we believe hold promisefor advancing research on ethical and unethical leadership.

INTEGRATIVE IDEAS FROM THEORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR LITERATURE

There are many emerging topics in the organizational behavior and managementliteratures. We selected three such topics that have great potential to take researchon 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 agendaon ethical and unethical leadership.

Emotions, Leadership, and Business Ethics

The important influence of emotions on ethical judgments can be traced as farback as Aristotle. Feelings inform us when things are not right—they act as ethicalalarms. Salvador and Folger (2009) highlight this point and discuss the role of emo-tions on ethical judgments with the human brain. Their review suggests emotionsconsciously and unconsciously influence ethical decision making and behavior.Understanding the role of emotions then is essential for furthering research onleadership 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 andbehavior (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Bass, 1985; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Theycan harness an "emotional contagion" that filters throughout organizations (Frijda,


1986; Hatfleld, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Emotional contagion is defined as anunconscious transfer of emotion, which fosters mimicry of another's emotionalstate (e.g,, facial expressions, vocalizations, postures; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).Research shows individuals who perceive their leaders displaying more positive thannegative emotions experience more positive and less negative moods themselves.Groups with leaders who display positive emotions exhibit more coordinationand expend less effort than groups with negatively affective leaders (Sy, Côté, &Saavedra, 2005), Additionally, positive emotional displays from leaders influencefollowers' perceptions of their leader (e,g,, effectiveness, motivational ability) andimportant 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 followersand when they do these negative emotions are more vivid than positive emotions(Dasborough, 2006), In particular, employees recall more negative than positiveevents of their leaders, and the feelings associated with the negative memories aremore intense than those experienced with positive memories (Dasborough, 2006),Negative emotional reactions to leaders can spread throughout an organization asemotional contagion, ultimately hurting the group's climate and heightening cyni-cism about the leader (e,g,, Dasborough, Ashkansy, Tee, & Tse, 2009),

Emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions to leaders' emotions have beengenerally explained by affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) andemotional transference principles (Hatfleld et al,, 1994), Leaders shape affectiveevents within organizations and these events "transfer" the emotional state of fol-lowers. Events trigger emotional as well as impulsive behavioral reactions amongemployees. Over time, long-term attitudes can be affected. The influence of nega-tive emotions can be even more impactful because negative emotions are felt withgreater intensity compared to positive emotions (Peters, 2002),

New Avenues for Future ResearchResearch on leadership and business ethics has not fully considered the role thatemotions play in employees' perceptions of and reactions to ethical and unethicalleadership. There are, however, many potential avenues for integration. For example,Madera and Smith (2009) found that leaders who display certain negative emotionsdifferentially influenced employees' assessments about their leader's effectiveness.Leaders who displayed anger as opposed to sadness during a crisis were seen asless effective. This finding suggests specific leader-displayed emotions may influ-ence whether leaders are seen as ethical or unethical, and poses interesting potentialresearch questions. For example, are there emotions that can enhance a leader'ssalience and effectiveness as a model of (un)ethical conduct? Which emotions mightenhance employee intemalization of organizational ethical principles and codes ofconduct? Conversely, which emotions evoked by leaders influence unethical conductand impede the effective functioning of organizations?

Another promising area for future research involves moral emotions (or affectiveresponses linked to the interests or welfare of society as a whole; Haidt, 2003), Threecategories of moral emotions have been emphasized in the literature: (1) other-


condemning emotions such as anger and disgust; (2) self-focused emotions such asshame and guilt, and (3) other-suffering or -praising emotions, such as compassion,empathy, and gratitude. Research shows moral emotions differentially influencebehavior (see Haidt, 2003; Tangney, 1991, for reviews). For example, empathy isrelated positively to prosocial behavior and negatively to destructive and unethicalbehavior. Anger motivates behavior to attack, humiliate, or otherwise get back atan offender. Disgust motivates avoidance behavior. Shame elicits self-condoningappraisals and, as such, motivates withdrawal behavior. Guilt, a related cousin toshame, also emphasizes self-condemnation but focuses on the harm or sufferingothers 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 reactionsassociated with an individual's self-attributions, such as shame or guilt; Fisher &Tangney, 1995) and negative outward-emotions (affective evaluations of others, suchas anger and hostility; Tangney & Dearing, 2002), and found employees experiencedless negative inward- and more negative outward-emotions when they were treatedunfairly. In contrast, employees experienced more negative inward- and less nega-tive outward-emotions when they were treated fairly. Further, employee retaliatorybehaviors were greater with experienced negative outward-emotions.

SummaryWe believe there is merit to adding moral emotions into the leadership and ethicsresearch agenda. Leaders' expressed moral emotions may not only influence howfollowers react, but also how the leader behaves. Uncovering these dynamics mayshed light on why some leaders are perceived as ethical versus unethical, and howleaders influence (un)ethical in organizations. Our review suggests (1) leaders dis-play a range of emotions in their organizations; (2) leaders' affective experiencesinfluence their own behavior; (3) the emotions leaders display arouse employees'emotions and create an emotional contagion effect among followers (whether posi-tive or negative), and (4) followers' emotions, evoked by leaders, influence their(un)ethical conduct.

Additionally, research on emotions may build an understanding of the conse-quences of ethical and unethical leadership. For instance, we expect ethical leadershipwill trigger more positive follower emotions (e.g., gratitude, awe, enthusiasm, em-pathy), whereas unethical leadership should affect more negative emotions (e.g.,anger, disgust, shame). We also surmise that the relationship between (un)ethicalleadership and follower (un)ethical behavior, would be moderated by the level ofemotional contagion experienced and harnessed by the leader. Further, our reviewsuggests the type and strength of the emotions evoked by followers will differen-tially influence their behavior. For instance, experienced anger or disgust (likelyreactions to unethical leadership) may lead to employee unethical acts (e.g., retali-ation, deviance), whereas experienced compassion or gratitude (likely reactions toethical leadership) may influence employees to engage in ethical behavior (e.g.,volunteerism, prosocial behavior).


Examining emotions may also explain why some leaders are considered ethical andothers unethical. For instance, certain situations may invoke followers' emotions thatare seemingly out of the leader's control. To this end, future research should inves-tigate how leaders yield or manage followers' emotions and whether the techniquesused influence how they are perceived by others. This may be particularly relevantin the current economic climate, the consequence of which may force leaders tomake tough decisions that affect employees' livelihoods (e.g., layoffs, pay freezesand cuts). Leaders might also have to manage employees' emotional reactions touncertainty (e.g., declining sales, unfavorable media attention, increased industrycompetition, inhospitable macro-economic conditions). These ideas also suggestthat the way leaders interact with their employees (ethically versus unethically) mayinvoke emotions that might adversely affect their reactions to "good news" (e.g.,promotions, pay raises, successful financial performance). We leave these ideas forfuture research to consider.

Organizational Fit, Leadership, and Business Ethics

Research on fit within the organizational behavior literature focuses on the compat-ibility, similarity, or congruence between two entities (Kristof, 1996). Researchershave predominately studied congruence between persons and jobs, persons andorganizations, persons and groups, and persons and supervisors (see Edwards, 2008;Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005, for reviews). Despitethe growing literature, there has been little published fit research explicitly relatedto 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, orga-nization, group or supervisor) affects outcomes. Some research examples includeassessing fit between individual and organizational values (Cable & Judge, 1997;Chatman, 1991), group goal congruence (Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley, & Bar-rick, 2008), and leader and employee personality (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002).Research suggests that employees who fit well with their organization, leader, andjob experience more positive attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational com-mitment), are less likely to leave the organization, experience less work-relatedstress, and engage in positive task and citizenship behaviors (see Kristof, 1996;Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, for reviews). We believe that there are many opportuni-ties to integrate fit ideas into a leadership and business ethics research agenda, andexplore some possibilities below.

New Avenues for Future ResearchWe believe three areas of fit research can inform a leadership and ethics researchagenda: understanding the role fit with moral values, with moral reasoning, and inself-other ratings of leadership. Research within the behavioral ethics literature sug-gests the importance of ethical/moral values on ethical decision making and conductin organizations (see Treviño et al., 2006 for a review). For example, corporate ethicsprograms that are aspirational in nature (i.e., appealing to employees' ethical aspi-rations) are seen as more effective compared to programs that are oriented toward


legal compliance (Weaver, Treviño, & Cochran, 1999). Therefore, the implicationsof ethical value congruence of leaders and their followers should be considered.

Values congruence is thought to play an important role in explaining why fit be-tween two entities is related to outcomes (see Edwards & Cable, 2009 for a review).Values congruence has explained the relationship between leader-follower cogni-tive moral development and follower attitudes (Schminke et al., 2005). And, valuescongruence was found to mediate the relationship between charismatic leadershipand workplace deviance (Brown & Treviño, 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 organizationalhomogeneity, Giberson et al. (2005) found that leaders embed their values into theframework of organizations by surrounding themselves with individuals who aresimilar 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 ofethical values among leaders and followers. In particular, research might considerwhich factors bring leaders and followers together on shared values. Previoustheory and research suggests that a transformational/charismatic style of leader-ship plays with values congruence (Bass, 1985; House, 1996). However, there issome evidence that congruence effects are likely to vary depending on the contentof the values in question (Brown & Treviño, 2009). So what brings about congru-ence in leader-follower moral values? Does leadership play a role because leaderscommunicate, model, and reinforce (un)ethical standards and values? Theory andresearch suggest that leaders and followers should come to develop similar valuesand 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 im-pediments to research in this area is the lack of an established measure of ethicalvalues that has been rigorously developed and thoroughly tested. And, a measureof what constitutes «nethical values has yet to be developed.

Future research should also consider values misfit. It is likely that incongruencewill promote turnover among employees who do not "fit" the leader's ethical val-ues, 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 andunbeneficial work practices, which can transfer to the larger community via costsassociated with government oversight and regulation (Thomas, Schermerhorn, &Dienhart, 2004). Fit researchers have grappled with the issue of homogeneity interms of organizational performance for some time (Kristof, 1996). The downsideto fit is that homogeneity within organizations can breed complacency and stiflecreativity which would hurt the organization's competitive advantage. We wonderif the same arguments hold for ethical values fit.


On the other hand, diversity in moral values is different than other kinds of diver-sity in that individuals are less tolerant of moral diversity compared to demographicdiversity (Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom, 2003). Heterogeneity in ethical values withinan organization could work against attempts to foster an effective ethics and compli-ance program based on shared values (Weaver et al., 1999). However, more researchis 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 a fit perspec-tive. In one of the few ethics-related fit studies, Schminke et al. (2005) hypothesizedand found that leader and follower moral reasoning congruence was positivelyrelated to follower satisfaction and commitment and negatively related to followerturnover. Individuals who share similar ethical thought processes and values arelikely to enjoy higher levels of mutual trust and communication (Edwards & Cable,2009; Schmitike et al., 2005). Thus, it is likely that cognitive moral developmentfit will be positively related to many other important outcomes as well as followerperceptions of ethical leadership (Jordan, Brown, & Treviño, 2010).

However, could there be a dark side to such congruence? For example, considerthe 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'sright is what provides me with benefit and avoids causing me harm") drive the moralreasoning process (Kohlberg, 1969). Generally speaking, research has found thathigher levels of moral reasoning are associated with positive ethical behavior anddecision making (Treviño, 1986). Thus, we might ask whether convergence at thepreconventional level would be associated with positive outcomes.

Future research might also consider the consequences of leader-follower moralreasoning misfit. Does a lack of congruence bring about conflict and distrust? Ifso, how does this influence behavior and the organizational environment? Theory(Chatman, 1991; Schneider, 1987) and research (see Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brownet al., 2005) suggest that employees who do not fit leave their organizations. Misfitmight cause leaders to build stronger infrastructures for the purpose of bringingfollowers into alignment, even when the misfit is driven by unethical leadership(Ashforth & Anand, 2003). If employees chose to stay in a misfit situation, how dothey cope? If their leader operates at comparatively lower levels of moral reasoningmight they endeavor to raise their leader's moral reasoning? Conversely, do em-ployees who operate at lower levels of moral reasoning undergo moral growth whenpaired with a leader who operates at a higher level of reasoning? Or would theseemployees remain stuck at a lower level and perhaps seek out ways to underminetheir leader's authority?

Finally, there are also opportunities beyond the conventional Kohlbergian ap-proach to moral reasoning to consider the impact of leader-follower fit/misfit.Recent theory and research suggest moral reasoning does not always involve carefulreflection, as assumed by Kohlberg and others. Rather, moral judgments are oftenthe result of intuitive processes (Haidt, 2001). Deliberate moral reasoning in thiscase is likely to represent post hoc justifications that support moral intuitions. Fromthis perspective, a leader and follower might operate at the same level of principled


moral reasoning, but they might use the same principled reasoning to justify a verydifferent set of moral intuitions. For example, two very principled individuals couldmake 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 canso as to minimize layoffs) versus the recipients of such charity (e,g,, we ought tomaintain such spending because to do otherwise would cause great harm to thosecharities that need our support). Thus, congruence in moral reasoning (especiallyat the postconventional or principled level), might actually cause more friction andproblems between individuals if diverging moral intuitions are involved.

Future research might examine how leader-follower moral intuitions fit/misfit isrelated to ethical and unethical leadership and related workplace outcomes. In orderto do this, scholars will need to move beyond the traditional ways of defining ethicsin terms of harm and fairness to consider other types of moral intuitions that peoplehave, such as those based on purity/sanctity, obedience to authority, and loyalty toone's in-group (see Haidt & Graham 2007; Weaver & Brown, in press),

A final way to incorporate fit into leadership research is to examine self-otheragreement between leader and follower ratings of ethical or unethical leadership.Self-enhancement bias (Greenwald, 1980) might cause a leader to see him/her asmore moral than they are actually seen by others. Leaders who suffer from suchbias see themselves as strong moral persons and presume that those around themeasily 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 divorcedfrom follower-ratings of (un)ethical leadership. This discrepancy is but one typeof the broader phenomenon of self-other disagreement that has been observed inleadership 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 seenas less effective by their superiors (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998),We expect divergence between leader and follower ratings of (un)ethical leadershipwill be associated with key ethics-related outcomes.

SummaryOverall, there is much to learn about the antecedents and consequences ofleader-follower agreement and its relationship to ethical and unethical leadership.Examining the fit between leaders and followers on key aspects such as moral values,moral reasoning, and ratings of leadership are just some of the potential avenues forfuture research. Researchers might also consider convergence/divergence on otherrelevant dimensions, such as ethical frameworks (e,g,, consequentalism and formal-ism) 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 theorganizational behavior literature (see Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008 for a


review). Broadly speaking, individuals have both personal and social identities. Per-sonal identity refers to an individual's sense of self (Postmes & Jetten, 2006), whilesocial identity derives from the value and emotional significance of membershipassociated with a specific social group (Tajfel, 1978, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979,1986). Within the organizational behavior literature, much of the research on socialidentity focuses on an employees' organizational identity. We believe both personaland organizational identity research has relevance to understanding leadership andbusiness ethics and elaborate on these ideas below.

New Avenues for Future ResearchTheory and empirical evidence in behavioral ethics highlights the importance ofindividuals' personal identity based on their ethical values, called moral identity (seeShao, Aquino, & Freeman, 2008, for a review). Moral identity research investigatesindividuals' sense of self in relation to their personal moral beliefs. Most empiricalresearch integrates Aquino and Reed's (2002) conceptualization, which considersthe degree to which moral traits are embedded in one's self-concept and behavior.Their research highlights two dimensions of moral identity: intemalization (thedegree moral traits are central to the self-concept) and symbolization (the degreemoral traits are expressed publicly). Aquino and Reed contend these dimensionsserve as an individual's benchmark and guide of moral behavior. Research supportsthese arguments and shows that moral identity neutralizes moral disengagementtendencies and associated unethical decision making (Detert, Treviño, & Sweitzer,2008). Further, moral identity positively influences volunteerism (Aquino & Reed,2002) and moral conduct (Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007), and negatively influencesinappropriate, hostile, and destructive behavior (Reed & Aquino, 2003; Verona,Reed, & Aquino, 2003).

Recent research suggests, however, behavioral differences occur depending onthe strength one holds in the different dimensions of moral identity. Specifically,Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, and Walker (2008) found a three-way interaction amongcustomer mistreatment (a form of injustice) and the two moral identity dimensions(symbolization and intemalization) on sabotage such that the relationship betweeninjustice and sabotage was strengthened for employees with high (rather than low)symbolization. However, the effect was weaker for employees with high (ratherthan low) intemalization. They argued that the effects demonstrate intemalizationas more of an intemal qualifier of moral standards; those who held high intemaliza-tion resisted sabotage most likely because they felt such behavior was unethical. Incontrast, symbolization was predicted (and found) to strengthen destructive reactionsto injustice because such an orientation reflects a reactive, active behavioral state inethically significant situations. Because customer mistreatment (injustice) threatenedindividuals' moral self-standards, those high in symbolization felt sabotage an ap-propriate, 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 areperceived as more or less ethical. Given the tendency for symbolization to invokestrong reactive behaviors, it would be interesting to see whether such tendencies


negatively influence employees' perceptions of their leaders' ethicality. For example,is it possible for leaders to consider themselves to hold a strong moral identity, butstill be considered unethical by their followers? Skariicki et al.'s (2008) findingssuggest this might be possible because high symbolization individuals can reactunethically to "unethical" situations. If leaders display unethical behaviors—evenif reacting to an unethical situation—employees might perceive them as unethicalrather than ethical. Worse, employees might believe that such reactions are appropri-ate and then engage in these behaviors as well in a kind of "monkey see, monkeydo" effect (cf. Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998).

Furthermore, research is needed to see if moral identity, particularly the intemal-ization dimension, can serve to benefit ethics in organizations generally. Researchsuggests intemalization mitigates leaming effects of unethical leaders. For example,Mitchell (2008) theorized and found the relationship between perceived unethicalleader 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 findingsof Skariicki et al. (2008), it is possible that followers who hold strong symboliza-tion identities might react quite destmctively to unethical leaders, making deviantreactions more likely. We suspect that moral identity will impact follower reactionsto their leaders, as well as the leader's engaged behavior.

Part of an individual's self-concept derives from their membership with salient andmeaningful social groups (Tajfel, 1982). Organizational identification is one typeof identity from which individuals derive meaning. It is their sense of connectionwith the membership of their employing organization. Individuals who hold a strongorganizational identification intemalize their organization's successes and failures(Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The more employees identify with their organization, themore they adapt their behavior to the organization's norms and values (Ashforth &Mael, 1989). Individuals who hold a strong organizational identification want to helpthe viability of their organization. Social identity theory suggests people generallywant to be associated with positive and prestigious identities and do what they can tomaintain that prestige (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Research supports these argumentsand shows organizational identification promotes beneficial work attitudes (e.g., jobsatisfaction, 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 mayfall 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 behaviorfrom employees, such as tolerating the unethical acts from others and losing theability 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 identificationand positive reciprocity beliefs were more likely to engage in unethical behavior


that is intended to benefit the organization in some way (which they term unethicalpro-organizational behavior, e.g., misrepresenting the truth to make the organiza-tion look good, lying to customers about company information or its products, orconcealing damaging information about the company from the public).

As much as too much identification can be problematic, too little orunder-identification is likely related to negative outcomes as well (Elsbach, 1999;Dukerich et al., 1998). Under-identification occurs when employees do not align inany way with the organization's values or see their self-concept as being defined bythe organization's membership. Dukerich et al. (1998) argue there are psychologicaland behavioral ramifications of individuals who are disconnected from organiza-tional values and goals. Hewlin (2003: 634) argues that employees who do notembrace organizational values put on a facade of conformity, which involves "falserepresentations created by employees to appear as if they embrace organizationalvalues." These facades contribute to emotional exhaustion and increased tumover(Hewlin, 2009). Hewlin's research implies employees who dis- or under-identifywith their leaders and organizations may engage in behaviors that are potentiallydetrimental to their organizations.

Overall, our review suggests the relationship between ethical and unethical lead-ership, organizational identification, and employee conduct is likely to be strong.However, the nature of these relationships (positive or negative) is less certain. Webelieve investigating the role of ethical and unethical leadership is critical to orga-nizational identification research. Leaders communicate what is valued and providethe connection that builds followers' identification with their organizations (Lord &Brown, 2004; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Employees who strongly identifywith their organizations want to do what they can to make them succeed. Strongorganizational identification increases employees' desires to emulate their lead-ers' behavior. Employees who engage in prototypical behaviors are more likely toemerge and be effective as leaders (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Thus, strongorganizational identification might facilitate the effectiveness of an ethical leader inpromoting ethical conduct to employees. On the other hand, strong organizationalidentification might influence employees to engage in behaviors that attempt to pro-tect the organization at whatever the cost (Umphress et al., 2010). Weak identificationmight be positive, especially for employees with strong moral identities who workwith unethical leaders. Such under-identification might serve as a buffer againstpressure to perform in ways that are unethical. Conversely, under-identificationmight encourage unethical employees to disengage from organizations with strongethical leadership and work climates, causing them to behave in non-prototypicaland perhaps unethical ways.

SummaryOverall, there are ample opportunities to integrate identity and identification intoresearch on ethical and unethical leadership. Such work should examine identityat the individual (e.g., moral identity), group (e.g., group identification), and or-ganizational levels (e.g., organizational identification). Research suggests moralidentity can inform us on a potential individual orientation that influences leaders'


behavior, which then influences whether leaders are perceived as ethical or unethical.Furthermore, research suggests leaders play an intricate role in building followers'identification—whether within a group or with the organization as a whole. Iden-tification with the leader and organization can present beneficial and detrimentaloutcomes to organizations. More research is needed to determine how exactlyethical versus unethical leaders yield influence to build employees' identificationand how their identification influences outcomes. The relationships between ethi-cal leadership, unethical leadership, identity/identification as well as their impacton organizational decisions, structures, and employee behaviors represent fertileground for future research.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

We believe (un)ethical leadership research can be furthered by addressing variousissues that have arisen in other areas of the leadership and organizational behaviorliteratures. In particular, we believe scholars should consider issues involving thevariability of leadership ratings, multi-source and longitudinal data, levels of man-agement, and cross-cultural sampling. Doing so will strengthen inferences madeand advance the field further in understanding of the dynamics of leadership andbusiness ethics.

How Much Do Eollowers Agree?

Researchers have studied the variability in the quality of relationships between aleader and his/her followers. Some have observed that followers' ratings of leadershipare likely to vary greatly across individual followers (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga,1975). According to this perspective, leaders have favorites. They form high qual-ity relationships with a select group of their subordinates that are characterized bymutual trust, liking, and respect (see Erdogan, & Liden, 2002; Graen & Uhl-Bien,1995 for reviews). Other subordinates do not enjoy similar high quality relation-ships 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 theleader's in-group or out group. However, much leadership research is based on anassumption of average leadership effects across followers. From this perspective,as long as there is some level of similarity in follower perceptions (which is usu-ally assessed by statistical measures of consistency or agreement; Bliese, 2000),variations can safely be ignored and the leader's style of leadership is measured asthe average of all follower ratings.

There is nothing problematic with taking an average approach when measuringstyles of leadership (such as charisma). Some employees might consider a leaderto be charismatic, while others might not. We contend, however, that researchersneed to think more carefully when interpreting variance in ratings of ethical andunethical leadership. For example, what does it mean if some followers perceivetheir leader to be abusive or otherwise unethical while others do not? What does itmean 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


is treated positively) and still be considered an ethical leader? Or, do leaders needto be seen as consistently ethical by all their employees to be considered ethical?

Furthermore, what causes variability in follower perceptions? Are these variationsdue to follower characteristics such as moral identity or different standards of whatconstitutes normatively appropriate behavior? Can it be explained by personalityor other individual differences? Does follower variability in ratings contribute tonegative outcomes? These questions suggest that researchers might want to considervariability 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 bean ethical (or unethical) leader, which is the very basis of the descriptive socialscientific approach.

Whom Should We Be Asking?

As we mentioned earlier, we believe that empirical research on ethical and unethi-cal leadership could benefit from including multiple types of rating sources. Withinorganizations, multiple sources are often used in 360-degree performance assess-ments which solicit feedback from leaders, peers, subordinates, customers, and theindividual being rated to assess the focal individual's performance. At higher orga-nizational levels, researchers could consider collecting data from multiple externalsources (e,g,, stockholders, media, other stakeholders) to evaluate an organization'sexecutive leadership. Research suggests that different raters might employ differ-ent evaluative criteria for assessing leader performance (Harris & Schaubroeck,1988; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994), so including other rating sources in futureresearch might provide insight on missing antecedents, processes, and consequencesof (un)ethical leadership from the current literature.

Leaders versus Managers?

According to upper echelons theory, executives think and act differently comparedto lower level leaders (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978), Do thosedifferences extend to ethical leadership as well? How does level in the organizationaffect a leader's values, perceptions, and beliefs regarding organizational ethics?For example Treviño, Weaver, & Brown (2008) found that executives have morepositive assessments of the ethical well-being of their organizations compared tolower-level employees. Do executives and lower level leaders experience differentethical realities in other ways as well? If so, what are the consequences of thesediffering perceptions?

Levels of management also raise questions about the impact of distance (physi-cal distance, social distance and frequency of interaction; Antonakis & Atwater,2002) on the leader-follower relationship and outcomes. Compared to lower levelmanagers for whom most if not all of their followers are direct reports, seniormanagers are also responsible for leading more distant employees who fall withintheir chain of command. How does distance affect ethical leadership? If ethical andunethical leadership is, in part, based on learning processes, how does such learn-


ing take place when followers have few opportunities to observe senior managersin action? Similarly, how does distance affect the relationship between (un)ethicalleadership and outcomes? Overall, there is much to be gained by studying ethicaland unethical leadership at different levels of management and varying degrees ofleader-follower distance.

Researchers should also look for similarities and differences in as well as inter-relationships between multiple levels of management (e.g., supervisory, middlemanagement, executive-level leadership) in ethical and unethical leadership. Anexample of this type of research was published by Mayer et al. (2009) who foundthat the influence of top management ethical leadership on group-level deviance andcitizenship behaviors was mediated by supervisory ethical leadership. Future researchshould 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 natureof ethical and unethical leadership. There are many unanswered questions that canonly be answered with longitudinal research designs. How does (un)ethical leader-ship develop over time? Although research points to the importance of personality(Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), how does upbringing, education, and workexperience shape the ethicality of leaders? Can ethical leadership be developed andif 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 behaviorcan be strengthened, similar to a "muscle" in the body. Based on self-regulationtheory and research (e.g., Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006; Muraven& Baumeister, 2000), they contend ethical exercise can strengthen leaders' moralcore, 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 un-derstand 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'sethics to form? Do (un)ethical leadership perceptions form quickly? Or does it re-quire 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 interms of ethics? How long do the effects of (un)ethical leadership last? Can leadersrecover from ethical lapses and if so, how long does it take to regain the confidenceof followers?

Are Ethical and Unethical Leadership Universal?

Cultural differences play an important role in organizational behavior research(Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Therefore, nationalcultures and subcultures are likely to impact how people think about and react to(un)ethical leadership. Research suggests the general content of ethical leadership isuniversal, but specific facets of ethical leadership are emphasized differently across


cultures (Resick, Hanges, Dickson, & Mitchelson, 2006). However, there is muchthat we do not know about the relationship between culture and leadership. Previousresearch has investigated how definitions of effective leadership vary across nationalcultures (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dormán, & Gupta, 2004; Javidan, Dorfman,Sully de Luque, & House, 2006). However, research has not adequately exploredhow cultural differences between leaders and followers might impact employees'perceptions of leaders. For example, if a leader and follower come from differentcultures, how might this influence the leader's effectiveness as an ethical leader?This seems highly relevant for global organizations. Further, would such differenceshinder a leader's ability to set a strong ethical tone or can they be overcome? Whatabout unethical leadership—much like ethical leadership (Resick et al., 2006), arethere similarities in how cultures perceive unethical leadership? Are the antecedents,correlates, and outcomes of (un)ethical leadership universal as well? Or, are therelikely 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 out-comes. For example, reporting problems to a manager is likely to be easier in lowcompared to high power distance cultures. Furthermore, followers in high powerdistance cultures might be more willing to tolerate abusive and other unethical stylesof leadership compared to those in low power distance cultures. Future research isneeded to investigate these questions further.

CONCLUSION

The social scientific study of ethical and unethical leadership has grown tremen-dously. Although researchers have made many discoveries, we suggest that thereare many opportunities for future research. Integrating three emerging trends in theorganizational behavior literature—emotions, fit/misfit, and identity/identification—into a leadership and ethics research agenda will provide countless opportunitiesto expand what we know about the domain. Additionally, we outlined additionalconsiderations (variability of ratings, multi-source and longitudinal data, levels ofmanagement, and cross-cultural sampling) that we believe have merit in extendingthe literature. We concede to have only scratched the surface of identifying researchquestions and proposing new directions. There are, of course, many other possibili-ties that we have not set forth in this review. We hope our review inspires others tobuild on the foundation we have presented here and extend the advances that havealready been made in these areas.

NOTE

1. Consistent with previous descriptive behavioral ethics theorizing (e.g., Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007;Treviño 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).


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 ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 83: 1423^0.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes ofabusive 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 integrativemodel. 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: Anexamination of four fundatnental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-74.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy ofManagement 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 leadershipperceptions 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: Illegalnetworks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. American SociologicalReview, 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 ininjustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 629-43.


Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: FreePress.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Improving organizational effectiveness throughtransformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformationalleadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 181-218.

Baumeister, R. F. 2001. Ego-depletion, the executive function, and self-control: An energymodel of the self in personality. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personalitypsychology in the workplace: Decade of behavior: 299-316. Washington, DC:APA.

Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. 2006. Self-regulation andpersonality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletionmoderates the effects on traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74: 1773-1801.

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: Implicationsfor 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. LeadershipQuarterly, 17: 317-34.

Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. R. 2003. Escaping the identity trap. MIT Sloan ManagementReview, 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? HarvardBusiness Review, 55: 57-71.

Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. 2001. Collective corruption in the corporateworld: Toward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory andresearch: 471-99. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brief, A. P., Dukerich, J. M., & Doran, L. J. 1991. Resolving ethical dilemmas inmanagement: 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., & Treviño, L. K. 2006a. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.Leadership Quarterly, 17: 595-616.

2006b. Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance inwork groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 954—62.

2009. Leader-follower value congruence: Are socialized charismatic leadersbetter able to achieve it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 478-90.


Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learningperspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior andHuman 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 andorganizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 546-61.

Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. 2007. The role of perceived organizationalperformance 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 perception—behavior linkin social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 893-910.

Chatman, J. 1991. Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in publicaccounting 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: 313-27.

Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. 2008. CEOtransformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in topmanagement teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 81-96.

Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: Aninsider's perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly,10: 145-79.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage,

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinaryreview. Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.

Dansereau, E., Graen, G,, & Haga, W. J. 1975, A vertical dyad linkage approach toleadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the rolemaking process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78.

Dasborough, M. T. 2006, Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions toleadership 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 goesaround comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimatelydetermine organizational attitudes toward leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 571-85.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2008. Ethical and despotic leadership,relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectivenessand subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19:297-311.

Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. 2007. Managerial modes ofinfluence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 993-1005,


Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical decisionmaking: 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. Frustrationand 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 organizationalidentification. 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 AppliedPsychology, 94: 654-77.

Efraty, D., & Wolfe, D. M. 1988. The effect of organizational identification on employeeaffective and performance responses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3:105-12.

Elsbach, K. D. 1999. An expanded model of organizational identification. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 21: 163-200.

Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2004. Work value congruence and intrinsiccareer success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceivedorganizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57: 305-32.

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. 2002. Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recentdevelopments 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 supervisionthrough work-family conflict: An examination of job incumbents and theirparents. 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-consciousemotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride: 3-22. NewYork: Guilford Press.

Fox, S., & Speetor, P. E. 1999. A model of work frustration—aggression. Journal ofOrganizational 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 dramaturgicalperspective. Acade/Mj' of Management Review, 23: 32-58.


Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. 2005. Embedding leader characteristics:An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journalof 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. AmericanSociological Review, 25: 161-78.

Graen, G.B.,&Uhl-Bien,M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Developmentof leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying amulti-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 tomoral 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 moralintuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20: 98-116.

Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. 2003. Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is notlike other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1-36.

Hambrick, D. C , & Mason, P. A., 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflectionof its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206.

Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. 2007. An investigation of abusive supervisionas a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of therelationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 252-63.

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. 1988. A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, andpeer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41: 43-62.

Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T, Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P 2006. Stickingto our guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to falteringorganizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 607-28.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. 1994. Emotional contagion. New York: BantamBooks.

Hepworth, W, & Towler, A. 2004. The effects of individual differences and charismaticleadership 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 inorganizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 28: 633—42.

2009. Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating facadesof conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 727—41.

Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., & McBride, M. V. 2007. Authoritarian dynamicsand unethical decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders andhigh right-wing authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 92: 67-81.


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: Effectivenessand personality. American Psychologist, 49: 493-504.

Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining asdisplaced 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 IllinoisUniversity Press.

1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulatedtheory. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 323-52.

House, R. J., Hanges, P J., Javidan, M., Dormán, 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 thebeholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy ofManagement 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. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 44: 741-63.

Johnson, S. K. 2008. I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect atwork 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., & Treviño, L. K., 2010. The executive as ethical leader: Therelationship between leader-follower ethical reasoning and perceived ethicalleadership. University of Groningen. Unpublished manuscript.

Jordan, N. 1965. The asymmetry of liking and disliking. A phenomenon meriting furtherreflection and research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29: 315-22.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis 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: Perceivingthe 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: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.


Kelman, H. C. 1973. Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanizationof victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29: 25-61.

Kohlberg, L. 1969. State and sequence: The cognitive-development approach tosocialization. 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 ofindividuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342.

Lewis, K. M. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negativeemotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior,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 organizationalscholarship: Foundations of a new disciple: 241-58. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Madera, J. M., & Smith, D. B. 2009. The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluationsof leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. LeadershipQuarterly, 20: 103-14.

Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of thereformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 13: 103-23.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. 2009. How low doesethical leadership now? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 108: 1-13.

Mitchell, M. S. 2008. Unethical leader behavior and employee workplace deviance andthe moderating effects of need for affiliation and moral identity. Paper presentedat the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual conference, SanFrancisco, CA. Unpublished manuscript.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance andmoderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology,92: 1159-68.

Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. 2010. Understanding the managerial relevance of ethicalefficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology ofmorality (vol. 2): 89-108. New York: Routledge.

Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., Tepper, B. J., & Palmer, N. F 2010. Justifying supervisorabuse: Subordinate performance, moral disengagement, and need forachievement. Presentation at the meeting of Academy of Management, Montréal,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.


Neubert, M. J,, Carlson, D, S,, Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. 2009, Thevirtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journalof 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. Journalof Management, 24: 391^19.

O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. 1996. Organization-motivatedaggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21: 225-53,

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: Employeeattributions and emotional reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80: 823-44.

Peters, G, 2002. From good and bad to can and must: Subjective necessity of actsassociated with positively and negatively valued stimuli. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 32: 125-36.

Piccolo, R, F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R., 2010. The relationshipbetween ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 31: 259-78.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S, 1999, Fairness percepfions and trust asmediators 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 corruptindividuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of ManagementReview, 33: 685-709.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformafionalleader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, andorganizational citizenship behaviors. L«aders/ii/; ßuarter/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 regardtoward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 1270-86.

Resick, C , Hanges, P., Dickson, M., & Mitchelson, J. 2006. A cross-cultural examinationof 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 identityon moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92: 1610-24.

Riketta, M. 2005, Organizafional idenfificafion: A meta-analysis. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 66: 358-84.

Robertson, D. C , & Rymon, T. 2001. Purchasing agents' deceptive behavior: A randomizedresponse technique study. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11: 455-79.


Robinson, S., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of workgroups 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: Amultidimensional scaling siuày. 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 attitudesand 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 influencesorganizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45: 1120-36.

Schein, E. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Neubaum, D. O. 2005. The effect of leader moraldevelopment on ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 97: 135-51.

Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyreffite, J., & Sebora, T. C. 2002. Leadership and ethics inwork 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 moralidentity 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 JohnGutfreund 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 of Applied Psychology, 82: 434—43.

Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D., & Walker, D. 2008. Getting even for customermistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customerinterpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:1335^7.

Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's moodon the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journalof 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 ofintergroup relations: 61-76. London: Academic Press.


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

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 Personalityand 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 ManagementJournal, 43: 178-90.

2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, andresearch agenda. Journal of Management, 33: 261-89.

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C , Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C, & Hua, W. 2009. Abusivesupervision, 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 relationshipbetween abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 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 AppliedPsychology, 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, andsubordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal.

Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. 2007. Abusive supervision, upwardmaintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academyof 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 of Applied Psychology, 92: 840-47.

Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. 2009. How management stylemoderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance:An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 108: 79-92.

Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. In press. Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Examiningtwo explanations of the supervisor abuse-employee deviance relationship throughdistributive justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology.


Thomas, T., Schermerhorn, J. R., & Dienhart, J. W. 2004. Strategic leadership of ethicalbehavior in business. Academy of Management Executive, 18: 56-66.

Toor, S., & Ofori, G. 2009. Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full rangeleadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 90: 533-47.

Treviño, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situationinteractionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11: 601-17.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. 2003. A qualitative investigation of perceivedexecutive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executivesuite. Human Relations, 55: 5-37.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. 2000. Moral person and moral manager:How executive develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California ManagementReview, 42: 128^2.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Brown, M. E. 2008. It's lovely at the top: Hierarchicallevels, identities, and perceptions of organizational ethics. Business EthicsQuarterly, 18:233-53.

Treviño, 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: Understandingcultural diversity in global business (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. 2002. Transformationalleadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 304-11.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependentmodel. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106: 1039-61.

Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Unethical behavior in the nameof the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positivereciprocity beliefs influencing unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95: 769-80.

van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. 2003. A social identity model of leadershipeffectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 243-95.

Vardi, Y, & Weitz, E. 2005. Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, andmanagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Verona, E., Reed, A., II, & Aquino, K. F. 2003. Automatic and controlled processes ofaggression activation and regulation: The role of negative affect, ruminativecontent 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 voicebehavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychologicalsai&ty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1275-86.


Weaver, G. R., and Brown, M. E. In press. Moral foundations at work: new factors toconsider in understanding the nature and role of ethics in organizations. In A.Tenbrunsel & D. De Cremer (Eds.), Behavioral business ethics: Ideas on anemerging field. Psychology Press/Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. 1999. Corporate ethics programs as controlsystems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academyof Management Journal, 42: 41-57.

Weber, M. 1920. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Weiss, H., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of thestructure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 18: 1-74.

Yeager, P. C. 1986. Analyzing corporate offenses: Progress and prospects. Research inCorporate Social Performance and Policy, 8: 93-120.

Yussen, S. R., & Levy Jr., V. M. 1975. Effects of warm and neutral models on the attentionof 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.

Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New · PDF fileEthical and Unethical Leadership:...

Documents

Transcript of Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New · PDF fileEthical and Unethical Leadership:...