Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
What is This?
Abstract
The appropriate way to define and measure ethical leadership has been a source of conceptual confusion in the leadership
literature. Different measures have been developed, but they all have limitations. Some questionnaires are missing key
indicators of ethical leadership, or they include behaviors that do not seem directly relevant. In this study, the authors
assess the validity of a new questionnaire for measuring essential aspects of ethical leadership independently of other
types of leader behavior. The research also examines how ethical leadership is related to leader–member exchange and
work unit performance. Although the primary purpose of these analyses is to assess criterion-related validity for the new
questionnaire, the results help answer important questions about the benefits of ethical leadership. The authors found that
ethical leadership makes a small but significant contribution to the explanation of leader–member exchange and managerial
effectiveness.
Keywords
ethical leadership, leadership behavior, leadership effectiveness
Introduction
leaders incorporate moral principles in their beliefs, values,
Repeated scandals involving corporate and public sector and behaviors.
leaders over the past decade have increased interest in The construct domain of ethical leadership is broad, and
studying ethical leadership (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006; several different types of values may be relevant including
Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). Ethical values and behavior are altruism, compassion, honesty, fairness, and justice. Ethical
an important aspect of several currently prominent theories leadership is also indicated by behaviors reflecting these
in the leadership literature, including servant leadership values. Examples include being very supportive and helpful
(e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & when someone has a problem, being fair when distributing
Henderson, 2008; Russell & Stone, 2002; Smith, Montagno, rewards and benefits, being open and honest when commu-
& Kuzmenko, 2004), spiritual leadership (Frey, Hannah, nicating to people, making sacrifices to benefit others, talk-
Noel, & Walumbwa, 2011; Fry, 2003), and authentic leader- ing about the importance of values, setting clear ethical
ship (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005). standards for the work, keeping actions consistent with
Research on ethical leadership lagged behind other subjects espoused values, and holding people accountable for ethical
for most of the past half century (Cuilla, 1998), but in the and unethical actions.
past decade, interest in studying the antecedents, outcomes, It is obvious that ethical leadership behavior overlaps to
and processes of ethical leadership has been growing steadily. some extent with relations-oriented behavior constructs in
Ethical leadership has been described in a variety of the leadership literature, such as providing supportive or
ways. Kanungo (2001) noted that ethical leaders engage in considerate leadership, empowering leadership, developing
acts and behaviors that benefit others, and at the same time,
they refrain from behaviors that can cause any harm to others. 1
University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA
Brown, Treviño, and Harrison (2005) suggested that the 2
Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA
combination of integrity, ethical standards, and fair treat- 3
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
ment of employees are the cornerstones of ethical leadership.
Treviño and Brown (2004) proposed that ethical leadership, Corresponding Author:
Rubina Mahsud, Management Department, Albers School of Business
in its true sense, promotes ethical conduct by practicing as and Economics, Seattle University, 901, 12th Avenue, Seattle,
well as managing ethics and holding everyone account- WA 98122-1090, USA
able for it. Khuntia and Suar (2004) suggested that ethical Email: mahsudru@seattleu.edu
subordinate skills and self-confidence, and representing sub- leadership (e.g., honest communication, behavior consistent
ordinate interests (Yukl, 2010). A few questionnaires have with espoused values, fair allocation of assignments and
been developed in recent years to measure aspects of ethical rewards) were not explicitly included. Another limitation is
leadership, but they differ in important ways and they all that two of the items (i.e., listens to what employees have
have limitations. The question of how to define and measure to say, has the best interests of employees in mind) were
ethical leadership has not been resolved, and there is sub- rated more representative of consideration than of ethical
stantial conceptual confusion about this construct. The leadership. Finally, the test for discriminant validity with
purpose of our research was to identify the most essential honesty was flawed because (unlike the ELS items) honesty
qualities to include in a measure of ethical leadership and to was only measured with two negatively worded items; it is
develop a measure that minimizes confounding with other likely that positively worded items would load primarily on
constructs. We begin by reviewing earlier measures of ethi- the ethical leadership factor.
cal leadership and research on the consequences of ethical
leadership. We then describe the development of an
improved measure of ethical leadership called the Ethical Perceived Leader Integrity Scale
Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) and provide validation Craig and Gustafson (1998) reviewed literature on ethical
evidence for it. aspects of leadership and developed a questionnaire to mea-
sure integrity called the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale
(PLIS). The objective in selecting items was to measure
Review of Research on ethical aspects of behavior that can be observed by a lead-
Measures of Ethical Leadership er's subordinates. The PLIS has 31 items describing several
Three instruments designed to directly measure ethical lead- types of unethical and abusive behavior (e.g., is vindictive,
ership include the Ethical Leadership Survey (Brown et al., would lie to me, would blame me for his/her mistakes,
2005), the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (Craig would steal from the organization, would take credit for my
& Gustafson, 1998), and the Ethical Leadership Work ideas, gives special favors to “pet” employees). The four
Questionnaire (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Two other response choices indicate how accurately the items describe
instruments were designed to measure types of leadership the supervisor (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = very much,
that include some ethical values and behaviors: the Authentic 4 = exactly). Favorable validation evidence was obtained in
Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, their initial study and a follow-up study (Parry & Proctor-
Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) and the Servant Leadership Thompson, 2002). However, one major limitation of the
Questionnaire (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Each instrument PLIS is the lack of positively worded items. The absence of
will be described and the limitations identified. unethical behavior does not necessarily imply a high level
of ethical behavior. Another limitation is the use of vague
conditional wording (“would steal”) for many items, which
Ethical Leadership Survey involves an inference about possible behavior rather than
Treviño, Brown, and Hartman (2003) asked people to describe wording that describes actual observed behavior. Finally, a
characteristics of ethical leaders, and the descriptors questionnaire that only has negatively worded items is less
included honesty, fair treatment, communication of ethical likely to be answered by respondents who worry that it may
values, role modeling of ethical behaviors, rewarding ethical have adverse consequences for themselves or their bosses.
behavior, and holding subordinates accountable for unethi-
cal conduct. Their investigation showed that ethical leader-
ship is not only about traits such as integrity and honesty Ethical Leadership Work Questionnaire
but also about efforts to make subordinates accountable for De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) conducted a study of
behaving ethically. Similar results were found in a second Dutch managers using interviews and questionnaires. The
study, and based on these findings and earlier literature, researchers developed a preliminary questionnaire to mea-
Brown et al. (2005) developed a new questionnaire to mea- sure ethical leadership, and it was used in a study of ethical
sure these characteristics called the Ethical Leadership Scale leadership in top management teams. The factor analysis
(ELS). The ELS has 10 items, each with a 5-point Likert- found that morality and fairness was distinct from power-
type response format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly sharing behavior and also from negatively worded despotic
agree). The validation research found support for the ELS, behaviors (e.g., punitive, vengeful, and tyrannical). Some
and a leader’s overall score on the ELS predicted outcomes limitations of the early questionnaire include the use of
such as perceived effectiveness of leaders, employees’ sat- items with multiple components and vague wording and
isfaction with job, employees’ willingness for putting extra mixing of positive and negatively worded items in a way
effort into their work, and reporting problems. However, that can confuse respondents and complicate data analyses
one limitation is that some relevant aspects of ethical (Rorer, 1965; Schriesheim & Eisenbach, 1995).
Follow-up research (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, relevant information and ideas when making decisions. This
2011) was conducted with a revised and extended question- quality involves personality traits and cognitive skills that
naire called the Ethical Leadership Work Questionnaire can facilitate problem solving but do not necessarily result
(ELW). The questionnaire had 38 items, and each item in decisions that are ethical. Moreover, the flexibility
had a 7-point anchored Likert-type response format (1 = implied by being highly receptive to new information and
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The ELW has seven ideas seems inconsistent with some aspects of ethical lead-
subscales: fairness, integrity, ethical guidance, people ori- ership, such as communicating values in a strong, persua-
entation, power sharing, role clarification, and concern for sive way and insisting on their application in the work
sustainability. The three subscales that seem most relevant involved.
for ethical leadership are fairness (e.g., my leader has clear
favorites among subordinates), integrity (5 items; e.g., my
leader keeps his/her promises), and ethical guidance (e.g., Servant Leadership Questionnaires
my leader clearly explains integrity-related codes of con- Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed a questionnaire to
duct). The subscales for role clarification, power sharing, measure servant leadership, and it includes five subscales:
and people orientation are similar to leadership behaviors altruism, organizational stewardship, persuasive mapping,
that have been studied for decades. Role clarification is a wisdom, and emotional healing. Each scale has four to five
core task behavior, and the other two subscales are rela- items that have a 4-point Likert-type response format (1 =
tions behaviors. These behaviors are not inherently ethical, strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = somewhat dis-
and they can be used for unethical purposes. The subscale agree, 4 = strongly disagree). The subscale for altruism
for sustainability involves social issues, and it is only one involves behaviors that reflect altruistic values and is very
of many social issues that leaders may elect to endorse and relevant for ethical leadership (e.g., puts my best interests
support (e.g., democracy, free speech, global health, free ahead of his/her own, does everything he/she can to serve
enterprise, animal rights, world peace). The definition and me, sacrifices his/her own interests to meet my needs,
measurement of ethical leadership should not be compli- goes above and beyond the call of duty to meet my needs).
cated by debates about which social issues deserve to be Organizational stewardship involves social responsibility
included in the definition. values and the belief that the organization should contribute
to society (e.g., believes that it needs to play a moral role in
society, encourages me to have a community spirit in the
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire workplace, is preparing the organization to make a positive
The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire was developed difference in the future). Not all scholars will agree that
to measure the core qualities of authentic leadership ethical leadership should be defined so broadly as to include
(Walumbwa et al., 2008). The Authentic Leadership advocacy of corporate social responsibility objectives. The
Questionnaire includes four scales (self-awareness, rela- remaining three servant leadership scales do not seem very
tional transparency, internalized moral perspective, and bal- relevant for ethical leadership. “Persuasive mapping” is an
anced processing), each with four items that describe leader interpersonal skill involving ability to influence people, and
behavior and have a frequency response format. Walumbwa “wisdom” involves situational awareness and social intel-
et al. (2008) found some overlap between measures of ligence. Both these skills can be used for either ethical or
authentic leadership and ethical leadership. Two subscales unethical purposes. “Emotional healing” is a very special-
appear especially relevant for ethical leadership. An inter- ized and probably somewhat rare interpersonal skill that
nalized moral perspective means that leader behavior is could be useful for some leaders but is not essential for
guided by internal moral standards and personal values (e.g., ethical leadership.
makes decisions that are based on core beliefs, expresses
beliefs that are consistent with actions). Relational transpar-
ency means that the leader reveals values and beliefs accu- Overview
rately (e.g., says exactly what he/she means, admits mistakes In summary, the prior theory and research on ethical leader-
openly). However, the other two components of authentic ship has created substantial conceptual confusion about the
leadership do not appear to describe essential aspects of scope of the ethical leadership construct domain and the
ethical leadership. Self- awareness appears similar to trait appropriate way to measure it. The topics that appear most
and skills included in emotional maturity and emotional relevant for a specific focus on ethical leadership include
intelligence. A leader can be self-aware without also being (a) honesty and integrity (including consistency of actions
honest, caring, or open with others, and a leader can be caring with espoused values), (b) behavior intended to communi-
and open without having a full understanding of unconscious cate or enforce ethical standards, (c) fairness in decisions
reasons for his or her core beliefs and values. Balanced pro- and the distribution of rewards (no favoritism or use of
cessing refers to objectivity and pragmatic openness to rewards to motivate improper behavior), and (d) behavior
that shows kindness, compassion, and concern for the needs Managerial Effectiveness
and feelings of others (rather than attempts to manipulate,
abuse, and exploit others for personal gain). Except for Leadership effectiveness is a multidimensional construct,
some supportive behaviors, these qualities appear distinct but an important aspect is the manager’s influence on work
from the types of behavior included in most prior research unit performance. Ethical leadership that increases follower
on effective leadership. loyalty and trust may result in more follower effort, and one
survey study found a relationship between ethical leadership
and employee effort (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, &
Consequences of Ethical Leadership Folger, 2010). However, there are several reasons why an
Previous research has investigated how ethical leadership is improvement in unit performance may not occur. Member
related to a variety of outcomes, including deviant behavior motivation is not the only determinant of work unit perfor-
(Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012; Mayer, mance, and leaders can influence the determinants in several
Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009), task perfor- ways (Yukl, 2009). Three broad categories of leadership
mance (Walumbwa et al., 2011), voice behavior (Walumbwa behavior relevant for influencing performance include task-
& Schaubroeck, 2009), and organizational citizenship behav- oriented behaviors (e.g., clear roles, challenging goals,
ior (Mayer et al., 2009). Our validation research involves coordination, efficient use of resources), relations-oriented
two specific indicators of leadership influence that are well behaviors (e.g., empowering, coaching, praise and recogni-
established in the organizational behavior literature, namely, tion), and change-oriented behaviors (strategy formation,
leader–member exchange (LMX) and overall effectiveness. enhancing collective learning). The relevance of specific
aspects of these behavior metacategories depends on the
situation. The change-oriented behaviors are usually more
Leader–Member Exchange important for executives, whereas the task-oriented behav-
LMX quality depends on the degree of emotional support iors are usually more important for lower level leaders.
and exchange of valued resources between a leader and a Several studies (see Judge & Piccolo, 2004) found positive
subordinate (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Sparrowe & association between composite scores of transforma-
Liden, 1997). A high-quality exchange relation has benefi- tional leadership and measures of effectiveness, and the
cial effects for both the leader and the subordinate (Erdogan, composite scores usually include a mix of relations-oriented
Liden, & Kraimer, 2006; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, and change-oriented behaviors. As yet no study has exam-
2002). A high-quality exchange relationship is more likely ined the extent to which ethical leadership can enhance
to occur for a leader who is honest, trustworthy, fair, and work unit performance independently of relevant leader-
genuinely concerned about the well-being of followers ship behaviors.
(Erdogan et al., 2006; Wayne et al., 2002). A leader’s influence on work unit performance also
Several studies have examined how leaders can influence depends on how he or she balances competing objectives
LMX. In one study, transformational behavior influenced (Quinn, 1988; Yukl, 2010). In some situations ethical lead-
LMX, which then mediated the effects of leader behavior ership may have negative effects on work unit performance,
on employee performance (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & and sometimes unethical leadership has positive effects, if
Chen, 2005). Another study (Yukl, O’Donnell, & Taber, only for a limited time. For example, some decisions made
2009) examined the effects of several specific behaviors, to reduce costs and increase profits may not be viewed as
including relations-oriented and change-oriented compo- ethical leadership by employees. In recent years, many
nents of transformational leadership. LMX was related to leaders of companies and public sector organizations have
four specific relations-oriented behaviors (supporting, rec- been trying to cut costs by reducing employee rights and
ognizing, consulting, delegating) and leading by example benefits or by outsourcing many jobs. Sometimes the pro-
(which can be viewed as an indicator of integrity). cess involves a lack of honest communication, failure to
Research on the implications of ethical leadership for honor commitments, and unfair treatment for different
LMX is still sparse. One recent study found a strong posi- groups of employees. Other leaders try to improve unit per-
tive association between ethical leadership and LMX formance with practices that are clearly unethical. Examples
(Walumbwa et al., 2011), and LMX partially mediated the from past scandals include the following: selling products
effects of ethical leadership on ratings of subordinate per- known to be defective, charging customers for unnecessary
formance by the leader. Another study by Mahsud, Yukl, auto repairs or parts not actually provided, inflating reports
and Prussia (2010) found that a six-item measure of ethical of income from agreements for future delivery of services,
leadership had both direct and indirect effects on LMX, and denying a weakness that make a product dangerous, and fal-
the indirect effects were partially mediated by relations- sifying information on applications for loans or mortgages.
oriented behavior. If ethical leaders (“whistle-blowers”) dare to challenge
these practices, they are likely to be punished or dismissed of relationships with subordinates and on unit performance.
by the organization. The influence of unethical practices on There are credible explanations and some prior evidence
unit performance depends in part on the time frame used to to support the proposition that an ethical leader will elicit
assess effects. Unethical practices may boost performance more trust and have more favorable exchange relationships
indicators in the short term but are likely to have negative with subordinates. However, the implications of ethical
effects that will only become apparent over a longer period leadership for work unit performance are much less certain.
of time. All these complexities make it difficult to deter- Examining these relationships is only an exploratory aspect
mine how ethical or unethical leadership will influence unit of the research, and the study was not designed to formally
performance. test any specific hypotheses about them.
Empirical studies on the consequences of ethical and
unethical leadership for work groups or organizations are
still limited. Several studies have found a positive linkage Method
between ethical leadership and perceived leader effective- Sample and Data Collection Procedures
ness (Brown et al., 2005; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 1998;
Kalshoven et al., 2011). Most studies only examined relation- The sample for this study were 192 graduate students, 147 of
ships for a composite measure of ethical leadership rather whom were enrolled in the MBA program of a private uni-
than assessing how each ethical component is independently versity in the northwestern part of the United States and
related to the criterion variables. However, Kalshoven et al. 45 respondents were enrolled in the Master of Public
(2011) reported results for component scales. In the multiple Administration program of a large public university in the
regression analysis, leader ratings of subordinate performance Midwestern part of the United States. The students had full-
were predicted by only two of the seven ELW subscales, time jobs during the day, and they rated their immediate
namely, fairness and power sharing. As noted earlier, fair- supervisor. Almost half of the respondents were between 25
ness is a relevant component of ethical leadership, but and 30 years old, and the average amount of time respon-
power sharing is a leadership behavior that has been studied dents had worked for their current organization was 2 to 4
for more than half a century and is not necessarily ethical years. The average work experience ranged from 7 to 10
(it can be used in a very manipulative way). Subordinate years. The gender composition of the respondent sample was
ratings of leader effectiveness were predicted by two essen- 49% males, and 44% of the supervisors rated by respondents
tial aspects of ethical leadership (integrity and ethical guid- were females. More than half of the respondents (55%) held
ance) and by two leader behaviors (role clarification and professional/technical jobs, 26% held first-level manage-
people orientation) that are not necessarily ethical. Role clar- ment positions (team leader, supervisor, and section head),
ification is a task-oriented behavior, and people orientation 14% held middle-management positions, and only 3% were
is a relations-oriented behavior similar to consideration. upper level executives. The respondents represented diverse
organizations; 51% of them worked for medium to large
corporations, 32% worked for government or nonprofit orga-
Summary nizations, and 14% worked for small businesses. The organi-
No previous study has investigated how ethical leadership zations were from a large variety of industries (e.g., aerospace,
is related to LMX and overall leader effectiveness while technology, pharmaceutical, media, consulting, retail, soft-
simultaneously controlling for a comprehensive measure of ware, telecommunications, banking, government, and non-
task, relations, and change behaviors. In survey studies, it profit). This student sample is unique in the sense that they
is important to include other relevant behaviors and identify attended only one or two classes per week and kept their
their separate and joint effects on unit performance. full-time job as prime responsibility. Being entry- to mid-
level managers their education was mostly funded by their
employers.
Research Objectives Data were collected in two time periods to reduce biases
The primary objective of the current study was to assess the that typically manifest when same source data are used to
validity of a new questionnaire for measuring ethical lead- assess both the predictor and criteria measures (Podsakoff,
ership. Discriminant validity is demonstrated when subor- MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In the first wave of
dinates can rate the ethical leadership of their immediate data collection, respondents completed the ELQ and a
boss independently from their ratings of how much the boss behavior description questionnaire. Two weeks after the
uses leadership behaviors that do not directly involve ethi- first wave of data collection, respondents completed another
cal issues. Evidence of criterion-related validity is provided questionnaire about the quality of their exchange relation
by showing that ethical leadership can explain additional with their supervisors as well as the overall managerial
variance in indicators of the leader’s influence on the quality effectiveness of their boss and unit performance.
NOTE: NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. The
two-factor model differentiated Managerial Practices Survey items from Ethical Leadership Questionnaire items; the three-factor model differentiated
among Change, Task, Relations, and Ethical Leadership Questionnaire items.
*p < .05.
Measures Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Task-Oriented Behaviors 3.18 0.70 (.86)
2. Relations-Oriented Behaviors 3.09 0.86 .46 (.95)
3. Change-Oriented Behaviors 3.55 0.96 .51 .67 (.92)
4. Ethical Leadership 4.68 1.05 .38 .60 .52 (.96)
5. Leader–Member Exchange 3.90 0.83 .47 .72 .53 .66 (.91)
6. Overall Leader Effectiveness 6.43 1.71 .55 .62 .59 .67 .80 (.74)
leadership items in the other, and (c) a three-factor model Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Leader–Member
with ethical leadership loading on relations behavior and Exchange
separate factors for task and change behaviors. The fit indi- Step 1 Step 2
ces for the proposed four-factor model (see Table 2) were
better than for any of the rival models. Measures β t β t
Task Behaviors .20 3.15* .15 2.62*
Correlations and Regression Analyses Relations Behaviors .57 7.81** .40 5.50**
Change Behaviors .06 0.82 .01 0.13
Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, correlations, Ethical Leadership .36 5.55**
and internal reliability estimates (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha) for R2 .52 .59
all six measures included in the study. Although composite F 69.07** 61.40**
scores for all measures were slightly negatively skewed,
the differences between the average scores and the scale NOTE: β is standardized regression coefficient; N = 198.
*p < .05. **p< .01.
midpoints were not very large. Furthermore, the standard
deviations for all of the measures were relatively high,
indicating adequate variability in the data sufficient for
further analysis.
Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were con- Table 5 summarizes results of the hierarchical regres-
ducted to assess the effect of ethical leadership on LMX and sion analysis for overall leader effectiveness. In the first
overall leader effectiveness. Table 4 summarizes results of step of the regression analysis, the three leader behaviors
the regression analysis for LMX. In the first step, relations together accounted for 46% variance in leader effective-
and task-oriented leader behaviors were found to be signifi- ness. In the second step, after controlling for the effects of
cant predictors of LMX, and they accounted for 52% of the the three types of leader behaviors, ethical leadership was
criterion variance (F = 60.63, p < .05). In the second step, found to be a significant predictor of leader effectiveness
after controlling for the effects of the three leader behaviors, (β = .39, p < .05), and it explained an additional 10% vari-
ethical leadership was a significant predictor of LMX (β = ance in leader effectiveness (F = 41.55, p<.05). The regres-
.38, p < .05), and it explained an additional 7% criterion sion analyses provided evidence for the criterion-related
variance (F = 61.40, p < .05). validity of the ELQ.
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Overall Leader leadership and other relevant predictors such as support-
Effectiveness ive leadership. After controlling for the effects of task-
oriented, relations-oriented, and change-oriented leader
Step 1 Step 2
behaviors, the ELQ explained additional variance in both
Measures β t β t LMX and overall leader effectiveness. Similar to Zhu,
May, and Avolio (2004), our finding that ethical leader-
Task Behaviors .28 3.65** .21 2.97**
ship is related to an effectiveness measure that includes
Relations .30 3.51** .10 1.13
Behaviors unit work performance provides evidence that being ethi-
Change .24 2.66* .20 2.45* cal is not only commendable but also effective.
Behaviors
Ethical .39 4.98**
Leadership
Limitations and Future Research
R2 .46 .56 There are four particular limitations of the current study.
F 39.92** 41.55** First, like any survey study, the results reflect correlations
rather than causation. A strong test of causality requires a
NOTE: β is standardized regression coefficient; N = 198.
*p < .05. **p < .01. research design with experimental manipulation of indepen-
dent variables. It is difficult to manipulate ethical leadership
in a field setting, but a scenario study could be used for a
laboratory experiment on some research questions about
Discussion
ethical leadership.
Researchers are paying increasing attention to the impor- A second limitation of this research is the possibility of
tance of ethical leadership in both private and public sector same-source bias. To reduce such bias, we separated the col-
organizations. However, progress in this research is impeded lection of the independent and dependent variables of our
by problems in the questionnaires used to measure ethical study by approximately 2 weeks (Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar,
leadership. One limitation of the earlier measures is overlap Roberts, & Chonko, 2009), and we used different response
with other leadership constructs such as supportive and formats for the predictor and criterion measures (Podsakoff
empowering leadership, which are known to be related to et al., 2003). Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis
LMX. When a correlation is found between a confounded results suggested that our data were better explained by the
measure of ethical leadership and LMX, it is difficult to proposed four-factor model than by a common factor or
interpret the results. Another limitation in earlier studies was plausible alternative models. Finally, Doty and Glick (1998)
the use of an ethical leadership measure that did not include and Spector (2006) have concluded that problems caused by
some relevant aspects of ethical leadership. The relationship common method variance are overstated and seldom serious
between ethical leadership and outcomes such as LMX and enough to invalidate research findings based on the type of
unit performance may be underestimated by an incomplete methods used. Just the same, future investigations should
measure of ethical leadership. conduct longitudinal research using independent measures
Based on previous theory and research, we developed of the predictors and outcome variables derived from differ-
and assessed a new ELQ designed to provide a more useful ent sources to further limit potential problems associated
and valid measure. The ELQ is comprehensive with regard with common method variance.
to the most important elements of ethical leadership, includ- The third limitation of our study was the assessment of
ing integrity, honesty, fairness, communication of ethical leader attributes from the perspective of a single subordi-
values, consistency of behavior with espoused values, ethi- nate. The ratings of leader ethical behaviors may be biased
cal guidance, and altruism. At the same time, with only 15 by a subordinate’s general evaluation of the leader, but the
items and one composite score, the ELQ is parsimonious alternative of using leader self-ratings of ethical behav-
and easy to administer. iors entails an even greater likelihood of biased responses.
Our study showed that the ELQ has high reliability as Having multiple subordinates rate each leader’s ethical con-
well as discriminant and criterion-related validity. The fac- duct could provide a more accurate assessment of ethical
tor analyses confirmed that the items in the ELQ are distinct behavior. Future research should ask leaders to provide
from task- and change-oriented leader behaviors, and there behavior self-assessments and then check for agreement
is minimal overlap with relations-oriented leader behaviors with the ratings of leader behaviors made by subordinates,
such as supportive and empowering leadership. peers, and bosses. The study can be nested within a multi-
As in a few earlier studies that used different measures, source feedback intervention that includes other relevant
we found that ethical leadership is significantly related to behaviors and competencies.
LMX and leader effectiveness. Unlike the earlier studies, A final limitation is that we did not include other common
our study minimized any confounding between ethical measures of leadership (e.g., transformational leadership).
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical lead- Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Ser-
ership: A social learning perspective for construct development vant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure
and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision and multilevel assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.
Processes, 97, 117-134. Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical
Cuilla, J. (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: leadership, and relation-oriented behaviors as antecedents of
Quorum Books. leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Managerial Psy-
Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B (1998). Perceived Leader Integrity chology, 25, 561-577.
Scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M.
leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 127-145. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership and why does it mat-
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and ter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethi-
despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social respon- cal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151-171.
sibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., &
optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19, Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow?
297-311. Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and
Doty, G. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13.
common method variance really bias results? Organizational Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., &
Research Methods, 1, 374-406. Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical lead-
Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and ership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business
leader–member exchange: The moderating role of organiza- Ethics, 90, 157-170.
tional culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 395-406. Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thompson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integ-
Frey, L. W., Hannah, T. S., Noel, M., & Walumbwa, O. F. (2011). rity of transformational leaders in organizational settings. Journal
Impact of spiritual leadership on unit performance. Leadership of Business Ethics, 35, 75-96.
Quarterly, 22, 259-270. Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leader- (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job
ship Quarterly, 14, 693-727. characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259-278.
Gardner,W. L.,Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., &Walumbwa, F. O. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authen- (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
tic leadership and follower development. Leadership Quar- critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
terly, 16, 343-372. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 879-903.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship based approach Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the
to leadership: Development of leader member exchange theory paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San
(LMX) of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response style myth. Psychological
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transac- Bulletin, 63, 129-156.
tional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leader-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768. ship attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership &
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Organization Development Journal, 23, 145-157.
Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial
and validation of a multi-dimensional measure. Leadership leader member exchange status on the effects of a leadership
Quarterly, 22, 51-69. intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.
Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and trans- Schriesheim, C. A., & Eisenbach, R. J. (1995). An exploratory
formational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative and confirmatory factor analytic investigation of item wording
Sciences, 18, 257-265. effects on the obtained factor structures of survey question-
Khuntia, R., & Suar, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leader- naire measure. Journal of Management, 21, 1177-1193.
ship for Indian private and public sector managers. Journal Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or culture mat-
of Business Ethics, 49, 13-26. ters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 243-256.
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of self-reported and Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Trans-
subordinate reported leadership behaviors to managerial formational and servant leadership: Content and contextual
effectiveness and advancement. Leadership Quarterly, 6, comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
361-377. 10(4), 80-91.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in
exchange theory: The past potential for the future. Research in leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Review,
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47-119. 22, 522-552.
Spector, P. E. (2006) Method variance in organizational research: currently a Professor of Management at UAlbany, and his research
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, interests include leadership, influence processes, and management
221-232. development. He has published many journal articles and is the
Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical: author or coauthor of several books, including Leadership in
Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Manage- Organizations, 7th edition (Prentice-Hall, 2010). He has received
ment Executive, 18, 69-204. several awards for his research and is a fellow of the American
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M. E., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A quali- Psychological Association, the American Psychological Society,
tative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, and the
Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Academy of Management. His leadership development programs
Relations, 56, 5-38. are used in many organizations.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., &
Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and Rubina Mahsud, Assistant Professor, PhD, New York State
validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, University at Albany, MPH, New York State University at Albany,
34, 89-126. Masters in Social Sciences, University of Birmingham (UK),
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, C., M.D., Jinnah Medical College (Pak). Her areas of expertise are
& Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to Strategy, strategic leadership, and Corporate Social Responsibility,
employee performance: The roles of LMX, self-efficacy, and Global Business Integrated. She joined Albers in 2007 where she
organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and teaches MBA’s capstone courses on competitive strategy and
Human Decision Processes, 115, 204-213. senior synthesis classes on Business Policy and Strategy. Prior to
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality Albers Business School, she held a visiting position at the Tobin
traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical College of Business Administration at St. John’s University, New
leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of York. Dr. Mahsud published on determinants of firm performance,
Applied Psychology, 94, 1275-1286. flexible leadership, ethical leadership, and corporate social
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. responsibility topics in journals including JLOS, JMP, The
(2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the rela- Independent Review, and Consulting Psychology Journal.
tionship between transformational leadership and followers’
performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad- Shahidul Hassan currently serves as an assistant professor of
emy of Management Journal, 48, 420-432. Public Management at the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. The Ohio State University. He received his PhD in Public
(2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions Administration and Policy from the Rockefeller College of Public
of organizational support and leader–member exchange. Affairs at the University at Albany. His research focuses on the role
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598. of leadership and management practices on motivation, commit-
Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership and organizational learning: An eval- ment and performance of employees in public and non-profit orga-
uative essay. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 49-53. nizations. Dr. Hassan’s research has appeared in journals such as
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper International Public Management Journal and Public Management
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Review. He is a member of the Academy of Management and
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy Public Management Research Association and serves on the
of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior Editorial Board for the International Public Management Journal.
research. Journal of Leadership & Organization Studies, 9, 15-32.
Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Leader behaviors and Gregory E. Prussia teaches in the Management Department and
leader member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, holds the O’Brien Chair in the Albers School of Business and
24, 289-299. Economics at Seattle University. He has a BA in Economics and
Zhu, W., May, R. D., & Avolio, J. B. (2004). The impact of ethical an MBA from California State University, Chico, and a PhD in
leadership behavior on employee outcomes: The roles of psy- Human Resource Management from Arizona State University. His
chological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leader- publications appear in several journals including Academy of
ship & Organizational Studies, 11, 16-26. Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal
of Applied Psychology, and Personnel Psychology. He is a mem-
Bios ber of the Academy of Management, the American Psychological
Gary Yukl received a PhD in Industrial-Organizational Association, and the Decision Sciences Institute, and serves on the
Psychology from the University of California at Berkeley. He is Editorial Board for the Academy of Management Journal.