solved:   Discussion:  Values are established from a very young age and can be influenced by people and envi

11

English translation © 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text, “Sotsial’nye
ustanovki i tsennosti: vzaimodeistvie fenomenov i sootnoshenie poniatii.”

Bulat Saliamovich Alishev is a Doctor of Psychological Sciences and a professor
in the Department of General Psychology, Kazan University. Address correspondence
to [email protected]

Translated by Nora Seligman Favorov.

Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 48, no. 2,
March–April 2010, pp. 11–30.
© 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1061–0405/2010 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/RPO1061-0405480202

B.S. AliShev

Social Attitudes and Values
How Phenomena Interact and Concepts
Interrelate

The author presents the hypothesis that attitudes have a dual origin—bio-
social and cultural—and a transitory character. Conversely, he proposes
a close interaction between attitudes and values. He also proposes the
integration of three main interpretations of the essence of value positivis-
tic, transcendental, and subjectivist. The empirical study used five sets of
questionnaires to reveal the relationship between attitudes and values.

Statement of the problem

The social attitudes and values of various groups have been a traditional
field of interest for social psychologists for several decades. However, the
interaction between these psychological phenomena and, correspondingly, the
concepts that represent them is not yet sufficiently understood. In particular,
Leon Festinger asserted that opinion, belief, attitudes, and values, while be-
ing somewhat different, are all “elements of knowledge” (Festinger, 2000, p.
9). More recently, Gerd Bohner writes, “[A]ttitudes towards abstract entities
. . . are frequently termed values” (Bohner, 2004, p. 241). The opinions of
Russian psychologists are also characteristic. For V.A. Iadov attitudes and

12 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

values are distinct from one another only in the degree to which they are
generalized, being parts of an integral system of dispositions (Iadov, 1979,
pp. 62–70).

It should be added that serious difficulties arise not only in separating at-
titudes and values, but in distinguishing them both from motives, thoughts,
personality traits, and so on. For example, D.A. Leontiev notes: “[M]otives
are extremely difficult to distinguish from personalized meaning and semantic
attitudes in experiments, since they only manifest themselves through these
two phenomena. The same thing, but to an even greater extent, can be said of
values” (2003, p. 130). A.G. Shmelev writes: “The term ‘attitude’ [ustanovka
and otnoshenie] is increasingly used in place of the term ‘trait’ [cherta]”
(2002, p. 56).

It would seem that this intertwining of concepts is no coincidence, but rather
in the order of things, and the reason for this is that as soon as researchers
begin to penetrate the essence of the specific phenomena they are studying
more deeply, they discover that at their very basis, “at the very bottom,” is
something common, integral, and inseparable. There, “in the depths,” it is
revealed that the most fundamental attitudes turn out to be exceptionally robust
and become indistinguishable from motives, personality traits, and values.
Just as closely connected and tending to flow into one another are the other
psychological phenomena mentioned above.

Nevertheless, in this article I attempt, first, to define certain differences
between values and attitudes and, second, to demonstrate that there are close
interconnections between them.

Social attitudes

Initially, attitudes were seen as the result of previous experience. This under-
standing was based on the idea that given repeated interaction with one and
the same objects of the external environment in the same types of situations,
their meaning gradually ceases to be fixed by consciousness in the form of
an attitude arising at the moment and takes on the form of an enduring atti-
tude. The formation of attitudes turns out to be very similar to the formation
of conditioned reflexes in animals. In particular, in the famous definition by
Gordon Allport (1935, p. 810), attitudes are interpreted as states of the nervous
system and awareness that express a personality’s readiness for a particular
sort of purposeful action.

Later, there was a move away from basing theories on the rigid conceptual
model that saw attitudes as explaining behavior to the more flexible idea
that attitudes make a given behavior possible. Social attitudes started to be

MARCH–APRIL 2010 13

interpreted as culturally assigned tendencies, the manifestation of which in
the actual behavior of an individual was seen as a matter of statistical prob-
ability. For example, Milton Rokeach saw them as a system of ideals about
a social object or situation that is relatively stable over time and that inclines
a person toward choosing a particular behavior (Rokeach, 1968). It was this
sort of interpretation that led the concept to gradually lose its specificity and
become almost indistinguishable from the concepts of relationship, stereotype,
value, motive, meaning, personality trait, and so on.

From my perspective, these difficulties are associated with the fact that
the term “attitude” (ustanovka) is used to denote psychological phenomena
that differ in origin and each influence behavior in their own way. In this
connection I would like to draw the reader’s attention to the idea described
by O.M. Panfilov that a fixed attitude was the first form of relationship
(otnoshenie) in human phylogenesis (Panfilov, 1995, p. 217). This idea
suggests that the phenomenon of the fixed attitude appeared in primitive
humans as an extension of instinctive, genetically conditioned regulators
of behavior. For example, various prohibitions and taboos could emerge
not as the result of a conscious imposition of limitations on certain forms
of behavior by the community (culture). It might have been that, although
there was no awareness of them as prohibitions, they existed in the form
of fixed attitudes, being an “extension” of instinct. What I have in mind
is the following. The gradual evolutionary development of consciousness
forced people to find an explanation for everything they encountered. They
could not have failed to notice that they themselves had something within
them that forced them to do one thing and not do another thing. How, for
example, were they able to explain to themselves certain psychological
“forces” against committing incest? Or if they did not attempt to explain
this, then might they at least have brought the existence of such a prohibi-
tion to the cognitive level? Such a transference might have brought about
the phenomenon of the taboo in primitive groups.

It is helpful to recall that according to Sigmund Freud the taboo is ancient in
origin and is linked to the emergence of conscience. He writes, “[T]he under-
standing of taboo also throws light upon the nature and origin of conscience.
. . . Conscience is the inner perception of objections to definite wish impulses
that exist in us; but the emphasis is put upon the fact that this rejection does
not depend on anything else” (Freud, 1918, p. 113). Instinct, as is well known,
also does not depend on anything else, but simply guides actions. Attitudes
also do not require outside proof or arguments, nevertheless they are handed
down from generation to generation via culture (including a system of taboos
and sanctions) as a mandatory and natural template for behavior.

14 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

Of course, I am far from asserting that attitudes are direct extensions of
instincts. But the connection between instinctual and attitude-based forms of
behavior are obvious, especially when it comes to the early stages of human
evolution. Later, as consciousness became more developed, there were evi-
dently lengthy evolutionary processes as a result of which consciousness, on
the one hand, acquired the ability to suppress many instinctive reactions and,
on the other, “reject” the regulation of those reactions that took shape due to a
conditioned reflex—that is, as a consequence of learning. Thus, through this
combination, the mutual imposition of two different mechanisms (biological
and cultural), the mental phenomenon that psychologists call “attitude” was
able to come into being.

On the level of consciousness, this phenomenon corresponds to belief—in
essence, to the fact that a person believes in the impermissibility of certain
forms of behavior and in the justifiability of others, in the impossibility of
some events and occurrences and in the validity of others. Belief, in turn,
is based on the psychological phenomenon called faith (here I do not mean
faith in the religious sense, but faith in general). It is relatively easy to
demonstrate that faith in a certain sense can also take the place of instinct.
Animal instinct has the force of a categorical imperative and does not require
decision making or cause hesitation. Because of consciousness, humans,
as was previously noted, are capable of suppressing their own instincts,
but this creates the danger of complete chaos in their interactions with the
environment, including with other people. Consciousness greatly expands
the number of degrees of freedom in decision making. Consequently, there
must be a psychological mechanism that provides for not simply selectiv-
ity of action, but for reasoned selectivity or, at least, selectivity channeled
into a single direction. There must be a mechanism for “imposing order.”
Beliefs and faith serve this very purpose.

So it is possible to build a chain linking “instinct–attitude–belief.” The first
link in this chain is genetically conditioned, the last is entirely conditioned
by consciousness, and the middle one is transitive. Transitivity means, first,
that the phenomenon of the attitude is characterized by a complex interaction
between the unconscious and the conscious that constantly changes from
situation to situation and, second, that mental phenomena that differ in terms
of origin can take the form of attitudes.

This approach to analyzing the problem permits discussion of attitudes
with differing levels of fundamentality: for example, attitudes that take shape
on the basis of individual experience, attitudes that are cultural in origin, at-
titudes conditioned by instinctive forms of behavior. However, these three
levels can be identified only in theory, because in reality it is exceptionally

MARCH–APRIL 2010 15

difficult to isolate them. In reality, everything comes together in a great heap
and individual experience grows from the “fertile ground” that has been laid
by biology and culture. Culture, in turn, also does not take shape and develop
in a vacuum, but has roots in human sociobiological evolution. This idea, al-
though far from universally recognized, has been supported and is supported
by many major scholars, beginning with Charles Darwin.

Therefore we have every basis to assert that people have fundamental
social attitudes that, on the one hand, have their source in biosocial instincts
and, on the other, are conditioned by cultural development, but, in the case
of the individual personality, both (depending on the extent to which they are
expressed) largely depend on individual life experience and the individual
level of cognitive development.

Values

If we again turn to the “instinct–attitude–belief” chain, it appears at first glance
that values are associated with the third link. This is exactly how Rokeach
understood their essence, labeling values “abstract ideas . . . not associated
with a specific object or situation” in which a person’s beliefs and goals are
expressed (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5). But is it really the case that people assign
priority to values because they believe they are true? Could it be the other way
around, could it be that people believe that their priorities are right simply
because these are the priorities they have? If this is the case, then we cannot
simply link values to the conscious sphere of mind; just as with attitudes, they
turn out to be only partially conscious. Furthermore, I think that values relate
to all three elements of this chain.

This last phrase demands some clarification, which I now provide. I
begin by pointing out that three approaches to understanding the essence
of values have gained popularity within certain sciences: the positivist
approach, which sees a value as an object possessing meaning or as the
meaning an object holds for someone; the transcendental approach, which
rests on the idea of the absolute character of values and that they belong
to a third world—a world of neither objects nor mind; the subjectivist
approach, which sees values as the most important element of culture, as
constituting its nucleus, and on the individual level sees values existing as
mental intentions.

While at first glance it might appear that this last approach would be most
appealing to psychologists, many of them are adherents of the first two views.
Suffice it to consider G.V. Sukhodolsky and M.I. Bobneva. For Sukhodolsky,
values are the useful results of activity—that is, the utility scale also turns

16 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

out to be the value scale (Sukhodolsky, 1988, p. 102), and from Bobnev’s
perspective, they are absolute and no “price” can be put on them (Bobneva,
1978, p. 94). Similar differences in approach can be found among Western
psychologists (e.g., compare the views of Julian Rotter and Abraham Maslow
on this problem).

From my perspective, it is possible to overcome the contradictions
between existing interpretations of the essence of values and propose an
integrating theory. In essence, values are not localized within the world
of objects and do not form a separate “third” world, but neither are they
concentrated in the world of the mind. Rather, they “are found” in the links
between subject and object, their interaction. Such an understanding has
been proposed by other psychologists as well. In particular, E.A. Klimov
has written, “values do not exist outside the ‘subject–object’ relationship
and they should not be equated with something existing outside of and in-
dependent from the subject” (1994, p. 133). However no detailed analysis
of this idea has been offered.

Detailed explanations of this idea have been presented in my other works
(Alishev, 2002, 2005), and therefore, here I will only spell out the essence
of the question. My analysis is based on the assumption that people are in a
constant state of interaction (real or virtual) with the external environment. In
this interaction they constantly encounter uncertainty (it is simply not possible
for all parameters of a given interaction or the consequences of a particular
action to be known). However, uncertainty must be overcome because oth-
erwise a person’s existence becomes impossible. Any life, in essence, is the
perpetual overcoming of uncertainty.

Humans overcome uncertainty by determining the meaning of everything
they encounter, everything they come into contact with and everything that
takes place around them. They then use this meaning to make decisions
about their own actions and perform (or refrain from performing) them. It
goes without saying that the certainty that they achieve through this process
is subjective. In other words, it exists purely in consciousness. It can there-
fore be asserted that the concept of meaning is (or should be considered)
a fundamental psychological category. But does this mean that value and
meaning can be reduced to the same thing? Probably not. Meaning is prob-
ably just that—meaning—while an object is an object. There is no need
to call them by any other name. Values cannot be reduced to objects or to
their meanings, but common sense tells us that they are tied to the process
of defining meaning. Tied how? The answer to this question can be found
by examining the process involved. Here at least two analytical approaches
can be taken.

MARCH–APRIL 2010 17

First, the interaction between subject and object always has a certain
content. There is no such thing as abstract generalized meaning, there is
only specific meaning, and everything that is done is done for something
and everything has certain meaningful results and consequences. It follows
that for defining meaning, modalities that differ depending on content must
exist. Any object and situation is always evaluated from a particular angle,
and this angle depends on what a person’s needs, interests, and goals are
at a given moment. One and the same object at different moments in time
can take on equally great meanings, but in one case it is for one reason,
and in another, for another reason: the content of meaning will differ. At
yet another moment in time the object will have absolutely no meaning,
but some other object will turn out to be important. This is the case because
there is no universal need and no universal object. There are no objects or
situations that could satisfy all of a subject’s needs (the only object that
could do this would be the world as a whole). Therefore, the question of
the content of meaning is the question of the functionality of objects and
interactions with them.

In this context I am using the concept function to mean a connection
between subject and object that has a particular content (the connection
could have any content and not simply one associated with economic util-
ity). It is clear that the objects themselves cannot possess any functions.
Their functions “appear” only because and only to the extent that a person
interacts with them. People have needs and interests and objects have
physiochemical parameters that can to some degree correspond or fail to
correspond to these needs. People thus have an opportunity to judge the
properties and qualities of objects.

But there is something else of greater interest and importance. One and
the same object “possesses” a multitude of properties: a stone can be used to
build a wall or to be thrown in the water to create a display of ripples. Look-
ing at it from another angle, a given property can be found in a multitude of
objects: a multitude of different stones and not only stones can be used to
build walls. This leads us to two corollaries. First, there is no hard and fast
connection between objects and functions. And this means that people do not,
for the most part, depend on specific objects. Objects are interchangeable.
The only thing people need from them is that they be functional. Functions
and objects thus form a gigantic, multidimensional matrix.

I presume that there exists a rather small number of ultimate functions that
are realized through interaction within the subject–object system, and they relate
to the most fundamental connections between humans and their environment.
These “ultimate functions” can be appropriately called functional modalities

18 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

for determining meaning. Among them can be included, for example, that
which in language is denoted by concepts of utility, beauty, goodness, justice,
freedom, and so on. It is not objects that underlie each of these concepts, but
specific functional connections between subject and object.

Second, humans do not simply determine meaning within the framework of
functional modality. They determine the priority of the meanings themselves.
They are forced to do this because the specific situations in which interaction
takes place are often multifaceted: meanings can and must be determined in
these situations in several modalities. In assigning priority they are solving a
problem: what is more important in this situation? In the case of objects pos-
sessing one and the same functionality, the problem takes on another aspect.
In this case, a multitude of objects is evaluated on a certain continuum in terms
of the extent and measure of their actual functionality. For example, a shop-
per selecting a stool finds one that seems to him to be more (measure) sturdy
(function); someone in a café selects certain items from among a multitude
of dishes because he likes them more (measure) in terms of taste or because
they are less expensive (function). In real life situations both of these problems
are solved simultaneously: the person simultaneously determines the content
of possible meanings and their measure.

For people to determine the measure of meaning (or measure of functional-
ity) of an object, action, or situation, they must have scales. Without scales,
the problem is fundamentally unsolvable. There should be as many scales
as there are functional modalities for determining meanings. If we consider
that objects’ meanings are determined more often than not in terms of sev-
eral modalities and that objects are brought together in complex situations,
forming a certain integrality, then the problem of measuring meaning turns
out to be no simple task.

Evidently scaling mechanisms exist that are common to all people (and,
in this sense, objective) and are used by the mind and brain in such situa-
tions for determining meanings where it is not possible to determine an exact
quantitative correlation. The field of statistics uses nominal, ordinal, interval,
and ratio scales. However, none of these are mere mathematical abstractions,
but rather real procedures and operations for juxtapositions and comparisons
that are constantly being carried out, not even by thinking, most likely, but
by the mind overall. A huge number of measurements and comparisons are
being generated intuitively and even involuntarily. It is impossible to place
all responsibility for this on thinking, even if we are just talking about rank-
ing. Ranking is a more complex procedure than, for instance, calculating the
coefficient of a ranking correlation, because in calculating there is no need
to make any choice.

MARCH–APRIL 2010 19

Just what are values? If we understand them to be “pure” content, and if
we limit this understanding to content that has a high level of generalization
(goodness, justice, love, power, etc.) and abstract ourselves from everyday
human life, they begin to look like eternal absolutes, cast in some “heavenly
light.” This is how they appear to transcendentalists. However, if values are
indeed absolute, it is only in the sense that they exist for very long periods—
centuries and millennia—that are incomparable to the lifetime even of many
generations coming one after another (which is why we have “eternal” prob-
lems and “eternal” themes).

If we understand values as something that can be quantified, then the per-
fectly well-understood possibility of “identifying” them in objective reality,
outside the person, emerges. Everything quantifiable can be, in one way or
another, measured, and humans have become accustomed to the fact that all
of this exists in external reality. Thus, objects began to be defined as values,
and then the entire problem moves to the plane of quantitative comparisons
and juxtapositions of individual objects to one another. Given such a strategy
for thinking, the next logical step has to be the essential equating of value
and cost. This did indeed happen at some point in the economic sciences,
and since the economic sphere of life is truly one of the most important, this
way of understanding it was transformed into a paradigm for sociology and
sociologized philosophy, and then made its way into psychology.

The brief analysis of the problem offered above suggests the following
definition: values are the functional connections between a person and the
objective world that are reflected in that person’s mind and consciousness
and that have a specific modality conditioned by their content. “Within”
each of these modalities (values) it is possible to perform measurements,
although by no means is there always an objective scale for this (e.g., there
are no scales by which to measure beauty, love, etc.). If we are dealing with
different modalities for defining meanings, then it is only possible to define
subjective priorities.

The relationship between attitudes and values

It is obvious that functional connections in a “subject–object” system exist
whether or not there is awareness of it. It is also apparent that such connec-
tions exist even if there is no awareness whatsoever (although in this case,
of course, we would be unlikely to use the word “subject”). I am saying that
animals, like people, have to determine meanings and, in so doing, over-
come uncertainty. In the animal world, overcoming uncertainty is achieved
through the system of instincts and unconditioned and conditioned reflexes.

20 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

What I define as values are thus realized in instincts over many millions of
years, over several million years they are manifested in attitude-type phe-
nomena, and for many thousands of years they are manifested in people’s
beliefs and creeds.

It therefore becomes clear why in empirical research statements or other
expressions of how people relate to, value, or foresee their own behavior
can be interpreted as manifestations of either attitudes or values. In any
case, what is being referred to here in general is a certain type of priority
(furthermore, instinctive forms of behavior are also based on certain pri-
orities that were “determined” by nature itself). It is therefore evident that
if we are talking about attitudes and values that are at the same level of
generalization (e.g., the level of “abstract ideas”), then there are bound to
be close ties between them.

Our research investigated the connection between four social attitudes
forming along the continuums: “authoritarianism–democratism,” “individ-
ualism–collectivism,” “altruism–egoism,” and “internalism–externalism,”
on the one hand, and how values were prioritized, on the other. Attitudes
along these continuums, from my perspective, are biosociocultural in origin
and in aggregate encompass the main aspects of interaction between the
individual and the group. Due to their origin they are among the deep ele-
ments in the structure of mind. They can be viewed as underlying cultural
patterns that are unconsciously passed down from generation to generation,
changing very slowly within a particular community. It goes without saying
that not every bearer of a particular culture necessarily possesses them. A
useful concept here is “modal personality,” proposed many years ago by
Cora DuBois, which she understood to be the most common personality
type in a given culture (1944). These attitudes can be expressed, first, in
different ways and, second, are associated with one another in different
ways in individual people and groups.

As for values, I relied on the model of their structure that is based on the
theoretical ideas outlined above and described in detail in my works cited
above. This model provides for four value clusters: (a) the primary value
correlation, within the framework of which people determine the correla-
tive value “self” and “not self,” the latter being the complex objects that are
increasingly removed from the “self”—loved ones, the place one grew up,
people in general, animate and inanimate nature, and so on; (b) primary
functional values encompassing the main aspects of the interaction between
a person and the World and signifying fundamental concepts such as utility,
truth, beauty, freedom, goodness, and so on; (c) values from the sphere of
one’s vital activities, which would include, for example, concern for one’s

MARCH–APRIL 2010 21

own body and health, family, work, friendship, and so on; (d) values tied
to the goals of vital activities, including the main driving forces of human
activity—material well-being, harmony in relationships, self-development,
and so on. I presuppose that every value cluster is independent from the others,
that people define their value priorities within these clusters, but the values of
completely different types cannot be compared and chosen between.

Methods

Surveys were conducted in 2006–7 in Kazan on a sample of 245 students from
intermediate professional schools and postsecondary schools, aged sixteen to
twenty-three, applied five measurement instruments.1

1. A measurement instrument developed in collaboration with R.F. Bai-
azitov (2005) was designed to measure the level of authoritarian stereotyp-
ization. Thirty questions were designed to determine the extent to which
subjects support or reject the building of social relations on three levels based
on the principles of authoritarian domination (interpersonal, organizational,
and sociopolitical authoritarianism scales). A nine-point scale was used for
responses, ranging from –4 to 4. In this study only responses based on the
first and third scale counted (twenty questions). Individual results ranged from
–80 to 80 with a theoretical mean of zero. Responses in the positive range
signified expressed authoritarian attitudes.

2. Another measurement instrument was developed in collaboration with
G.I. Kashapova (Kashapova and Alishev, 2006) to measure attitudes along
the collectivism–individualism continuum. The collectivism–individualism
construct itself has been interpreted as a multifactor formation that incor-
porates general self-sufficiency, orientation toward membership in groups,
toward interpersonal communication, toward independent decision making,
and so on. The final survey consisted of twenty-five statements that subjects
were asked to rank in terms of the degree to which they agreed with them,
rating them on a seven-point scale from –3 to 3. Given a theoretical mean of
zero, individual results ranged from –75 to 75. A positive range expressed an
individualistic attitude.

3. Two measurement instruments were used to measure attitudes along the
egoism–altruism continuum: K. Muzdybaev’s survey of dispositional ego-
ism (2000) and S.K. Nartova-Bocharev’s questionnaire on the motivation to
help (1992). They incorporate ten and twelve questions, respectively. Both
measurement instruments used a seven-point assessment scale ranging from
–3 to 3. In order to create a summary altruism–egoism indicator based on the
two measurement instruments, the positive altruism indicators were switched

22 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

to negative and vice versa before being combined with the egoism indicators.
Individual results ranged from –66 to 66 with a theoretical mean of zero.
Responses falling in the positive range expressed egoistic attitudes.

4. The expression of internalist and externalist attitudes was detected us-
ing a version of Rotter’s questionnaire well-known as the level of subjective
control (LSC) measurement instrument that was adapted by E.F. Bazhin, E.A.
Golynkina, and A.M. Etkind (1993). The questionnaire contains forty-four
questions. As in the second and third measurement instruments, a seven-point
scale was used to rate responses from –3 to 3 with individual results ranging
from –132 to 132 with a theoretical mean of 0. Responses falling in the posi-
tive range express internalist attitudes.

5. A measurement instrument designed by the author was used to study the
structure of values that incorporated four subtests corresponding to the four
clusters described above. Each of these clusters features seven values (listed
in the following tables). A pairwise comparison method was used to determine
individual priorities within each cluster, permitting priority indexes for each
value. Every value was thus able to have a total index for a specific respondent
in the form of a whole number between 0 (“defeat” for all combinations) and
6 (“victory” for all combinations). In other words, indexes were distributed
along a seven-point scale.

Results

Table 1 shows the final indicators for each type of value for the entire student
study sample, broken down by gender and ethnic group. It can be seen that
the mean indicator using the first method turned out to be 13.9, evidence of
a notably higher level of authoritarian attitudes among student youth. The
individualism–collectivism attitude scale yielded a –12.34 indicator, clear
evidence that collectivist attitudes predominate over individualist ones. The
results were the same using the third method. The mean indicator for dispo-
sitional egoism was 1.13. The help-motivation questionnaire yielded a result
of 5.34. In the first case, there is a certain shift toward egoism and in the
second, toward altruism. However, these shifts were small (especially in the
first case), suggesting a certain equilibrium in attitudes along this continuum.
The summary index for the two measurement instruments was –4.21. Using
the LSC measurement instrument, the mean index for the entire sample was
13.92, which attests to heightened expression of internalist attitudes among
the students.

Across all student groups the only attitudes expressed with approximately
the same intensity are those along the individualist–collectivist continuum.

MARCH–APRIL 2010 23

For all other attitudes significant differences are observed not only between
genders but also between ethnic groups. Females for the most part have
more altruistic and less authoritarian attitudes than males. Differences in the
intensity of attitudes between genders can easily be attributed to traditional
role differentiation also observed in highly developed animals. Of course,
it should be noted that within groups of people, women also often manifest
subtle (and overt) domination and leadership, although a striving for these
qualities is demonstrated much more often by men.

There were two significant differences between ethnic groups. Russians
demonstrated greater internalist attitudes and more weakly expressed authori-
tarian attitudes when compared with their Tatar peers. These features cannot be
explained by natural role and functional differences. In this case we are dealing
with cultural groups and, consequently, the differences in their fundamental
attitudes reflect the specific nature of their traditional mentalities.

Let us examine how these attitudes correlate with one another. Figure 1
illustrates the correlation throughout the study samples (linear correlation
coefficient r was used).

An authoritarianism–egoism–individualism triad can be rather clearly
distinguished. The attitudes at either end of this chain correlate negatively
with one another. A central position within this scheme is held by the strong
positive connection between authoritarianism and egoism (a coefficient value
of 0.36). Attitudes along the individualism–collectivism continuum correlate
with attitudes of other types in different ways in different groups. For example,
the female and Tatar samples reveal the same connection between collectivism
and authoritarianism as throughout the entire sample; among Russian students,

Table 1

Intensity of Fundamental Attitudes Within Individual Groups of Students

Attitudes
All

(245)
Male
(114)

Female
(129)

Russian
(115)

Tatar
(120)

Authoritarianism–democratism 13.90 21.58* 8.72* 8.96* 17.44*

Individualism–collectivism –12.34 –12.29 –12.46 –10.91 –13.65

Egoism–altruism –4.21 –1.71* –5.83* –5.11 –3.59

Internality–externality 13.92 11.63 15.59 18.91* 11.11*

Notes: Asterisks indicate indexes for which the differences in mutually comparable groups
of students are statistical significant (α ≤ 0.01 in all cases).

24 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

collectivism is negatively associated with egoism and does not correlate to
authoritarianism; in the male sample, attitudes of this type do not correlate
with others at all. Attitudes along the internality–externality continuum are
associated only with authoritarian attitudes. Where authoritarian attitudes are
stronger, the internal locus of control is less pronounced and the external one
is more pronounced.

The scheme of correlations between fundamental attitudes across the vari-
ous groups studied is of great interest. As we have seen, there are significant
differences between males and females and between Russians and Tatars, and
the generalized scheme of correlations may not reflect anything real. Indeed,
correlation analysis for the four groups—Russians, Tatars, males, females—
detected certain differences.

In the female portion of the sample a chain of positive correlations was
observed between egoism, authoritarianism, and collectivism (the coefficients
were statistically significant, with p ≥ 0.99, but not high—0.36 and 0.26,
respectively). The male portion of the sample exhibited another chain of
positive correlations, egoism–authoritarianism–externality, with correlation
coefficients of 0.32 and 0.20. The picture with ethnic groups was somewhat
different. While in Tatars absolutely the same set of correlations could be
seen as in the female sample (the corresponding correlation coefficients were
0.38 and 0.27), for Russian young people four fundamental attitudes were
associated with one another. Their scheme of associations was individualism–
egoism–authoritarianism–externalism. The correlation coefficients themselves
were 0.18, 0.33, and 0.25.

These data suggest that the system of fundamental social attitudes among

Figure 1. Correlation Between Attitudes Along the Authoritarianism–
Democratism (AD), Individualism–Collectivism (IC), Egoism–Altruism
(EA), and Internality–Externality (IE) Continuums

Notes: Solid lines indicate positive associations; dashes indicate negative associations;
bold lines indicate statistically significant correlation coefficients with p ≥ 0.99; a fine line
indicates coefficients where p ≥ 0.95.

IE

AD IC

EA

MARCH–APRIL 2010 25

young people of both genders and both ethnic groups are “tied up in” a strongly
expressed and firm positive association between authoritarianism and ego-
ism (correlation coefficient values for the different groups ranged from 0.3
to 0.4). Furthermore, it is easy to see that in the male portion of the sample,
the correlation between authoritarianism and egoism is found against a
backdrop of above-average indicators for both, while in the female sample
indicators were low. Almost the same thing can be seen in comparing the
Russian and Tatar samples. Consequently, the association between authori-
tarianism and egoism remains unchanged, despite significant changes in the
mean indicators of the degree of intensity of these attitudes themselves in
separate groups of subjects.

Furthermore, it is important to note the correlation between two attitudes
with high mean indexes in the Tatar sample: authoritarianism and collec-
tivism. This suggests that Tatar culture can be included among “vertically
collectivistic”-type cultures (Freud, 1918). Among Russians, the mean
indexes for authoritarian dominance and collectivist attitudes are less
expressed and there is no correlation between them. On the contrary, for
them, collectivism correlates not with authoritarianism, but with altruism
(correspondingly, individualism correlates with egoism).

An interesting situation exists with respect to attitudes along the internalist–
externalist continuum. In the male sample and among Russians, higher levels
of authoritarianism lead to intensified externalism (or the other way around).
This seems natural and fits with the ideas expressed by Theodor Adorno in
relation to the authoritarian syndrome, but it is not clear (a) why in both the
Russian and male samples the same correlations are seen against a backdrop
of completely different combinations of mean indicators for these attitudes,
and (b) why these correlations are absent from female and Tatar samples,
where these indicators combine in such different ways.

It should also be noted that when we compare the mean values for attitudes
for individual groups of students it is striking that the results in the Russian
sample are very similar to the results for women, while the results for the Tatar
sample are very similar to the results for men (see Table 1). However, as soon
as we move to the analysis of correlations between attitudes, the structure of
correlations in the Russian sample more closely resembles that characteristic
for males, while for Tatars it is the exact opposite. Again we are faced with a
legitimate question: why? I refrain from answering either this or the previous
questions because they call for additional investigation.

We now turn to the correlations between how strongly expressed vari-
ous attitudes and value priorities are. The data needed for this analysis are
provided in Table 2. This table also shows the priority indexes for various
values within each of these separate clusters. They speak for themselves and

26 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

Ta
bl

e
2

C
o

rr
el

at
iv

e
A

ss
o

ci
at

io
n

s
B

et
w

ee
n

t
h

e
In

te
n

si
ty

o
f

S
o

ci
al

A
tt

it
u

d
es

a
n

d
V

al
u

e
P

ri
o

ri
ti

es

C
or

re
la

tio
n

co
ef

fic
ie

nt
s

fo
r

va
lu

es
a

nd
a

tti
tu

de
s

V
al

ue
s

V
al

ue
p

rio
rit

y
in

de
xe

s
A

D
IC

E
A

IE

P
ro

te
ct

in
g

th
e

en
vi

ro
nm

en
t

2.
69

–0
.1

59
0.

22
7

–0
.0

87
0.

17
7

H
um

an
li

fe
3.

79
–0

.0
66

–0
.3

23
–0

.1
44

–0
.2

29
D

ev
el

op
in

g
cu

ltu
re

2.
37

–0
.1

63
0.

37
1

–0
.2

58
0.

10
9

E
co

no
m

ic
p

ro
gr

es
s

1.
85

0.
14

8
–0

.0
01

0.
14

5
–0

.1
83

P
ro

sp
er

ity
o

f t
he

m
ot

he
rla

nd
2.

72
0.

20
8

–0
.0

19
0.

12
3

–0
.1

01

W
el

l-b
ei

ng
o

f l
ov

ed
o

ne
s

4.
47

–0
.0

98
–0

.1
44

0.
02

1
–0

.2
02

O
ne

’s
o

w
n

w
el

l-b
ei

ng
3.

11
0.

15
5

–0
.1

24
0.

34
0

0.
05

3

P
rim

ar
y

fu
nc

tio
na

l v
al

ue
s

U
til

ity
2.

55
–0

.0
83

0.
11

8
–0

.1
48

–0
.1

13

Tr
ut

h
3.

08
–0

.1
61

0.
20

7
–0

.1
36

0.
20

2
B

ea
ut

y
2.

56
0.

00
3

–0
.1

18
0.

12
3

–0
.0

98

P
ow

er
(

st
re

ng
th

)
1.

85
0.

34
6

0.
01

3
0.

37
3

–0
.1

45

Ju
st

ic
e

3.
90

–0
.0

63
–0

.0
19

–0
.1

66
0.

07
3

Fr
ee

do
m

3.
53

0.
04

1
–0

.0
52

0.
12

0
–0

.1
79

G
oo

dn
es

s
3.

53
–0

.1
54

–0
.1

29
–0

.2
58

0.
15

2

MARCH–APRIL 2010 27
V

al
ue

s
fr

om
th

e
sp

he
re

o
f o

ne
’s

v
ita

l a
ct

iv
iti

es
H

ea
lth

3.
99

0.
03

6
–0

.1
14

0.
02

7
–0

.1
33

Fa
m

ily
4.

33
–0

.2
94

0.
02

3
–0

.1
81

0.
14

8

Lo
ve

4.
23

0.
07

8
0.

03
4

0.
04

0
0.

15
2

Fr
ie

nd
sh

ip
2.

94
–0

.1
02

–0
.1

98
–0

.0
29

–0
.1

15

Le
is

ur
e

2.
12

0.
23

2
0.

10
5

0.
22

7
–0

.0
78

W
or

k
2.

65
0.

08
1

0.
06

7
–0

.0
10

0.
03

4

S
oc

ia
l l

ife
0.

74
–0

.0
55

0.
06

4
–0

.0
95

–0
.3

02
V

al
ue

s
tie

d
to

th
e

go
al

s
of

v
ita

l a
ct

iv
iti

es
C

al
m

1.
75

0.
09

8
0.

12
8

0.
05

2
0.

23
4

M
at

er
ia

l w
el

l-b
ei

ng
4.

07
0.

06
2

–0
.2

46
0.

20
4

–0
.1

32

H
ar

m
on

y
in

r
el

at
io

ns
hi

ps
3.

80
–0

.2
08

0.
05

9
–0

.2
43

0.
01

2

S
ta

tu
s

2.
90

0.
16

6
–0

.1
22

0.
25

6
–0

.0
39

V
ar

ie
ty

in
li

fe
2.

79
0.

08
5

0.
02

9
0.

17
2

–0
.1

96
S

el
f-

de
ve

lo
pm

en
t

3.
68

–0
.0

73
0.

08
6

–0
.2

07
0.

18
8

D
ed

ic
at

io
n

2.
02

–0
.1

59
0.

05
2

–0
.2

57
0.

26
9

N
ot

es
:

A
D

is
a

ut
ho

ri
ta

ri
an

is
m

–d
em

oc
ra

tis
m

; I
C

is
in

di
vi

du
al

is
m

–c
ol

le
ct

iv
is

m
; E

A
is

e
go

is
m

–a
ltr

ui
sm

; a
nd

I
E

is
in

te
rn

al
ity

–e
xt

er
na

lit
y.

C
oe

f-
fic

ie
nt

s
th

at
a

re
s

ta
tis

tic
al

ly
s

ig
ni

fic
an

t
at

th
e

le
ve

l o
f

α
≤

0.
05

a
re

in
it

al
ic

f
on

t;
co

ef
fic

ie
nt

s
th

at
a

re
s

ta
tis

tic
al

ly
s

ig
ni

fic
an

t a
t t

he
le

ve
l o

f
α ≤

0.

01
a

re
in

b
ol

d
fo

nt
.

28 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

I will not interpret them. I merely note that I and my graduate students ob-
tained similar data over the course of a number of recent years on different
samples of young people in Russia (students, schoolchildren, working young
people). The average data from more than 4,500 people differ little from those
introduced below.

The data contained in Table 2 confirm an association between attitudes
and value priorities that share a common or similar conceptual content. For
example, heightened authoritarian attitudes come with heightened priority
indexes for such values as “power,” “leisure,” and “prosperity of the moth-
erland.” These data fit well with the conclusions drawn by Adorno and his
colleagues concerning the personality traits of authoritarian personalities
(Adorno et al., 1950). More strongly expressed egoistic attitudes are ac-
companied by the more frequent selection of values such as “power,” “one’s
own well-being,” “status,” “leisure,” “material well-being,” and “variety in
life.” It is immediately evident that certain values appear on both lists (this
is particularly striking if we look at coefficients with minus signs). Thus, at-
titudes along the authoritarian–democratic and egoism–altruism continuums
have a certain common psychological component.

To some extent this can also be said about attitudes along the individualism–
collectivism and internalism–externalism continuums. Table 2 shows that
attitudes of the first type correlate positively with the values of “developing
culture,” “protecting the environment,” and “truth.” Attitudes of the second type
also correlate with the second and third of these. However commonalities in this
case are much more weakly expressed, which is natural since no associations
were detected (see Figure 1) between these attitudes.

Conclusions

The data unambiguously show an association between a more pronounced
attitude of a particular type and the priority assigned to values. Furthermore,
in each case the associations detected have a rather well-expressed semantic
content that unites attitudes and value priorities into something integral.

The study enabled the identification of personality types that express the so-
cial attitudes it investigated in different ways. In particular, up to one-quarter of
the students who participated in the study simultaneously exhibited heightened
indicators for authoritarian, collectivist, and externalist attitudes in combina-
tion with attitude indicators at the middle of the altruism–egoism continuum.
Perhaps this is indeed the “modal personality” for culture in Russia.

It can be argued that there are definite associations between the social
attitudes identified. The nature of these associations differed in different
groups of subjects. For example, among young men the associations were

MARCH–APRIL 2010 29

weaker on average, and among young women they were somewhat stronger.
The specific features of associations in ethnocultural groups of Russians and
Tatars could be clearly observed. There was a more or less close positive
association between attitudes favoring authoritarian domination and egoistic
attitudes throughout the entire study sample.

The results and conclusions spelled out in this article need further con-
firmation (or refutation). New studies to further investigate these problems
on different study samples and using more refined measurement instruments
are desirable.

Note

1. These surveys were part of more far-reaching research that was conducted under
my supervision by researchers O.A. Anikeenok, O.N. Galanina, and G.I. Kashapova
from the Psychology Laboratory of the Russian Academy of Education Professional
Education Institute of Pedagogy and Psychology (IPP PO RAO).

References

Adorno, T.W. et al. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. Vols. 1–2. New York:
Harper and Row.

Alishev, B.S. 2002. “Psikhologicheskaia teoriia tsennosti: sistemo-funktsional’nyi
podkhod.” Ph.D. diss., ISPO RAO, Kazan.

———. 2005. “Struktura tsennostei i tsennostnye tipy lichnosti sovremennykh
studentov.” In Problema professional’nogo obrazovaniia: metodologiia i teoriia.
Moscow: VLADOS Humanitarian Publishing Center; Kazan: IPP PO RAO.

Allport, G.W. 1935. “Attitudes.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. C.
Murchison, pp. 798–884. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Baiazitov, R.F. 2005. “Avtoritarnyi stereotip v mentalitete sovremennoi molodezhi.”
Ph.D. diss., Kazan.

Bazhin, E.F.; E.A. Golynkina; and A.M. Etkind. 1993. Oprosnik urovnia
sub”ektivnogo kontrolia (LSC). Moscow: Smysl.

Bobneva, M.I. 1978. Sotsial’nye normy i reguliatsiia povedeniia. Moscow: Nauka.
Bohner, G. 2004. “Attitudes.” In Introduction to Social Psychology: A European

Perspective, ed. Miles Hewstone and Wolfgang Stroebe, pp. 239–85. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.

DuBois, C. 1944. The People of Alor: A Socio-Psychological Study of an East
Indian Island. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Festinger, Leon. 1962. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Freud, Sigmund. 1918. Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Psychic Lives
of Savages and Neurotics. New York: Moffat, Yard and Company.

Iadov, V.A., ed. 1979. Samoreguliatsiia i prognozirovanie sotsial’nogo povedeniia
lichnosti. Leningrad: Nauka.

Kashapova, G.I., and B.S. Alishev. 2006. “Individualizm i kollektivizm
kak mental’nye tendentsii.” In Predstavleniia sovremennykh studentov o

30 JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGY

zhiznennykh tsennostiakh i svoem professional’nom budushchem, ed. B.S.
Alishev, pp. 57–71. Kazan: Danis IPP PO RAO.

Klimov, E.A. 1994. “Obshchechelovecheskie tsennosti glazami psikhologa-
professioveda.” Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 130–36.

Leont’ev [Leontiev], D.A. 2003. Psikhologiia smysla: priroda, stroenie i dinamika
smyslovoi real’nosti. 2d ed. Moscow: Smysl.

Muzdybaev, K. 2000. “Egoizm lichnosti.” Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, vol. 21, no. 2,
pp. 27–39.

Nartova-Bocharev, S.K. 1991. “Eksperimental’noe issledovanie situatsionnoi
izmenchivosti motivatsii pomoshchi.” Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 15–23.

Panfilov, O.M. 1995. “Tsennostnye otnosheniia: priroda i genezis.” Ph.D. diss., St.
Petersburg.

Rokeach, M. 1968. “The Nature of Attitudes.” In Beliefs, Attitudes and Values, ed.
Rokeach, 109–32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

———. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Shmelev, A.G. 2002. Psikhodiagnostika lichnostnykh chert. St. Petersburg: Rech’.
Sukhodol’skii [Sukhodolsky], G.V. 1988. Osnovy psikhologicheskoi teorii

deiatel’nosti. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo LGU.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.

Copyright of Journal of Russian & East European Psychology is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. 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.

Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Professional Ethics
of Public Relations Practitioners in Korea

Ji Yeon Han • Hyun Soon Park • Hyeonju Jeong

Received: 9 April 2011 / Accepted: 1 September 2012 / Published online: 14 September 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This study examines the effects of individual

ethical values and organizational factors on the profes-

sional ethics of PR practitioners in Korea by considering a

person–situation interactionist model. Individual ethical

values are used as individual factors, and organizational

factors consist of an organization’s reward and punishment

for ethical/unethical behavior, the behavior of peers, and

the ethical integrity of the chief ethics officer. The pro-

fessional ethics of PR practitioners (the dependent vari-

able) are classified into the following three dimensions:

professional ethics for the public, the client, and the PR

industry. The results indicate that agency practitioners were

more likely to be committed to their profession than to

their organization, whereas in-house practitioners were

more likely to be committed to their organization than to

their profession. That is, in-house practitioners showed

weak professional commitment, indicating that they per-

ceived themselves as employees, not as PR professionals.

Organizational factors such as reward, punishment, and

peers’ ethical behavior had considerable influence on the

professional ethics of in-house practitioners, whereas they

had little influence on agency practitioners. Organizational

factors as well as individual ethical values were more likely

to influence the professional ethics of in-house practitio-

ners than that of agency practitioners. Thus, to foster in-

house practitioners’ professional ethics and commitment,

professional associations in the PR industry should make

efforts to provide in-house practitioners with more infor-

mation on the PR industry and more opportunities for

interacting and maintaining communication with their

colleagues in the industry.

Keywords Codes of ethics � Korea � Professional ethics �
Public relations

Socially responsible business management is critical to the

survival of any organization (Stohl et al. 2009). An orga-

nization without credibility in markets and society is likely

to fail even if it shows good performance, as indicated by

Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Exxon, Bridgestone,

and Firestone, among many others (Andreoli and Lefko-

witz 2009; Beschorner 2006; McKinney et al. 2010;

Premeaux 2009; Simola 2003). Furthermore, simply having

a written code of ethics is not sufficient for preventing

unethical behavior (Messikomer and Cirka 2010).

Arlow and Ulrich (1980) argued that the ethical deci-

sion-making process in the business context is very com-

plicated and different from that in a general context in that

decision makers in business contexts are required to con-

sider various issues related not only to corporate social

responsibility but also to shareholders, including conflicts

of interest among various stakeholders such as customers,

employees, shareholders, and competitors (McKinney et al.

2010). In addition, it is unavoidable that decision makers in

business settings experience ethical conflicts not only

between their given accountability and duty to various

J. Y. Han

Office of Public Relations, Planning Division, Korean

Educational Development Institute, Seoul, South Korea

e-mail: [email protected]

H. S. Park (&) � H. Jeong

Department of Mass Communication & Journalism,

Sungkyunkwan University, 32625 Dasankyoungje-kwan,

Meyongnyun-dong 3-ga, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-745,

South Korea

e-mail: [email protected]

H. Jeong

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2013) 116:553–566

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1480-6

stakeholders in situations involving conflicts of interest but

also between their organization’s interests and their per-

sonal interests.

With the recognition of the crucial role played by

communication with stakeholders in business settings,

society has demanded high ethical standards from the

public relations (PR) sector (Snyder et al. 2006). As pro-

fessionals, PR practitioners should spare no effort to build

and maintain mutually beneficial relationships between

firms and stakeholders (Dozier and Lauzen 2000; L’Etang

and Pieczka 2006). Although such efforts entail diverse

difficulties and methods, they must reflect acceptable eth-

ical standards in every aspect of PR for desired outcomes

(Elwood 1995; Grunig 1992, 2000). PR practitioners

should value social justice above all else and rigidly adhere

to their covenant with the public (Baker 2002).

PR practitioners are referred to as boundary spanners

because they play a fiduciary role in representing the

interests of their organizations and the public interest

simultaneously. Therefore, the business environments in

which PR practitioners play their roles are too complicated

to be explained by traditional ethical frameworks in post-

Freudian studies (e.g., Kets de Vries 1980, 1989; Zaleznik

and Kets de Vries 1974), neo-Piagetian studies (e.g.,

Fritzche and Becker 1984; Snell 1990; Weber 1995), or

social psychology studies (Nicholson 1994; Schlenker and

Forsyth 1977). These studies do not take into consideration

various ethical dilemmas associated with conflicts of

interest between organizations and their stakeholders,

between individuals and organizations, or between orga-

nizations and their clients (Nicholson 1994).

A number of studies have suggested that ethics and

associated dilemmas have considerable influence on the PR

sector (e.g., Bivins 1987; Grunig 1996; Kim 2003a; Kim

and Yoon 2004; Pearson 1989; Pratt 1991). Pratt and

Rentner (1989) indicated that ethical behavior has positive

effects on the PR sector. However, because the role of PR

is to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship between

organizations and the public, it is difficult to determine

which side PR practitioners should take as they attempt to

strike a balance between the interests of their organizations

and the public interest (Es and Meijlink 2000; Grunig

1996). Thus, the term ‘‘ethical PR’’ may be an oxymoron

(Seib and Fitzpatrick 1995). In fact, the lack of ethical

principles and regulations, which have induced ethical

violations, have led to the failure of the academic com-

munity to acknowledge PR as a profession such as law,

medicine, or accounting (Kim 2003b; Wright 1989; Wylie

1994). PR practitioners occasionally focus only on the

organization’s interests, and such practitioners are likely to

lose the public’s trust and thus their reputation. This has led

the derogatory stereotype of PR practitioners as spin doc-

tors (Hutton 1999; Wright 1989). Nevertheless, it is clear

that PR practitioners experience ethical dilemmas as they

attempt to establish and maintain mutually beneficial

relationships between their organizations and the public

(McElreath 1996). Given the important role of ethics in PR

activity, this study examines the professional ethics of PR

practitioners.

Despite pressures induced by globalization, Korean

culture is deeply rooted in Confucianism. According to

Wang et al. (2005), hierarchies, harmony, and group-ori-

ented relationships are key virtues that nurture individuals’

inner character and ethical maturation. Korean society is

different from Western society, the origin of PR. Although

there are differences in business cultures between the US

and Korea, the Korean PR industry developed its code of

ethics mainly by following the Public Relations Society of

America (PRSA) and the International Business Commu-

nicators Association (IABC) (Kim 2003a).

Thus, Korean PR practitioners experience ethical

dilemmas while attempting to reconcile the decisions of

their organizations with those of independent PR practi-

tioners (Kim 2003a). An organization’s code of ethics may

not be consistent with that of its employees. Thus, in

Korea, firms and PR agencies are likely to adhere to a

Western code of ethics, whereas individual practitioners

are likely to reflect traditional Korean values and value

interpersonal relationships. Ethical congruence—the extent

to which an organization’s values and those of its

employees are consistent (Elango et al. 2010; Suar and

Khuntia 2010)—represents a difficult goal for Korean PR

practitioners because they have to consider both individual

values (e.g., Confucianism) and a code of business ethics

reflecting Western values. In this regard, this study exam-

ines the effects of individual ethical values and organiza-

tional factors on the professional ethics of PR practitioners

in Korea.

This study contributes to the business ethics literature in

several ways. This study provides a better understanding of

business ethics by analyzing individual and organizational

factors simultaneously and demonstrates the effects of both

individual and organizational factors on the professional

ethics of PR practitioners. The results have important

implications for the development of the professional ethics

of PR practitioners and can facilitate effective corporate

communication and PR governance programs. A number of

studies have examined codes of ethics for specific indus-

tries such as accounting (Neill et al. 2005; Sweeney et al.

2010) and banking (Cowton and Thompson 2000) and for

specific professionals such as financial advisors (Martin

2009), sales professionals (Valentine and Barnett 2002),

and healthcare workers (Deshpande and Joseph 2009;

Deshpande et al. 2006). However, few have addressed the

code of ethics for PR practitioners. Furthermore, few

studies have investigated Korean PR practitioners’

554 J. Y. Han et al.

123

perception of ethics. In this regard, this study suggests

some practical guidelines on the professional ethics of

Korean PR practitioners by examining the effects of indi-

vidual and organizational factors on the professionalism of

PR practitioners in Korean society.

The rest of this article is organized as follows: ‘‘Liter-

ature review’’ section provides a brief review of previous

research on the professional ethics of PR practitioners,

individual ethical values, and organizational factors.

‘‘Methods’’ section describes the data and methodology.

‘‘Results’’ section presents the empirical results, and

‘‘Discussion’’ and ‘‘Limitations’’ section concludes.

Literature Review

This study is based on Treviño’s (1986) and Treviño et al.’s

(2006) person–situation interactionist model. Ethical

behavior arises in social contexts and is a product of var-

ious situational variables (Brommer et al. 1987; Ferrell and

Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986; Jones 1991; Rest

1986). According to Treviño’s (1986) individual–situation

interactionist model, organizational factors as well as per-

sonal factors have considerable influence on the ethical

decision-making process. A decision on an ethical issue

facing an organization is a product of the interaction

between individual and organizational constructs (Elango

et al. 2010). That is, personal responses to ethical dilemmas

within organizations are said to be conditioned by the

interaction between individual and organizational variables

(Treviño 1986). For example, Jones (1991) and Rest (1986)

emphasized the importance of moral issues and organiza-

tional pressure on moral intensity. Ferrell and Grisham

(1985) suggested that not only individual factors such as

knowledge, intentions, and attitudes but also organizational

factors such as occupations, reward, and punishment can

influence individuals’ decision-making processes. A num-

ber of studies of decision-making processes involving

ethical issues facing organizations have taken organiza-

tional factors as well as individual characteristics into

consideration to examine the decision-making process

concerning ethical issues (for a review, see O’Fallon and

Butterfield 2005; Beu et al. 2003; Elango et al. 2010; Ford

and Richardson 1994; Forte 2004; Jones and Kavanagh

1996; Sweeney et al. 2010; Victor and Cullen 1988;

Wittmer 1994). Because both organizational- and individ-

ual-level variables can influence decisions on ethical

issues, the findings of studies focusing on one level to the

exclusion of the other need to be supplemented by those of

studies considering both types of variables (Elango et al.

2010). In this regard, this study examines the effects of

both individual and organizational factors on the profes-

sional ethics of PR practitioners.

Therefore, this study analyzes the effects of individual

and organizational factors on the professional ethics of PR

practitioners by considering the following two dimensions:

the individual dimension and the organizational dimension.

The study considers individual ethical values as an indi-

vidual factor. Among the individual characteristics known

to be important determinants of ethical behavior, individual

ethical values have been the most frequently examined

characteristics (e.g., Axinn et al. 2004; Barnett et al. 1998;

Beu et al. 2003; Davis et al. 2001; Hegarty and Sims 1978;

Jones and Kavanagh 1996; Lee and Sirgy 1999; McCuddy

and Peery 1996; Redfern and Crawford 2004; Reiss and

Mitra 1998; Trevino and Youngblood 1990; Winter et al.

2004).

In this study, the organizational dimension includes an

organization’s reward and punishment for ethical/unethical

behavior, the behavior of peers, and the ethical integrity of

the chief executive officer, which are well known to

influence professional ethics (e.g., Treviño 1986; Wittmer

1994).

The dependent variable, the professional ethics of PR

practitioners, refers to the standard against which PR

practitioners measure what is right or fair not only for

themselves and their organizations but also for the public.

This study classifies the professional ethics of PR practi-

tioners into the following three dimensions: professional

ethics for the public, the client, and the PR industry.

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners

Ethics represent a system of values that individuals depend

on to judge whether something is right/wrong, legitimate/

illegitimate, and righteous/unrighteous (McCraw et al.

2009; Wilcox et al. 1997). Based on this definition, this

study defines the professional ethics of PR practitioners as

a system of values that PR practitioners rely on to judge

what is right or wrong in their PR activity. Previous studies

of ethics in PR have examined issues such as the individual

ethics of PR practitioners, their awareness of the code of

ethics, and variables influencing the ethical behavior of

practitioners (Aronoff 1975; Park et al. 2000a, b; Pratt

1991; Sharmir et al. 1990; Wright 1985). However, few

have examined the professional ethics of PR practitioners,

particularly those in Asian countries such as Korea.

A code of ethics is a formalized public statement of

corporate principles and rules of conduct that govern

interorganizational and intraorganizational practices and

relations and is defined as a written, distinct, and formal

document consisting of moral standards for guiding

employee or corporate behavior (Schwarz 2002). It is also a

guide to both present and future behavior and specifies

organizations’ ethical values and employees’ responsibili-

ties to various stakeholders (Stohl et al. 2009).

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 555

123

A code of ethics can become a critical component of an

organization’s ethical infrastructure and managers can

employ it both to educate employees concerning ethical

issues and to inform employees of the management’s

expectations concerning employee conduct (McKinney

et al. 2010).

Several studies have modified the Public Relations

Society of America (PRSA) code of ethics to analyze the

ethical behavior of PR practitioners (Kim 2003a; Kim and

Yoon 2004; Wilcox et al. 2000). Kim and Yoon (2004) and

Wilcox et al. (2000) reconstructed a scale of ethics by

considering some basic factors such as integrity, compli-

ance, credibility, and trustworthiness. Ki and Kim (2010)

analyzed PR agencies’ ethics statements by following

Fisher’s (2005) classification of ethics statements, includ-

ing work environments, goals, behavior, professionalism,

fulfillment, and respect. However, this type of classification

is based on some theme-oriented content analysis, which

cannot provide a framework for examining a code of pro-

fessional ethics with respect to the public. Therefore, this

study’s public-oriented classification of the code of PR

ethics allows for an examination of the effects of individual

and organizational factors on professional ethics for dif-

ferent sectors of the public.

The PRSA, the International Association of Business

Communicators (IABC), and the International Public

Relations Association (IPRA) provide codes of ethics that

include ethical standards for the general public, clients, and

the PR industry. Specifically, for the general public, PR

practitioners are recommended to protect and advance the

free flow of accurate and truthful information, be honest

and accurate in all communication activities, and reveal

sponsors for represented causes and interests. For clients,

PR practitioners are recommended to protect confidential

and private information, act in the best interest of clients or

employers, avoid conflicts of interest, disclose their finan-

cial interests in a client’s organization, and safeguard the

privacy rights of clients and employees. For the PR

industry, PR practitioners are recommended to promote

healthy and fair competition among professionals, foster

the public’s trust in the profession, avoid conflicts between

personal and professional interests, and accurately define

what PR can accomplish.

Based on the codes of ethics from the PR associations

mentioned above, this study reclassifies professional ethics

in terms of the public interest, the client interest, and PR

industry development. The public interest dimension refers

to some ethical standards that prevent PR practitioners

from engaging in activities that are inconsistent with social

justice, trustworthiness, integrity, and openness in com-

munication. The client interest dimension refers to those

ethical standards that allow PR practitioners protect their

clients’ interest in a proper way. The PR industry

development dimension refers to those ethical standards

that encourage PR practitioners to advance the PR industry.

PR practitioners can be classified into two groups: in-

house practitioners and practitioners employed by PR

agencies (Sriramesh et al. 1999). In-house practitioners

refer to employees working in PR departments of private

firms or governments. Those PR practitioners employed by

PR agencies refer to employees of professional PR firms

such as Edelman, APCO Worldwide, and Ruder Finn,

among many others.

In-house practitioners and agency practitioners face

different work settings in terms of work practices and

organizational cultures, which may lead to ethical dilem-

mas. In terms of work practices in Korea, in-house prac-

titioners work in extremely competitive environments. As a

member of a performance-oriented large firm, in-house

practitioners are subject to annual performance evaluations.

In addition, they are most likely to be laid off during an

economic recession. As a result, they focus on demon-

strating their contributions to organizational growth by

emphasizing visible outputs such as the number of PR

events, media impressions, and advertising value equiva-

lency. They tend to emphasize junket journalism, over-

packing, and favorite publicity by providing media baits for

advertising, which is unethical because such efforts con-

taminate communication channels. In addition, they con-

sider themselves to be temporary PR professionals because

they can be reassigned to other departments by the human

resource department.

Unlike in-house practitioners, agency practitioners can

maintain their roles and positions as long as they want, and

thus, they can be considered professional communication

consultants. Agency practitioners tend to focus on building

relationships with their clients and the media and empha-

size professional standards and ethical values as commu-

nication professionals. In terms of their orientation toward

PR as a profession, agency practitioners tend to adhere to

higher professional ethical standards than their in-house

counterparts.

In terms of organizational cultures, a top-down organi-

zational culture and the CEO’s low expectations of PR tend

to confine in-house practitioners’ role to communication

technicians. If top management considers PR as a technical

function, not as a management or consulting function, then

in-house practitioners are less likely to take responsibility as

communication professionals than their agency counterparts.

PR practitioners’ affiliation (i.e., to a firm or an agency)

can influence not only their everyday business activity but

also their professional ethical values. Agency practitioners

need to take various interests and concerns into consider-

ation when making decisions or implementing communi-

cation strategies because they deal with multiple clients.

By contrast, in-house practitioners’ focus is on their

556 J. Y. Han et al.

123

organization’s interests and concerns, and thus, they may

experience fewer ethical conflicts and dilemmas than

agency practitioners (Park et al. 2000). Furthermore, in-

house practitioners are more likely to be familiar with their

organization’s culture, commitment, and regulations than

agency practitioners.

Given the above discussion, there may be differences in

professional ethics between in-house practitioners and

agency practitioners. In this regard, we propose the fol-

lowing research question:

RQ1 What are the differences in professional ethics

between in-house practitioners and agency practitioners?

Individual Ethical Values

Individual ethical values refer to the extent to which an

individual judges a certain issue or action to be morally

important (Barnett and Vaicys 2000). Several studies have

suggested the importance of personal ethical values in

ethical practices and work behavior (Elango et al. 2010;

Suar and Khuntia 2010). Individual ethical values, which

have been the subject of much debate, can be classified into

the following two perspectives: relativism and absolutism

(Barnett et al. 1994, 1998; Douglas et al. 2001; Forsyth

1980, 1992; Hamilton 1976; Hogan 1973; Kohlberg 1976;

Redfern and Crawford 2004; Schlenker and Forsyth 1977).

Relativism refers to the extent to which an individual

denies the existence of universal and absolute ethical

principles. Individuals subscribing to relativism tend to

understand and apply their ethical standards based on their

society, culture, and system. That is, ethical judgments on

the correctness of an individual’s behavior can be made

based on the individual’s society and culture (Lee and

Sirgy 1999). In some sense, individuals relying on rela-

tivism may justify their inappropriate behavior by blaming

situational factors. Therefore, relativism may hinder moral

judgments and have negative effects on corporate social

responsibility (Winter et al. 2004).

On the other hand, an absolutist prefers ideal standards

to practical standards when making moral judgments,

which are consistently applied to any situation (Lee and

Sirgy 1999). Individuals subscribing to absolutism are

more likely to emphasize others’ welfare than their own

interests and benefits (Davis et al. 2001). Absolutism is

likely to increase moral tension and emphasizes the

importance of maintaining universal ethical standards in

any situation (Winter et al. 2004).

Reviewing various definitions of ethical values, Sparks

and Pan (2010) suggested that ethical value judgments may

fall along a continuum of intensity (i.e., there is a range of

ethicality) and defined ethical values as an individual’s

personal evaluation of the degree to which some behavior

or course of action is ethical or unethical. They suggested

that this definition permits ethical values to vary according

to this degree. The degree of an individual’s relativism or

absolutism can influence his or her behavior and ethical

judgments (Redfern and Crawford 2004; Schlenker and

Forsyth 1977). Facing a controversy, individuals showing

relativism are more likely to stop resisting and accept the

situation than those showing absolutism (Schlenker and

Forsyth 1977). However, no study has examined the effects

of individual ethical values on PR practitioners’ ethical

behavior in the workplace. In this regard, we propose the

following research question:

RQ2 What is the relationship between individual ethical

values and PR practitioners’ professional ethics?

Organizational Factors

In this study, reward and punishment for ethical/unethical

behavior, the ethical behavior of peers, and the ethical

integrity of the chief ethics officer are considered as

organizational factors.

Reward and punishment for ethical/unethical behavior

are well known to influence employees’ ethical judgments in

decision making (Wittmer 1994). In addition, the level of

reward/punishment is known to influence their ethical

behavior (Gurley et al. 2007; Hegarty and Sim 1978; Treviño

and Ball 1992). Through appropriate and specific punish-

ments and rewards, employees become accustomed to the

organization’s regulations. If unethical behavior is not

punished, then it may spread throughout the organization,

becoming more salient when competition is severe (Hegarty

and Sims 1978; Treviño 1986). Similarly, reward for ethical

behavior may foster and reinforce ethical judgments.

Individuals’ perception of their peers’ ethical behavior

may influence their decisions on moral issues (Zey-Ferrell

et al. 1979). A number of studies have suggested that peers

have considerable influence on individuals’ decisions on

ethical issues (Loe et al. 2000; O’Fallon and Butterfield

2005). Furthermore, the behavior of peers has considerable

influence on the ethical behavior of professionals (Brugman

and Weisfelt 2000; Deshpande and Joseph 2009; Deshpande

et al. 2006; Elango et al. 2010; Fritzsche 2005; Jones and

Kavanagh 1996; Joseph et al. 2009; Thorne and Hartwick

2001; Zey-Ferrell and Ferrell 1982; Zey-Ferrell et al. 1979).

According to social learning theory (Bandura 1977), the

existence of a positive role model can motivate individuals

to exhibit ethical behavior (Zey-Ferrell and Ferrell 1982). In

this regard, PR practitioners are likely to be influenced by the

ethical/unethical behavior of their peers.

The abbreviation ‘‘CEO’’ has taken on a new meaning

with the creation of the title ‘‘chief ethics officer’’ (Mess-

ikomer and Cirka 2010). The integrity and morality of the

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 557

123

CEO impacts employees’ actions and moral judgments

(Petrick and Quinn 2000). Punishment and reward for

employees’ behavior are typically determined by the CEO.

Therefore, employees’ perception of their CEO’s moral

integrity and decision making has both direct and indirect

effects on their activities. According to the Business Ethics

Survey, when top management shows ethical behavior,

employees are 50 % less likely to act unethically (Ethics

Resource Center 2005). Douglas et al. (2001) stressed the

importance of the tone set by the organization’s top man-

agement, which they described as an ethical environment

created through the top management’s practices and

espoused values. Thus, an organization’s top management

may reduce ethical problems that employees perceive by

discouraging unethical behavior.

Based on these notions, we propose the following four

hypotheses:

H1 Punishing unethical behavior is positively related to

the professional ethics of PR practitioners.

H2 Rewarding ethical behavior is positively related to

the professional ethics of PR practitioners.

H3 A PR practitioner’s perception of peers’ ethical

behavior is positively related to his or her professional

ethics.

H4 A PR practitioner’s perception of the ethical integrity

of the CEO is positively related to his or her professional

ethics.

Methods

Data Collection and Participants

The participants consisted of in-house and agency practi-

tioners. For in-house practitioners, who typically work in

communication, marketing, and PR departments, we

identified the top 100 firms in terms of their market capi-

talization as of 2009 from the website of Financial

Supervisory Service in Korea (Dart.fss.or.kr). For agency

practitioners, we considered all 37 members of the Korean

PR Consultancy Association as of 2009 (KPRCA:

http://www.kprca.or.kr). A researcher visited all these 100

firms and 37 PR agencies and asked their practitioners to

participate in the survey. Only those who signed the con-

sent decree completed the survey. We conducted the face-

to-face survey from April 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010,

during which there was no major event that could influence

the external validity of this study. A total of 300 practi-

tioners completed the survey. We excluded incomplete

responses, resulting in a total of 229 practitioners (108 in-

house practitioners and 121 agency practitioners) for the

analysis. There were 174 (76 %) female practitioners and

55 (24 %) male practitioners, which reflected the ratio for

the Korean PR industry. The participants’ ages ranged from

22 to 56 (average = 28), and their PR experience ranged

from 1 to 23 years (average = 2.8).

Measures

Independent Variables

Several studies (Forsyth 1980; Kidwell et al. 1987; Lee and

Yoshihara 1997; Peterson 2002; Reiss and Mitra 1998) have

developed a set of scales (e.g., Forsyth’s Ethical Perception

Questionnaire) for measuring the degree of absolutism and

relativism exhibited by individuals, but they cannot measure

the code of professional ethics against which individuals can

judge ethical behavior. Therefore, we modified Kidwell

et al.’s 1987 and Peterson’s (2002) measures to examine the

influence of individual standards of ethical values on pro-

fessional ethics. We extracted the measures for individual

standards of ethics from previous studies (Kidwell et al.

1987; Peterson 2002; Reiss and Mitra 1998).

We obtained the items for reward and punishment for

unethical/ethical behavior from Hegarty and Sims (1978).

One’s perception of peers’ ethical behavior can influence

one’s ethical behavior (Zey-Ferrell et al. 1979). We

obtained the three items for the perception of peers’

behavior from Treviño (1986) and Zey-Ferrell et al. (1979).

The perception of the ethical integrity of the CEO refers

to the perception of the CEO’s characteristics and behavior

indicating his or her moral judgments (Petrick and Quinn

2000). We obtained a total of 10 items from Craig and

Gustafson (1998).

We measured all items for the independent variables

using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘strongly

disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5).

Dependent Variable

We classified the dependent variable, the professional

ethics of PR practitioners, into three dimensions (profes-

sional ethics for the public, the client, and the PR industry)

and measured it using items drawn from Wilcox et al.

(1989, 2000). Furthermore, we included an item reflecting

commission, which is an important factor in the Korean PR

industry, in the ‘‘client’’ dimension. We measured a total of

19 items using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from

‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5).

Data Analysis and the Factor Analysis

We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to verify the

reliability and validity of the items, and Cronbach’s alpha

558 J. Y. Han et al.

123

was determined using SPSS 16.0. ‘‘Appendices 1–6’’ pro-

vide the results of the factor analysis. We conducted a t test

to examine the differences between in-house practitioners

and agency practitioners and a multigroup path analysis

employing AMOS19 program to investigate the influence

of the independent variables for individual and organiza-

tional dimensions on the professional ethics of PR

practitioners.

Based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis,

we classified individual ethical values into two factors:

relativism and idealism (see ‘‘Appendix 1’’). Cronbach’s

alpha for relativism was .79, and that for idealism was .88.

The items for idealism included, among others, ‘‘For my

own interests, I should not harm others’’ and ‘‘One

shouldn’t harm others no matter how small it may be.’’ The

items for relativism included, among others, ‘‘Everybody

has different moral standards’’ and ‘‘Something that is

moral for one may be immoral for another.’’ ‘‘Appendix 1’’

lists the items for idealism and relativism.

Three items loaded on the reward factor, and Cron-

bach’s alpha was .86. For example, ‘‘My ethical behavior is

reflected in my annual performance evaluation’’ and ‘‘Our

company gives incentives for ethical behavior’’ loaded on

the reward factor. ‘‘Appendix 2’’ shows all the items for the

reward factor. Two items for punishment for unethical

behavior loaded on one factor, and Cronbach’s alpha was

.76 (see ‘‘Appendix 3’’). These items were ‘‘If I behave

unethically, my annual incentives will be reduced’’ and ‘‘If

I behave unethically, my annual performance assessment

will be negatively affected.’’

Three items for the ethical behavior of peers loaded on

one factor, and Cronbach’s alpha was .73. ‘‘Appendix 4’’

lists these items, including ‘‘My colleagues try to abide by

the ethical principles set by the PR industry.’’ Nine items

for the ethical integrity of the CEO loaded on one factor,

and Cronbach’s alpha was .91. ‘‘Appendix 5’’ lists these

items, including ‘‘My CEO occasionally attempts to

intentionally distort what I said’’ and ‘‘My CEO may take

advantage of my idea.’’

We extracted three factors (the public interest/the client

interest/PR industry development) from the items for the

dependent variable. Cronbach’s alpha for the public inter-

est was .82, that for the client interest was .71, and that for

PR industry development was .77 (see ‘‘Appendix 6’’).

To examine the research questions and hypotheses, we

tested a recursive model describing an integrated set of

causal relationships. The paths in the model were indi-

vidual and organizational factors as positive predictors of

each dimension of professional ethics. We tested the pro-

posed model using the SEM technique through a multi-

group path analysis. We obtained the maximum likelihood

(ML) estimates of the model’s parameters by using Amos

19. There was no multicollinearity or normality problem.

We replaced missing data with means. We allowed all

paths from the six exogenous variables (idealism, relativ-

ism, reward, punishment, peers’ ethical behavior, and the

CEO’s integrity) to the three endogenous variables (the

public interest, the client interest, and PR industry devel-

opment) to be free in the model.

Results

Research Question 1: Differences in Professional Ethics

Between In-House and Agency Practitioners

We conducted a t test to examine the differences in pro-

fessional ethics between in-house and agency practitioners.

Agency practitioners were significantly more likely than

in-house practitioners to show ethical behavior toward the

public interest and the client interest (see Table 1). How-

ever, there were no significant differences in terms of their

ethical behavior toward PR industry development.

Research Question 2: The Relationship Between PR

Practitioners’ Individual Ethical Values

and Professional Ethics

To examine the relationship between in-house and agency

practitioners’ individual ethical values and professional

ethics, we conducted a multigroup path analysis (see

Table 2). By imposing cross-group equality constraints, we

tested the significance of group differences for the set of

parameters. We then compared the v2 of the model with its

path coefficients constrained to equality with that of the

unconstrained model. Here, we expected the direct effects

to vary between the two groups if the fit of the constrained

model was poorer than that of the unconstrained model. In

terms of individual values and professional ethics, there

were significant differences between in-house and agency

practitioners.

The results indicate that in-house practitioners with

more idealistic values and less relativistic values were

more likely to show ethical behavior toward the public

Table 1 Differences in professional ethics between in-house and

agency practitioners: t test results

Professional ethics In-House

practitioners

Agency

practitioners

t p

Mean Std Mean Std

Public interest 2.879 .349 3.922 .576 -16.732 .001

Client interest 3.220 1.212 3.599 .755 -2.796 .006

PR industry

development

3.308 .609 3.310 .079 -.015 .988

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 559

123

interest and PR industry development. By contrast, in-

house practitioners with less idealistic and relativistic

values were more likely to show ethical behavior toward

the client interest.

On the other hand, agency practitioners with more ide-

alistic values were more likely to show ethical behavior

toward the public interest, whereas those with more

relativistic values were more likely to show ethical

behavior toward the client interest and less likely to show

ethical behavior toward PR industry development.

Hypotheses 1 and 2: Reward/Punishment

and the Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners

We examined the effects of reward and punishment on

professional ethics (see Table 2). For in-house practitio-

ners, punishment for unethical behavior had positive

effects on professional ethics for the public interest, the

client interest, and PR industry development, and reward

for ethical behavior had positive effects on professional

ethics for the public interest and PR industry development

but negative effects for the client interest.

For agency practitioners, reward and punishment had no

significant effect on professional ethics for the public

interest and the client interest but had positive effects on

ethical behavior toward PR industry development.

Hypothesis 3: Perception of the Ethical Behavior

of Peers and the Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners

We examined the effects of PR practitioners’ perception of

peers’ ethical behavior on their professional ethics for the

public interest, the client interest, and PR industry devel-

opment (see Table 2). For both in-house and agency

practitioners, the perception of peers’ ethical behavior had

positive effects on ethical behavior toward the public

interest and client interest. However, the results were

mixed for PR industry development.

Hypothesis 4: perception of the Ethical Integrity

of the CEO and the Professional Ethics of PR

Practitioners

As shown in Table 2, in terms of the perception of the

ethical integrity of the CEO, in-house practitioners were

more likely to show ethical behavior toward the client

interest when they perceived the moral integrity of the

CEO to be high. On the other hand, agency practitioners

were more likely to show ethical behavior toward the

public interest when they perceived their CEO to be more

ethical. However, their perception of the moral integrity of

the CEO had no significant effect on their professional

ethics for PR industry development.

Discussion

This study investigates the effects of individual ethical

values and organizational factors on the professional ethics

of PR practitioners. Research Question 1 examined the

Table 2 Effects of individual and organizational factors on profes-

sional ethical values: a multigroup path analysis

Direct effects v2 v2r Regression weight

In-House

practitioners

PR agency

practitioners

Idealism ? public

interest

505.06 0.28 .25*** .21***

Idealism ? client

interest

502.44 2.90 -.06*** .17

Idealism ? PR

development

472.82 32.52 .37*** -.11

Relativism ? public

interest

500.10 5.24 -.10*** .04

Relativism ? client

interest

439.12 66.22 -.38*** .39***

Relativism ? PR

development

453.46 51.87 .24*** -.34***

Reward ? public

interest

502.21 3.13 .12*** .02

Reward ? client

interest

492.73 12.61 -.26*** .11

Reward ? PR

development

488.58 16.76 .13*** .45***

Punishment ? public

interest

487.96 17.38 .31*** .01

Punishment ? client

interest

468.98 36.36 .69*** -.07

Punishment ? PR

development

504.44 0.9 .24*** .35***

Peers’ ethical

behavior ? public

interest

501.53 3.81 .14*** .28***

Peers’ ethical

behavior ? client

interest

504.12 1.22 .24*** .38**

Peers’ ethical

behavior ? PR

development

504.74 0.60 -.11*** -.02

CEO’s

integrity ? public

interest

501.01 4.32 .01 .17*

CEO’s

integrity ? client

interest

505.29 0.05 .15*** .18

CEO’s

integrity ? PR

development

502.90 2.44 .00 .17

* p .05, ** p .01, *** p .001

560 J. Y. Han et al.

123

differences in professional ethics between in-house prac-

titioners and agency practitioners. The result indicated that

agency practitioners were significantly more likely than in-

house practitioners to show ethical behavior toward the

public interest and the client’s interest. Research Question

2 investigated the differences between in-house and agency

practitioners in terms of individual values and professional

ethics. The result indicated that in-house and agency

practitioners with more idealistic values were more likely

to show ethical behavior toward the public interest. Four

hypotheses were proposed such as that punishing unethical

behavior, rewarding ethical behavior, practitioners’ per-

ception of peers’ ethical behavior, and practitioners’ per-

ception of ethical integrity of the CEO are positively

related to his/her professional ethics. For in-house practi-

tioners, punishment for unethical behavior and reward for

ethical behavior had positive effects on professional ethics,

whereas it did not work the same way for agency practi-

tioners. For both in-house and agency practitioners, the

perception of peers’ ethical behavior had positive effects

on ethical behavior toward the public interest and client’s

interest. In addition, the perception of the ethical integrity

of the CEO was found to affect in-house practitioners’

ethical behavior toward the client interest as well as agency

practitioners’ ethical behavior toward the public interest.

Based upon the results, individual factors as well as

organizational factors were important determinants of

professional ethics of PR practitioners. Agency practitio-

ners were more likely than in-house practitioners to adhere

to the code of professional ethics for the public interest and

the client’s interest. That is, agency practitioners were

more likely to be committed to their profession than to

their organization. On the other hand, in-house practitio-

ners were more likely to be committed to their organization

than to their profession. That is, in-house practitioners

showed a weak professional commitment, indicating that

they perceived themselves as employees, not as PR pro-

fessionals. This result is in line with other studies, where

agency practitioners with membership in professional

associations perceived themselves to serve the public

interest more than in-house practitioners did (e.g., Bivins

1993; McKee et al. 1975; Pratt 1992).

What is noteworthy is that organizational factors such as

reward, punishment, and peers’ ethical behavior had con-

siderable influence on the professional ethics of in-house

practitioners. By contrast, organizational factors were less

likely to influence professional ethics for agency practi-

tioners than for in-house practitioners. Organizational

factors such as reward, punishment, and the CEO’s ethical

integrity had no significant effect on the professional ethics

of agency practitioners. This result seems to reflect Con-

fucianism immersed in in-house practitioners’ perception,

which puts more emphasis on organizational

acknowledgement, harmony among employees, individual

sacrifice for organization rather than the profession itself

(Ang and Leong 2000; Kincade 1987).

These results can be interpreted in two ways. First, in-

house practitioners are more likely to be committed to their

organization than agency practitioners, which allows

organizational factors to influence in-house practitioners

more than agency practitioners but leads to lower profes-

sional ethical standards for in-house practitioners than for

agency practitioners. This indicates a need for fostering in-

house practitioners’ professional motivation and commit-

ment to encourage them to abide by the ethical standards

set by the PR industry. For this, professional ethics work-

shops and training seminars for in-house practitioners may

be beneficial.

Second, even with higher professional ethical standards,

agency practitioners are less likely to be committed to their

employers than to their clients or profession, which can

explain the high turnover rate in the PR industry. A high

turnover rate can limit the development of the PR industry

by inhibiting an efficient organizational rapport between

practitioners and by restricting consistent and high-quality

services for clients. Agency practitioners’ lack of com-

mitment to their organizations can facilitate their transfer

to their clients’ or competitors’ firms, which sometimes can

cause legal or ethical disputes between PR agencies and

clients because such a transfer is against the generally

accepted business rules. To reduce the turnover rate in the

PR industry, PR agencies should restructure their organi-

zational systems to facilitate their employees’ professional

achievement and pride as agency practitioners.

Organizational factors as well as individual ethical

values were more likely to influence professional ethics for

in-house practitioners than for agency practitioners. How-

ever, as discussed earlier, agency practitioners were more

likely to abide by ethical standards than in-house practi-

tioners. That is, the ethical behavior of in-house practitio-

ners was related to their ethical values, whereas that of

agency practitioners was not. In addition, agency practi-

tioners were more likely to abide by the ethical standards

set by the PR industry and be committed to their profession

than in-house practitioners. Thus, to foster in-house prac-

titioners’ professional ethics and commitment, professional

associations in the PR industry should make efforts to

provide in-house practitioners with more information on

the PR industry and more opportunities for interacting and

maintaining communication with their colleagues in the

industry.

As indicated by the literature review, the differences in

work practices and organizational cultures between in-

house and agency practitioners may induce organizational

and individual factors that have differential effects on their

professional ethics. To survive in competitive and profit-

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 561

123

driven work environments, in-house practitioners should

emphasize their organizations’ cultures and work practices

more than professional standards, which would make

organizational factors more likely to influence the ethical

behavior of in-house practitioners than that of agency

practitioners.

In addition, PR practitioners in Korea with idealistic

views on ethics tend to contribute to the public interest.

Meanwhile, agency practitioners with relativistic views on

ethics are more likely to focus on the client’s interest. The

result is consistent with Kim’s (2003a) study, where high

idealists believed that keeping the highest ethical stan-

dards provided added values to the profession itself rather

than to the clients’ interest in the long term, whereas for

American practitioners, relativism played a key role in

ethical judgment. Kim (2003a) attributed this ideological

difference between Korean and American practitioners to

the Confucian atmosphere where practitioners are not sure

about the benefits of ethical practices in a short term, and

then suggested that more positive confirmation on

obtaining desirable outcomes in exchange of ethical

behaviors would bring higher ethical standards among

practitioners.

These results suggest some new explanatory variables

for the professional ethics of PR practitioners. For exam-

ple, to better examine PR practitioners’ ethical dilemmas,

future research should consider the value congruence (e.g.,

Suar and Khuntia 2010) between individual and organiza-

tional values. According to Suar and Khuntia (2010), value

congruence encourages employees to engage in activities

that are congruent with the organization’s needs. Because

value congruence is likely to develop over the course of the

employment, in-house practitioners are likely to be

socialized into their organizations through various organi-

zational activities such as mentoring, interactions with

superiors, formal training, and participation in organiza-

tion-sponsored social events, among others. The results for

the professional ethics of agency practitioners were mixed,

although agency practitioners were more likely to abide by

ethical standards than in-house practitioners. This suggests

that agency practitioners may have fewer opportunities for

internalizing organizational values than in-house

practitioners.

Limitations

This study has some limitations. The sample did not reflect

a full range of PR practitioners in Korea; it excluded

those in organizations such as governments, non-profit

organizations, professional associations, and hospitals,

among others. In addition, because the sample included

only Korean PR practitioners, the generalizability of the

results to other countries may be limited. Furthermore, we

did not consider a comprehensive range of individual and

organizational factors, i.e., we selected and examined only

several variables. Therefore, there is a need for investi-

gating other unexplained variables for the professional

ethics of PR practitioners.

Future research should consider PR practitioners’ ethical

dilemmas, which are difficult to examine through a survey

(Sparks and Pan 2010). In this regard, cognitive processes

such as the cognitive dissonance of ethical judgments

should be investigated. In addition to an output-oriented

study analyzing the key factors influencing the relationship

between the professional ethics of PR practitioners and the

ability of codes of ethics to influence their conduct, for

practical codes of ethics for the PR industry, transforma-

tion-oriented studies should focus on the adoption process

for codes of ethics (Messikomer and Cirka 2010; Rodri-

guez-Dominguez et al. 2009).

Appendix 1: Factor Analysis of Individual Ethical

Values: Idealism and Relativism

Items Factor 1

(idealism)

Factor 2

(relativism)

I shouldn’t harm others psychologically .538 -.005

For my own interest, I should not harm

others

.743 .074

One shouldn’t harm others no matter

how small it may be

.893 .166

Any behavior harming others’ dignity

and peace shouldn’t be allowed

.894 .196

I shouldn’t harm others physically .852 .218

I shouldn’t pursue my own interest at the

expense of others’ welfare

.767 -.449

Everybody has different moral standards .118 .831

Something that is moral for one may be

immoral for another

.505 .663

Each situation or society requires

different ethical standards

.404 .554

Eigen value 4.742 2.182

Variance explained (%) 43.107 19.838

Cumulative explanation (%) 43.107 62.945

Mean 3.808 3.387

Standard deviation .7730 .8866

Cronbach’s alpha .882 .788

562 J. Y. Han et al.

123

Appendix 2: Factor Analysis of Reward for Ethical

Behavior

Items Factor 1

My ethical behavior is reflected in my annual

performance evaluation

.825

Ethical behavior is recognized and rewarded

by our company

.902

Our company gives incentives for ethical

behavior

.948

Eigen value 2.394

Variance explained (%) 79.809

Mean 2.710

Standard deviation .9324

Cronbach’s alpha .861

Appendix 3: Factor Analysis of Punishment for Uneth-

ical Behavior

Items Factor 1

If I behave unethically, my annual incentives

will be reduced

.892

If I behave unethically, my annual performance

assessment will be negatively affected

.814

Eigen value 1.831

Variance explained (%) 61.048

Mean 2.675

Standard deviation .7179

Cronbach’s alpha .757

Appendix 4: Factor Analysis of Peers’ Ethical Behavior

Items Factor 1

I think my colleagues generally behave ethically .877

My colleagues work as ethically as possible .865

My colleagues try to abide by the ethical principles set

by the PR industry

.671

Eigen value 1.968

Variance explained (%) 68.600

Mean 3.518

Standard deviation 1.0137

Cronbach’s alpha .727

Appendix 5: Factor Analysis of the Ethical Integrity

of the CEO

Items Factor 1

My CEO tends to intentionally exaggerate my mistakes

and convey unfavorable information on me to my

supervisor

.720

My CEO may dismiss an employee just because he/she

doesn’t like the employee

.729

My CEO intentionally undermines employees’ rapport

with one another

.780

My CEO occasionally attempts to intentionally distort

what I said

.773

My CEO may take advantage of my idea .768

My CEO hesitates to have employees trained and

educated

.765

My CEO tends to attribute his/her mistakes to me .765

My CEO intentionally turns down my requests .865

My CEO tends to dwell on my mistakes instead of

being forgiving

.784

Eigen value 5.542

Variance explained (%) 55.421

Mean 4.044

Standard deviation .6743

Cronbach’s alpha .908

Appendix 6: Factor Analysis of the Professional Ethics

of PR Practitioners

Items Factor 1

Public

interest

Factor 2

PR industry

development

Factor 3

Client

interest

I try my best not to

undermine social justice

.842 .136 -.244

I don’t provide false

information and try my best

to correct any false

information

.825 -.218 -.416

I don’t guarantee publicity or

message placements

beyond my ability

.806 .050 -.315

I don’t corrupt journalists

and media channels by

providing money or gifts

.585 .350 .100

For the development of the

PR industry, I share my

experience and knowledge

with other PR practitioners

-.276 .867 -.018

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 563

123

References

Andreoli, N., & Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Individual and organizational

antecedents of misconduct in organizations. Journal of Business

Ethics, 85, 309–332.

Ang, S. H., & Leong, S. M. (2000). Out of the mouths of babes:

Business ethics and youths in Asia. Journal of Business Ethics,

28, 129–144.

Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. A. (1980). Business ethics social responsi-

bility and business students: An empirical comparison of Clark’s

study. Akron Business and Economic Review, 3, 17–23.

Aronoff, C. (1975). Credibility of public relations for journalists.

Public Relations Review, 1, 45–56.

Axinn, C. N., Blair, M. E., Heorhiadi, A., & Thach, S. V. (2004).

Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 54, 103–119.

Baker, S. (2002). The theoretical ground for public relations practice

and ethics: A Koehnian analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 35,

191–205.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1994). Ethical ideology and

ethical judgment regarding ethical issues in business. Journal of

Business Ethics, 13, 469–480.

Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G., & Hebert, F. J. (1998). Ethical

ideology and the ethical judgments of marketing professionals.

Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 715–723.

Barnett, T., & Vaicys, C. (2000). The moderating effect of

individuals’ perceptions of ethical work climate on ethical

judgments and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Ethics,

27, 351–362.

Beschorner, T. (2006). Ethical theory and business practices: The case

of discourse ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 127–139.

Beu, D. S., Buckley, R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision-

making: A multidimensional construct. Business ethics. A

European Review, 12(1), 88–107.

Bivins, T. H. (1987). Applying ethical theory to public relations.

Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 195–200.

Bivins, T. H. (1993). Public relations professionalism, and the public

interest. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 117–126.

Brommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravender, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A

behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making.

Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 265–280.

Brugman, D., & Weisfelt, M. (2000). Moral competence and

professional reasoning of Dutch accountants. Research on

Accounting Ethics, 7, 103–140.

Cowton, C. J., & Thompson, P. (2000). Do codes make a difference?

The case of bank lending and the environment. Journal of

Business Ethics, 24(2), 165–178.

Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived Leader Integrity

Scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of

leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 127–145.

Davis, M. A., Anderson, M. G., & Curtis, M. B. (2001). Measuring

ethical ideology in business ethics: A critical analysis of the

ethics position questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 32,

35–53.

Deshpande, S. P., & Joseph, J. (2009). Impact of emotional

intelligence ethical climate, and behavior of peers on ethical

behavior of nurses. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 403–410.

Deshpande, S. P., Joseph, J., & Prasad, R. (2006). Factors impacting

ethical behavior in hospitals. Journal of Business Ethics, 69,

207–216.

Douglas, P. C., Davidson, R. A., & Schwartz, B. N. (2001). The effect

of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants’

ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 101–121.

Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual

domain from the practice: Public relations activism, and the role

of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1),

3–22.

Elango, B., Paul, K., Kundu, S. K., & Paudel, S. K. (2010).

Organizational ethics individual ethics, and ethical intentions in

international decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 97,

543–561.

Elwood, W. (1995). Public relations inquiry as rhetorical criticism:

Case studies of corporate discourse and social influence.

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Es, R. V., & Meijlink, T. L. (2000). The dialogical turn of public

relations ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 69–77.

Ethics Resource Center. (2005). National business ethics survey: How

employees view ethics in their organizations. Washington, DC:

Ethics Resource Center.

Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework

for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal

of Marketing, 49, 87–96.

Fisher, B. (2005). The ethical foundation of PR: An analysis of public

relations firms’ codes of ethics, Paper presented to the interna-

tional communication association annual conference, New York,

NY.

Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A

review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13,

205–221.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175–184.

Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The

influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business

Ethics, 11, 461–470.

Forte, A. (2004). Business ethics: A study of the moral reasoning of

selected business managers and the influence of organizational

ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(2), 167–173.

Fritzche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to

ethical philosophy—an empirical investigation. Academy of

Management Journal, 27(1), 166–175.

Fritzsche, D. J. (2005). Business ethics: A global and managerial

perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communi-

cation management: Contributions to effective organizations.

Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

For fostering professionalism in the

PR industry, I communicate and

build good relationships with other

PR practitioners

.156 .896 -.038

I always disclose the name of my

agency/clients

.599 .237 .675

When moving to a competitor, I don’t

make efforts to bring my previous

clients with me to the new agency

.634 -.348 .538

Eigen value 3.243 1.923 1.089

Variance explained (%) 40.538 24.038 13.611

Cumulative variance (%) 40.538 64.577 78.187

Mean 3.6275 3.3095 3.4828

Standard deviation .7598 .7997 .9329

Cronbach’s alpha .821 .774 .708

564 J. Y. Han et al.

123

Grunig, J. E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal

corporatism as core professional values in public relations.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 23–48.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1996, May). Implications of symmetry

for a theory of ethics and social responsibility in public relations

(pp. 23–27), Paper presented to the public relations interest

group international communication association, Chicago.

Gurley, K., Wood, P., & Nijhawan, I. (2007). The effect

of punishment on ethical behavior when personal gain is

involved. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues,

19(1), 91–105.

Hamilton, V. L. (1976). Individual differences in ascriptions of

responsibility, guilt, and appropriate punishment. In G. Bermant,

C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp.

239–264). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Hegarty, W. H., & Sim, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical

decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 63(4), 451–457.

Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and moral character: A psycholog-

ical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 217–232.

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics.

Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.

Hutton, J. (1999). The definition, dimension, and domain of public

relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 199–214.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in

organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 16(2), 366–395.

Jones, W., & Kavanagh, M. (1996). An experimental examination of

the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical

behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business

Ethics, 15(5), 511–523.

Joseph, J., Berry, K., & Deshpande, S. P. (2009). Impact of emotional

intelligence and other factors on perception of ethical behavior

of peers. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 539–546.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1980). Organizational paradoxes: Clinical

approaches to management. London: Tavistock.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1989). Alexithymia in organizational life:

The organization man revisited. Human Relations, 42,

1079–1093.

Ki, E., & Kim, S. (2010). Ethics statements of public relations firms:

What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 223–236.

Kidwell, J. M., Stevens, R. E., & Bethke, A. L. (1987). Differences in

ethical perceptions between male and female manager: Myth or

reality? Journal of Business Ethics, 6(6), 489–493.

Kim, Y. (2003a). Ethical standards and ideology among Korean

public relations practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 42,

209–223.

Kim, Y. (2003b). Ethical standards appears to change with age and

ideology: A survey of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 29,

79–89.

Kim, Y., & Yoon, H. (2004). Perception both about private

relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists

and professional ethics of PR practitioners in Korea. Korean

Journal of Public Relations, 8(1), 302–338.

Kincade, D. L. (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and western

perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive

developmental approach. In T. Likona (Ed.), Moral development

and behavior: Theory, research and social issues. New York:

Rinehart & Winston.

L’Etang, J., & Pieczka, M. (2000). Public relations education. In J.

L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates

and contemporary practice (pp. 433–440). New York:

Routledge.

Lee, D. J., & Sirgy, M. J. (1999). The effect of moral philosophy and

ethnocentrism on quality-of-life orientation in international

marketing: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business

Ethics, 18, 73–89.

Lee, C., & Yoshihara, H. (1997). Business ethics of Korean and

Japanese managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 7–21.

Loe, T., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical

studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of

Business Ethics, 25, 185–204.

Martin, W. (2009). Socially responsible investing: Is your fiduciary

duty at risk? Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 549–560.

McCraw, H., Moffeit, K. S., & O’Malley, J. R., Jr. (2009). An

analysis of the ethical codes of corporations and business

schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 1–13.

McCuddy, M. K., & Peery, B. L. (1996). Selected individual

differences and collegians’ ethical beliefs. Journal of Business

Ethics, 15, 261–272.

McElreath, M. P. (1996). Managing systematic and ethical public

relations campaigns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McKee, B. K., Naymon, O. B., & Lattimore, D. L. (1975). How PR

people see themselves. Public Relations Journal, 31, 47–52.

McKinney, J. A., Emerson, T. L., & Neubert, M. J. (2010). The

effects of ethical codes on ethical perceptions of actions toward

stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 505–516.

Messikomer, C. M., & Cirka, C. C. (2010). Constructing a code of

ethics: An experiential case of a national professional organiza-

tion. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 55–71.

Neill, J. D., Stovall, O. S., & Jinkerson, D. L. (2005). A critical

analysis of the accounting industry’s voluntary code of conduct.

Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1), 101–108.

Nicholson, N. (1994). Ethics in organizations: A framework for

theory and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 581–596.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the ethical

decision making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business

Ethics, 59, 375–413.

Park, J., Cameron, G. T., & Cropp, F. (2000a). Developing standards

of professional performance in public relations: Korean practi-

tioners perception, Paper presented at the annual conference of

international communication association, Singapore.

Park, J., Park, J., & Sim, S. (2000b). Professionalism of Korean public

relations practitioners: Q analysis. Korean Journal of Public

Relations, 4(2), 64–100.

Pearson, R. (1989). Beyond ethical relativism in public relations:

Coorientation rules and the idea of communication symmetry.

Public Relations Research Annual, 1, 67–86.

Peterson, D. K. (2002). The relationship between unethical behavior

and the dimensions of the ethical climate questionnaire. Journal

of Business Ethics, 41, 313–326.

Petrick, J., & Quinn, J. (2000). The integrity capacity construct and

moral progress in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 3–18.

Pratt, C. B. (1991). PRSA member’s perceptions of public relations

ethics. Public Relations Review, 17(2), 145–159.

Pratt, C. B. (1992). Correlates and predictors of self reported ethics

among US public relations practitioners. Psychological Reports,

70, 259–267.

Pratt, C. B., & Rentner, T. L. (1989). What’s really being taught about

ethical behavior. Public Relations Review, 15(1), 53–66.

Premeaux, S. (2009). The link between management behavior and

ethical philosophy in the wake of the Enron convictions. Journal

of Business Ethics, 85, 13–25.

Redfern, L., & Crawford, J. (2004). An empirical investigation of the

ethical position questionnaire in the People’s Republic of China.

Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 199–210.

Reiss, M. C., & Mitra, K. (1998). The effects of individual difference

factors on the acceptability of ethical and unethical workplace

behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1581–1593.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and

theory. New York: Praeger.

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 565

123

Rodriguez-Dominguez, L., Gallego-Alvarez, I., & Garcia-Sanchez, I.

M. (2009). Corporate governance and codes of ethics. Journal of

Business Ethics, 90, 187–202.

Schlenker, B. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1977). On the ethics of

psychological research. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13,

369–396.

Schwarz, M. S. (2002). A code of ethics for corporate code of ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics, 41(1–2), 27–43.

Seib, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. Fort Worth,

PA: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Sharmir, J., Reed, D. S., & Connell, S. (1990). Individual differences

in ethical values of public relations practitioners. Journalism

Quarterly, 67(4), 956–963.

Simola, S. (2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis

management. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 351–361.

Snell, R. (1990). Managers’ development of ethical awareness and

personal morality. Personnel Review, 19(1), 13–20.

Snyder, P., Hall, M., Robertson, J., Jasinski, T., & Miller, J. S. (2006).

Ethical rationality: A strategic approach to organizational crisis.

Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 371–383.

Sparks, J. R., & Pan, Y. (2010). Ethical judgments in business ethics

research: Definition, and research agenda. Journal of Business

Ethics, 91, 405–418.

Sriramesh, K., Kim, Y., & Takasaki, M. (1999). Public relations in

three Asian cultures: An analysis. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 11(4), 271–292.

Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Popova, L. (2009). A new generation of

corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90,

607–622.

Suar, D., & Khuntia, R. (2010). Influence of personal values and value

congruence on unethical practices and work behavior. Journal of

Business Ethics, 97, 443–460.

Sweeney, B., Arnold, D., & Pierce, B. (2010). The impact of

perceived ethical culture of the firm and demographic variables

on auditors’ ethical evaluation and intention to act decisions.

Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 531–551.

Thorne, L., & Hartwick, J. (2001). The directional effects of

discussion on accountants’ moral reasoning. Contemporary

Accounting Research, 18, 337–362.

Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: A

person–situation interactionist model. Academy of Management

Review, 11(3), 601–617.

Treviño, L. K., & Ball, G. (1992). The social implications of

punishing unethical behavior: Observers cognitive and affective

reactions. Journal of Management, 18(4), 751–769.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynold, S. J. (2006). Behavioral

ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management,

32(6), 951–990.

Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad

barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378–385.

Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2002). Ethics codes and sales profes-

sionals perceptions of their organizations ethical values. Journal

of Business Ethics, 40(3), 191–200.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical

work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1),

101–125.

Wang, J., Wang, G. G., Rouna, W. E. A., & Rojewski, J. W. (2005).

Confucian values and the implications for international HRD.

Human Resource Development International, 8(3), 311–326.
Weber, J. (1995). Influences upon organizational ethical climates: A

multi-departmental analysis of a single firm. Organization

Science, 6(5), 509–523.

Wilcox, D. L., Ault, P. H., & Agee, W. K. (1989). Public relations

strategies and tactics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row

Publishers.

Wilcox, D. L., Ault, P. H., & Agee, W. K. (1997). Public relations

strategies and tactics (5th ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

Wilcox, D. L., Ault, P. H., Agee, W. K., & Cameron, G. T. (2000).

Public relations strategies and tactics (6th ed.). New York:

Addison Wesley Longman.

Winter, S. J., Stylianou, A. C., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). Individual

differences in the acceptability of unethical information tech-

nology practice: The case of Machiavellianism and ethical

ideology. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 279–301.

Wittmer, D. P. (1994). Ethical decision making. In T. C. Cooper

(Ed.), Handbook of administrative ethics (pp. 349–372). New

York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Wright, D. K. (1985). Age and the moral values of practitioners.

Public Relations Review, 11(1), 51–60.

Wright, D. K. (1989). Examining ethical and moral values of public

relations people. Public Relations Review, 15(2), 19–33.

Wylie, F. (1994). Commentary: Public relations is not yet a

profession. Public Relations Review, 20, 1–3.

Yeh, Q., & Xu, X. (2010). The effect of Confucian work ethics on

learning about science and technology knowledge and morality.

Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 111–128.

Zaleznik, A., & Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1974). Power and the

corporate mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role-set configuration and

opportunity as predictors of unethical behavior on organizations.

Human Relations, 35(7), 587–604.

Zey-Ferrell, M., Weaver, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1979). Predicting

unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. Human

Relations, 32(7), 557–569.

566 J. Y. Han et al.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

The Effect of Ethical Leadership Behavior on Ethical Climate,
Turnover Intention, and Affective Commitment

Ozgur Demirtas • A. Asuman Akdogan

Received: 30 December 2013 / Accepted: 20 April 2014 / Published online: 11 May 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This study examines a mediated model of eth-

ical leadership on ethical climate, turnover intention, and

affective commitment. It is suggested that managers are

role models in their organizations. Specifically, through

ethical leadership behavior, managers can influence per-

ceptions of ethical climate, which in turn will positively

influence organizational members’ turnover intention, and

affective commitment. The results indicate that ethical

leadership has both direct and indirect effect on affective

commitment and turnover intention. The indirect effect of

ethical leadership involves shaping perceptions of ethical

climate, which in turn, engenders greater affective orga-

nizational commitment and less turnover intention.

Keywords Ethical leadership behavior � Ethical climate �
Affective commitment � Turnover intention � Role model

Over the years, several attempts have been made in the

ethics literature to explain and understand ethical decision-

making and ethical behavior (Berkman and Arslan 2009;

Callan 1992; Dubinsky and Ingram 1984; Dubinsky and

Levy 1985; Drucker 1981; Harris 1990; Simpson 1982;

Mathison 1988; Nyaw and Ng 1994; Özgener 2009). In

accordance with this global trend, a vast amount of

research has explored the relationship between organiza-

tional ethics and its outcomes. A majority of corporate

ethics researches have focused on ethical leadership, and

ethical climate as a critical antecedent of organizational

outcomes.

Today, the corporate social responsibility is more

essential, and the corporate image becomes crucial

according to the transparent management viewpoint.

Therefore, the managers’ values are so important in influ-

encing the working environment. The role of managers and

their ethical behavior play a critical role in providing a

moral framework for organizational members (Grojean

et al. 2004; Mendonca 2001) and in building the collective

character of the organization (Moore 2005; Wright and

Goodstein 2007). So, ethical leaders are fundamental fac-

tors in shaping the moral framework for an organization.

Ethical leadership refers to the display of behaviors

consistent with appropriate norms, which are visible

through leader’s actions and relationships (Brown et al.

2005). Scholars have mostly discussed ethical leadership

with theoretical and conceptual terms. Brown et al. (2005)

carried out field investigations to test and validate the

construct of ethical leadership within organizations. Some

researches focusing on ethical leadership have demon-

strated its positive effects on prosocial behaviors (Mayer

et al. 2010; Piccolo et al. 2010; Walumbwa and Schau-

broeck 2009).

However, the majority of the studies on ethical leader-

ship have not been done in industries such as manufac-

turing, logistics, or in other major parts of the countries.

These studies generally used university students as

subjects.

Ethical leadership is the demonstration of normatively

appropriate conduct through personal actions and inter-

personal relationships, and it emphasizes the promotion of

such conduct to followers through two-way communica-

tion, reinforcement, and decision-making (Brown et al.

2005; Neubert et al. 2009). Besides, ethical leadership

O. Demirtas (&)

Turkish Air Force, Kayseri, Turkey

e-mail: [email protected]

A. A. Akdogan

Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2015) 130:59–67

DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2196-6

behavior promotes organizational members’ attitudes to

everyday work and their attachments to the organization

(i.e. affective organizational commitment) (Brown and

Treviño 2006; Schminke et al. 2005).

The relationship between leadership styles and its out-

comes have been studied by many scholars in the organi-

zational behavior field. However, there are limited

researches on ethical leadership styles and behavioral

outcomes in Turkey. As a role model in an organization,

the ethical leadership behavior is an essential issue in

aviation industry, because commitment and work engage-

ment are so important in aviation industry. Thus, it can be

said that leaders’ ethical judgments influence their

followers.

This study focused on ethical leadership behavior to

fulfill these needs, especially for Turkish literature. In

that regard, the purpose in this study is to examine the

effect of ethical leadership behavior on perceptions of

ethical climate and, in turn, on the turnover intention and

affective commitment of organizational members (see

Fig. 1). The article is organized as four main sections.

First, a review of the literature on ethical leadership,

ethical climate, affective commitment, and turnover

intention is presented, and then the hypotheses were

developed. Second, the research methodology is given.

Afterwards, the field study analyses were given com-

paratively with the results in the literature. Finally, the

results of the study, strengths and weakness, research

implications, and future research recommendations are

mentioned.

Theoretical Frameworks and Hypotheses

Social learning theory suggests that individuals learn by

focusing their attentions on role models and learn appro-

priate behavior through witnessing what is rewarded and

what is punished or which actions attract attention and

which do not (Bandura 1986). Leadership involves influ-

ence to others (Yukl 2002). Managers exhibiting ethical

leadership influence organizational members through per-

sonal actions and interpersonal relations (Brown et al.

2005). Employees can learn what behavior is expected,

rewarded, and punished through role modeling. Leaders are

important sources for such modeling because of their role.

Previous researches have also demonstrated that role

models in an organization influence prosocial behaviors

(Bryan and Test 1967; Mayer et al. 2010; Piccolo et al.

2010). In the following sections, ethical leadership

behavior and its effects on perceptions of ethical climate,

affective organizational commitment, and turnover inten-

tion are defined.

Ethical Leadership

Leader’s behaviors are very important in order to have

efficient work conditions and organizational culture. In this

era, the new leadership style highlights the importance of

virtue and morality. Many scholars mainly emphasize

truthfulness and honesty in the leadership style (Brown

et al. 2005). According to Brown and Treviño (2006),

ethical scandals in work environment (i.e., in nonprofit

organizations, sports, and religious institutions) point out

the importance of ethical issues and leadership behaviors

that have ethical content (Waddock 2004).

Ethical leadership is defined as the demonstration of

normatively conduct behavior through personal actions and

interpersonal relationships (Brown et al. 2005). It empha-

sizes the promotion of such conduct to followers through

two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-

making (Neubert et al. 2009). In the literature, ethical

leadership is mostly emphasized on integrity and honesty

(Eubanks et al. 2012; Kuntz et al. 2013), and ethical leaders

were seen as fair, and principled decision-makers. The

researchers characterized these characteristics as the moral

aspect of ethical leadership.

In today’s changing conditions, if organizations aim to

have a sustainable growth, strategic superiority, and cor-

porate image, then they have to establish a culture that

supports and encourages the ethical behaviors. While

establishing the ethical working condition as a role model,

leaders’ behaviors influence the other behaviors in the

organizations, and their behaviors become the most

important factor in this process. In this context, ethical

leadership can be defined as the demonstration of norma-

tively appropriate conduct through personal actions and

interpersonal relationships (Brown et al. 2005).

A number of studies on ethical content examined the

leadership style and their ethical behaviors (Alzola 2008;

Kahai et al. 2003; Neubert et al. 2009; Treviño 1986).

Researchers emphasized that the ethical climate of the

work context is generally shaped by organizational man-

agers (Schein 1985; Schminke et al. 2005; Treviño et al.

2000). Furthermore, ethical leadership behavior reduces

people’s anxiety about the uncertainty of the jobs or

behaviors in the organizations by being considerate, open,

Ethical Leadership Ethical Climate

Turnover
Intention

Affective
Commitment

Fig. 1 Model of the study

60 O. Demirtas, A. A. Akdogan

123

trustworthy, and honest, and by stressing the importance of

adherence to high ethical principles (Treviño et al. 2003).

In today’s world, organizations implement some sys-

tems that indicate the ethical codes, corporate ethics,

standardized procedures, and ethics training programs.

However, it is a fact that ethical principles need action

rather than words. Therefore, the managers’ attitudes

toward the jobs are more important than the established

systems. At all levels in the organizations, managers have a

primary role in shaping ethical climate. Constituting this

climate, managers exemplify what is appropriate through

their behavior (Dickson et al. 2001). By modeling appro-

priate behavior, managers provide justice and trust (Brown

et al. 2005; Brown and Treviño 2006).

The integration of social-cognitive theories and virtue

theory essentially point out the potential of managers, who

model ethical leadership behavior and create relational

attachments in order to exert moral authority that contrib-

utes to an environment conducive, and the flourishing of

organizational members (Neubert et al. 2009). In the fol-

lowing section, it is argued that this influence occurs by

means of creating and perpetuating an ethical climate.

Mediator: Ethical Climate

A work climate can be defined as the perceptions of psy-

chologically meaningful moral attitudes in a work envi-

ronment (Schneider 1975). There are various kinds of work

climates. One of them is ethical work climate that can be

defined as the predominant perceptions about the proce-

dures and practices of the organization that has ethical

content or the prevailing perceptions of typical organiza-

tional practices and procedures that have ethical content

(Victor and Cullen 1988). Ethical behavior of the leader is

a necessary condition to establish an ethical organization,

but this is not sufficient. The managers who engage in

ethical leadership behavior must also act as virtuous agents

in promoting an ethical climate (Flynn 2008).

The socio-cultural environment, organizational form,

and organization-specific history are identified as deter-

minants of the ethical climates. Victor and Cullen (1988)

composed a chart showing possible ethical climates based

on philosophical, sociological, and psychological theory.

The chart has two axes representing how the ethical sys-

tems are derived from and to whom they are applied. This

matrix forms nine theoretical dimensions of ethical climate

typology. The typology served as the basis for the creation

of the Ethical Climate Questionnaire.

As a result of a series of survey studies, Victor and

Cullen (1988) approved the existence of five out of nine

climate types (Cullen et al. 1993) which emphasized caring

(Friendship and Team Interest), law and code (Laws and

Professional Codes), rules (Company Rules and

Procedures), instrumental (Self-Interest and Company

Profit), and independence (Personal Morality) climate

types. This ethical climate typology and questionnaire were

used later in different studies (Cullen et al. 2003; Mayer

et al. 2009; Neubaum et al. 2004; Webber 2007; Wimbush

et al. 1997).

When behaviors in an organization are perceived to be

ethical, these perceptions influence ethical decision-making

and the behaviors of organizational members as well as

their attitudes toward individual jobs (Brown and Treviño

2006). The collective effect of multiple organizational

members’ ethical perceptions creates a work environment

characterized by shared ethical work norms (Davidovitz

et al. 2007; Dickson et al. 2001). An ethical climate affects

individuals’ attitudes toward their jobs and the organization

(Cullen et al. 2003). The influence of ethical leadership

extends to influence organizational members’ turnover

intention and organizational commitment through an ethi-

cal climate (Brown et al. 2005). From this point, it is

hypothesized as

Hypothesis 1 Ethical leadership will positively related to

the perceptions of ethical climate

Affective Commitment

Many scholars have defined the concept of organizational

commitment in different ways. Porter et al. (1974) defined

organizational commitment as a belief and acceptance of

organizational goals and values, the willingness to exert

effort toward organizational goals, accomplishments, and a

strong desire to maintain organizational membership.

Basically, it is individual’s affective binding with his/her

organization as a consequence of accepting organizational

values, and the willingness to keep working within the

organization. Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991) mentioned

three types of commitment, including commitment from

necessity (continuous commitment), commitment from

obligation (normative commitment), and the affective

organizational commitment which is studied extensively

and the most relevant form compared to the organizational

identification (Gautam et al. 2004). Meyer and Allen

(1991) defined affective commitment as an emotional

attachment, identification, and involvement in the organi-

zation. Affective commitment refers to the feelings of

belonging and the sense of attachment to the organization.

It has been related to the personal characteristics, leader-

ship behaviors, and the organizational structures (Hart-

mann 2000).

All of the definitions concerning affective organizational

commitment emphasize the employee’s bond with the

organization, captured by the characteristics such as

acceptance of organizational goals, values, and a strong

Effect of Ethical Leadership Behavior 61

123

desire to associate with the organization (Perry 2004).

According to the studies, there are some variables related

to the affective commitment, the structure, and the envi-

ronment of the organization. The characteristics of the job,

interesting work, job security, opportunities for advance-

ment, development, organizational support, supervisory

support, fair treatment (distributional justice, formal pro-

cedural justice, and interactional justice), participatory

management, openness to new ideas, change, satisfaction

with salary, the employee’s job experience, mismatch in

working hours (negatively correlated), and downsizing are

some of these variables. (Lee and Corbett 2006; VanEm-

merik and Sanders 2005; Yew 2005). As the affective

commitment is more important than the other commitment

types, affective commitment and its relations with the

ethical leadership and ethical climate are discussed in this

study. Therefore, the hypothesis is established as

Hypothesis 2 Ethical climate will mediate the relation-

ship between ethical leadership and affective commitment.

Turnover Intention

Employee turnover is defined as the cessation of mem-

bership in an organization by an individual who received

monetary compensation from the organization (Mobley

1982). The causes of employee turnover in the organiza-

tions are generally because of the external factors (i.e.

availability of jobs and unemployment levels), organiza-

tional factors (i.e., leadership style, work environment, and

reward system), and individual factors (i.e., dissatisfaction

of the work and another person’s performance) (Mobley

1982; Vandenberg and Nelson 1999).

Many studies have been conducted to understand turn-

over intention of the employees, reasons behind the turn-

over, and its consequences. Mobley (1977) pioneered a

comprehensive explanation of the psychological process

underlying withdrawal. According to his formulation of the

withdrawal decision process, individuals first evaluate their

existing jobs, and experience satisfaction or dissatisfaction

based on their jobs. If dissatisfaction is experienced, then it

leads to thoughts about quitting. There are number of

possible mediating steps between dissatisfaction and actual

quitting. First, one of the consequences of dissatisfaction is

the thoughts about leaving. These thoughts, in turn, stim-

ulate consideration of the expected utility of a job research

and the costs of quitting. The next step would be the

behavioral intent to search for an alternative. The intention

to search is followed by an actual research. If alternatives

are available, then an evaluation process of the alternatives

is initiated. The evaluation process of the alternatives is

followed by a comparison of the present job with the

alternatives. If the comparison favors the alternatives, then

it will inspire a behavioral intention for quitting the job

which is followed by actual withdrawal.

Aviation needs high education standards, employee’s

caution, and especially work experience which explains the

long-term working. Since less turnover is important for

aviation industry, ethical leadership behavior and ethical

climate perception become more important. So, the ethical

leadership–turnover intention relationship and the mediat-

ing effect of the ethical climate are hypothesized as

follows;

Hypothesis 3 Ethical climate will mediate the relation-

ship between ethical leadership and turnover intention

Methodology

In this study, several precautions are taken to minimize

common method biases (Podsakoff et al. 2012). For

example, the data collection procedure was designed, and

our independent and dependent variables were collected in

different times (in May, and July 2013) in order to mini-

mize the common method variance. Detailed information

was also given to ensure the confidentiality of our

respondents and to decrease social desirability. Finally, in

order to decrease the evaluation apprehension, it was

stressed that there were no correct or incorrect answers for

the given items in the survey. In this study, a 5-point Likert

scale in which 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 5 = ‘‘strongly

agree’’ was conducted. Items are averaged within the scales

to create composite measures for each variable. Items were

coded in a way that high scores equate to high levels of the

construct of interest.

Sample

The participants who are working as middle-level manag-

ers, engineers, chiefs of the maintenance shops, and blue-

collar members are chosen from three aviation mainte-

nance centers. 500 employees were chosen randomly from

these facilities in which 2.000 (N) member are still work-

ing. From the missing or incorrect coding, 447 (n) ques-

tionnaires are taken to the survey. This sample size is

sufficient according to the Kish’s (1980) methodology. The

final sample consists of 68 % male and 32 % female par-

ticipants. The average of their age is 40.32 years, and they

spent average 7.4 years in their current job. All participants

have a direct contact with their leaders and they work in a

full-time job in aviation industry. Also, the sample is dis-

tributed according to theirs department. 41 % of the sample

is in the manufacturing; 22 % is in the quality manage-

ment; 19 % is in the technical (R&D); 10 % is in the

programming; and 8 % in the budgeting department.

62 O. Demirtas, A. A. Akdogan

123

Measures

Brown et al. (2005) developed and validated the 10-item

ethical leadership scale, which is used in this study. An

example item is ‘‘My supervisor listens to what employees

have to say.’’ The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.93.

The ethical climate scale which was developed by

Victor and Cullen (1988) is used in this survey. The scale

consists of 10 items. An example item is ‘‘The most effi-

cient way is always the right way in this company.’’ The

Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.88.

Affective organizational commitment scale which was

developed by Meyer and Allen (1991) is used. The scale

consists of 8 items. An example item is ‘‘I would be very

happy to continue my career in this organization’’. The

Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.85.

For the last variable, turnover intention scale which was

developed by Rosin and Korabik (1991) is used. The scale

consists of 4 items. An example item is ‘‘I am thinking of

changingmy job’’.TheCronbach’s alpha for this scalewas0.91.

Results

Initial Analysis

To evaluate the distribution of the sample, Durbin-Watson

(skewness and kurtosis) values are observed in Table 1.

Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) stated that the values of the

skewness and kurtosis must be between -2 and ?2 for a

normal distribution. As seen from the table, the sample in

this survey has a normal distribution. From the given values,

members perceive the organizational climate and act ethi-

cally, and they are committed to their organizations. Con-

sequently, they do not think of leaving their organizations.

Hypotheses Testing

The correlations between and descriptive statistics for the

variables in the study is shown in Table 2. As expected,

ethical leadership is significantly correlated with the ethical

climate, affective commitment, and turnover intention.

Hypothesis 1

To test the hypotheses, we first entered the mediator (eth-

ical climate) variable on the independent variable (ethical

leadership). As shown in Table 3, the beta weight for

ethical leadership was significant and in the direction pre-

dicted. Thus, with Hypothesis 1, the positive relationship

between ethical leadership and ethical climate was sup-

ported, and the first requirement for mediation was

satisfied.

Hypothesis 2

Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure for assessing the

mediating role of the affective commitment is used. First,

the independent variable should be significantly related to

the mediator variable. Second, the independent variable

should be related to the dependent variable. Third, the

mediating variable should be related to the dependent

variable and the independent variable included in the

equation. If the first three conditions hold, then at least

partial mediation is present. If the independent variable has

a non-significant beta weight in the third step, then com-

plete mediation is present (MacKinnon et al. 2002).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for dependent and independent

variables

Scale Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

Ethical leadership 3.29 .81 -.41 -.44

Ethical climate 3.26 .48 -.727 1.97

Affective commitment 3.27 1.16 -.28 -.85

Turnover intention 2.94 1.02 .03 -.78

Table 2 Mean, standard deviations, and correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3

1. Ethical leadership 3.29 .81 –

2. Ethical climate 3.26 .48 .51** –

3. Affective

commitment

3.27 1.16 .63** .37** –

4. Turnover

intention

2.94 1.02 -.43** -.30** -.38**

** p 0.05

Table 3 Regression analyses for mediation

Variables Dependent variable: ethical climate

(EC)

Model 2

(b)
EL–EC

Model 1

(b)
EL–AC

Model 3

(b)
EL/AC–EC

Ethical leadership (EL) .507* .634* .385*

Affective commitment

(AC)

.177**

Adjusted R2 .253 .536 .256

F change 151.012* 779.078* 76.190*

Durbin–Watson 1.746 1.757 1.754

Standardized betas are shown

* p 0.01

** p 0.05

Effect of Ethical Leadership Behavior 63

123

Hypothesis 2 asserts the mediating effect of ethical

climate on the ethical leadership and affective commitment

relationship. First, ethical leadership and ethical climate

were entered in step 1. The results from this step demon-

strated the significance of dependent variable. In step 2, the

ethical leadership and affective commitment relationship

was searched. The beta weight was also significant in this

step. Thus, second requirement of the mediation was sat-

isfied. In order to test the third step of mediation, we

regressed the dependent variables on the mediating vari-

able with the independent variable included in the equa-

tion. The results, shown in Table 3, indicate that the ethical

climate partially mediated the relationship of between

ethical leadership and affective commitment, as the beta

for ethical leadership decreased after adding ethical climate

but it remained significant. Thus, it can be said that

Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Hypothesis 3

Similarly, Hypothesis 3 searched the mediating effect of

ethical climate between ethical leadership and turnover

intention.

The results, shown in Table 4, indicate that ethical cli-

mate partially mediated the relationship between ethical

leadership and turnover intention, as the beta for ethical

leadership decreased after adding ethical climate but it

remained significant.

Sobel Test

Finally, to support our mediational hypotheses, Sobel tests

were used to assess the significance of the indirect effects

(MacKinnon 2008; Sobel 1982). These tests involve cal-

culating the magnitude of the unstandardized indirect effect

(a and b), and its accompanying standard error (sa and sb).

The ratio of the indirect effect over its standard error,

referred to the Sobel statistic, is then compared to a

z-distribution to determine the statistical significance of the

indirect effect. Supporting hypotheses 2 and 3, the Sobel

test results indicated that the indirect effects of ethical

leadership on affective commitment for ethical climate

(z = (a*b)/sab = -6.75 for 95 % confidence level) and

ethical leadership on turnover intention for ethical climate

(z = 2.27 for 95 % confidence level) were in the antici-

pated direction and statistically significant.

To evaluate the confidence levels, we tested the upper

and the lower confidence levels (MacKinnon and Luecken

2011). For hypothesis 2, these values were UCL = -.076

and LCL = -.139. For hypothesis 3, they were

UCL = .216 and LCL = .016. The results were not

included zero value. So, our model was in the confidence

levels (MacKinnon and Luecken 2011).

From the above results, we can say that ethical leader-

ship is positively related to ethical climate. Mediation

analyses show that ethical climate partially mediates the

relationship between ethical leadership and affective

commitment. In addition, it was found that ethical climate

also partially mediates the relationship between ethical

leadership and turnover intention. Therefore, our hypoth-

eses were supported parallel to the literature findings.

Conclusion

Managers are important sources for organizational success

and unethical behavior. This study examined a mediating

model about the effect of managers’ ethical leadership

behavior on organizational members. In this study, it is

argued that as role models in their organizations, and by

modeling ethical leadership behavior and engendering

relational attachments, managers achieve moral authority

that has a virtuous influence on organizational members.

Furthermore, it is argued that the influence of ethical

leadership behavior spreads through the work context and

the process of social contagion in order to shape the ethical

climate, which, in turn, contributes to organizational

members’ commitments to their organizations and less

turnover intention as a whole. In other words, if managers

act in an honest and trustworthy way, these behaviors then

create a virtuous cycle in which ethical leadership behavior

perpetuates an ethical work climate that allows flourishing.

The results are similar with those which assert that

managers displaying ethical leadership behavior play a

critical role in shaping perceptions of ethical climate

(Brown and Treviño 2006; Dickson et al. 2001; Schminke

et al. 2005; Treviño et al. 2003; Treviño et al. 2000).

Besides, in this study, these existing researches are exten-

ded by demonstrating the diverse samples of people. It is

concluded that the ethical leadership behavior is related to

the perceptions of ethical climate, and the ethical climate

Table 4 Regression analyses for mediation

Variables Dependent variable: turnover intention (TI)

Model 1 (b)
EL–EC

Model 2 (b)
EL–TI

Model 3 (b)
EL/EC–TI

Ethical leadership (EL) .507* -.428* -.467**

Ethical climate (EC) -.218*

Adjusted R2 .253 .183 .189

F change 151.012* 99.532 53.139

Durbin–Watson 1.746 1.940 1.914

Standardized betas are shown

* p 0.01

** p 0.05

64 O. Demirtas, A. A. Akdogan

123

mediates the influence of the manager who performs ethi-

cal leadership on individual’s outcomes. The results also

affirm that the prominence of ethical leadership behavior

among many factors may influence the attitudes and

attachments of organizational members, (Brown and Tre-

viño 2006) and contribute to individual flourishing (Wright

and Goodstein 2007).

This study emphasizes that organizations would benefit

from their employees who perceive high ethical working

environment. Such perceptions can be enhanced via diverse

management techniques, practices such as maintaining

open channels of communications and interactions. Results

of this study also point to the need for additional research

that examines the role of potential mediators of relations

between ethical leadership and employee outcomes (e.g.,

organizational identification, engagement, task, and con-

textual performance). It may follow a variety of interesting

directions. As a predictor, ethical leadership is gaining

more importance in the organizational behavior field. So, it

may help the organizations to arrange and establish an

ethical framework in their environment working. In addi-

tion, managers should include communication and inter-

action in their managerial values in order to lessen negative

perceptions that can arise from individual predispositions.

Managers may develop and raise extra communication

systems to have better working conditions for their

followers.

Manager’s ethical values and their fair and honest

behaviors are important factors to shape the organizational

climate (Schein 1985; Treviño et al. 1998). Therefore,

organizations should pay attention to select and promote

their managers in order to establish an ethical climate. This

perception is highly important for aviation industry since

human factor is the most important issue in all processes

for the aviation. The aviation industry needs highly edu-

cated and committed members for sustainable strategic

superiority. This study is important to contribute to the

business ethics literature. Another contribution of the

present study is that, it is the first study which searched the

direct and indirect effects of ethical leadership on indi-

vidual behavior outcomes in the aviation industry in

Turkey.

Our study also has other several strengths. First, a large

number of employees from aviation industry are involved.

Second, the survey is conducted face to face to reduce the

mistakes of questionnaire and the mistakes of variables

collected in different times. Finally, this study is an

important contribution to the business ethics literature by

showing the direct and indirect effects of ethical leader-

ship. Although our sample incorporated a wide variety of

organizations and job positions, the sample was not

demographically diverse. The data in this study are gath-

ered from the aviation industry in Turkey. Thus, the results

cannot be generalized compared to the other industries or

cultures. So, future researchers should consider the weak-

nesses outlined above, and they could extend the given

results by including additional outcome variables such as

political, counterproductive, or deviant behaviors. Future

research could also use a multi-level approach to theorize

and analyze the effects of ethical leadership. In this study,

we were interested in the individual level effects of ethical

leadership on perceptions of climate and individual out-

comes. Future research could gather data from work groups

so that the data could be aggregated to assess the impact of

ethical leadership on group level climate and behavioral

variables.

In conclusion, this study examined the ways in which

managers perform ethical leadership behavior contribute to

individual’s flourishing. It is a fact that ethical leadership

behavior influence affective commitment and turnover

intention directly and indirectly through shaping ethical

climate.

References

Alzola, M. (2008). Character and environment: The status of virtues

in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 343–357.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator

variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,

strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Berkman, Ü., & Arslan, M. (2009). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de iş etiği ve

etik yönetimi. İstanbul: Tüsiad Yayınları.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review

and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical

leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-

ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 97, 117–134.

Bryan, J. H., & Test, M. A. (1967). Models and helping: Naturalistic

studies in aiding behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 6, 400–407.

Callan, V. J. (1992). Predicting ethical values and training needs in

ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 761–769.

Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Victor, B. (2003). The effects of

ethical climate on organizational commitment: A two-study

analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 127–141.

Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The ethical climate

questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity.

Psychological Reports, 73, 667–674.

Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M.

(2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment

orientations predict leadership-related mental representations

and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 632–650.

Dickson, M. W., Smith, D. B., Grojean, M. W., & Ehrhart, M. (2001).

An organizational climate regarding ethics: The outcome of

leader values and the practices that reflect them. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12, 197–218.

Effect of Ethical Leadership Behavior 65

123

Drucker, P. (1981). What is business ethics. The Public Interest, 63,

18–36.

Dubinsky, A. J., & Ingram, T. N. (1984). Correlates of salespeople’s

ethical conflict: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 3(4), 343–353.

Dubinsky, A. J., & Levy, M. (1985). Ethics in retailing: Perceptions

of retail salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 13(1), 1–16.

Eubanks, D. L., Brown, A. D., & Ybema, S. (2012). Leadership,

identity, and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 1–3.

Flynn, G. (2008). The virtuous manager: A vision for leadership in

business. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 359–372.

Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational

identification and organizational commitment: Distinct aspects

of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,

7(3), 301–315.

Grojean, M. W., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., & Smith, D. B.

(2004). Leaders, values, and organizational climate: Examining

leadership strategies for establishing an organizational climate

regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(3), 223–241.

Harris, J. R. (1990). Ethical values of individuals at different levels in

the organizational hierarchy of a single firm. Journal of Business

Ethics, 9(9), 741–750.

Hartmann, C. C. (2000). Organizational commitment: Method scale

analysis and test of effects. International Journal of Organiza-

tional Analysis, 8(1), 89–109.

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership

style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes

and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. The

Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 499–524.

Kish, L. (1980). Survey sampling. New York: Willey.

Kuntz, J. R. C., Kuntz, J. R., Elenkov, D., & Nabirukhina, A. (2013).

Characterizing ethical cases: A cross-cultural investigation of

individual differences, organisational climate, and leadership on

ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2),

317–331.

Lee, J., & Corbett, J. M. (2006). The impact of downsizing on

employee’s affective commitment. Journal of Managerial Psy-

chology, 21(3), 176–199.

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation

analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &

Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation

and other intervening variable effect. Psychological Methods, 7,

83–104.

MacKinnon, D. P., & Luecken, L. J. (2011). Statistical analysis for

identifying mediating variables in public health dentistry inter-

ventions. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 71, 37–46.

Mathison, D. L. (1988). Business ethics cases and decision models: A

call for relevancy in the classroom. Journal of Business Ethics,

7(10), 777–782.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2009). Making

ethical climate a mainstream management topic: A review,

critique, prescription for the empirical research on ethical

climate. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on

ethical behavior and decision making. Greenwich, CT: Infor-

mation Age Publishing.

Mayer, D., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. (2010). Examining the link

between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The

mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics,

95, 7–16.

Mendonca,M. (2001). Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18, 266–276.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ‘‘Side-Bet Theory’’ of

organizational commitment: Some methodological consider-

ations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372–378.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptu-

alization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Man-

agement Review, 1, 61–98.

Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship

between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237–240.

Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences

and control reading. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Moore, G. (2005). Corporate character: Modern virtue ethics and the

virtuous corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 659–685.

Neubaum, D. O., Mitchell, M. S., & Schminke, M. (2004). Firm

newness entrepreneurial orientation and ethical climate. Journal

of Business Ethics, 52(4), 335–347.

Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., &

Chonko, B. L. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical

leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of

Business Ethics, 90, 157–170.

Nyaw, M. K., & Ng, I. (1994). A comparative analysis of ethical

beliefs: A four country study. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(7),

543–555.

Özgener, Ş. (2009). İş ahlakının temelleri: Yönetsel bir yaklaşım.

Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

Perry, R. W. (2004). The relationship of affective organizational

commitment with supervisory trust. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 24(2), 133–149.

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010).

The relationship between ethical leadership and core job charac-

teristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259–278.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of

method bias in social science research and recommendations on

how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).

Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover

among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology,

59(5), 603–609.

Rosin, H. M., & Korabik, K. (1991). Workplace variables, affective

responses, and intention to leave among women managers.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 317–330.

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Neubaum, D. O. (2005). The effect

of leader moral development on ethical climate and employee

attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-

cesses, 97, 135–151.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climate: An essay. Personnel

Psychology, 36, 447–479.

Simpson, J. R. (1982). Ethics and multinational corporations vis-a-vis.

Developing nations. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(3), 227–237.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in
structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological

methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate

statistics (5th ed.). Boston: California State University.

Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A

person situation interactionist model. Academy of Management

Review, 11(3), 601–617.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative

investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Percep-

tions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human

Relations, 55, 5–37.

Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & Mc Cabe, D. L. (1998). The

ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee atti-

tudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person

and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for

ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142.

66 O. Demirtas, A. A. Akdogan

123

Vandenberg, R. J., & Nelson, J. B. (1999). Disaggregating the

motives underlying turnover intentions: When do intentions

predict turnover behavior. Human Relations, 52(10), 1313–1336.

VanEmmerik, I. H., & Sanders, K. (2005). Mismatch in working

hours and affective commitment: Differential relationships for

distinct employee groups. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

20(8), 712–726.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). Organizational bases of ethical

work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101–125.

Waddock, S. (2004). Creating corporate accountability: Foundational

principles to make corporate citizenship real. Journal of Business

Ethics, 50, 313–327.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits

and employee voice behavior: Mediating of ethical leadership

and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.

Webber, S. (2007). Ethical climate topology and questionnaire: A

discussion of instrument modification. The Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 33(5), 567–580.

Wimbush, J. C., Shepard, S. M., & Markham, S. E. (1997). An

empirical examination of the multi-dimensionally of the ethical

climate in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 67–77.

Wright, T. A., & Goodstein, J. (2007). Character is not ‘‘Dead’’ in

management research: A review of individual character and

organizational-level virtue. Journal of Management, 33(6), 928–958.

Yew, L. T. (2005). Job satisfaction and affective commitment: A

study of employees in the tourism industry in Sarawak,

Malaysia. Sunway Academic Journal, 4(1), 85–101.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Effect of Ethical Leadership Behavior 67

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES
Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014: 204-218

When Politics Meets Ethics: How Political
Skill Helps Ethical Leaders Foster

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Andréa Gill
Doctoral Student

University of Quebec at Montreal

Marie-Ève Lapalme
Associate Professor

University of Quebec at Montreal

Michel Séguin
Associate Professor

University of Quebec at Montreal

Scandals erupting in the business sector over the last few years have highlighted the
need for managers to devote more time and attention to business ethics management
(Brown and Treviño, 2006). Increasingly, leaders and first-line managers are being
asked to be ethical models in the organization. This situation has resulted in a growing
interest in ethical leadership and its effects on individuals’ behaviors within the
organization (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Dickson et al., 2001). Still emerging, empirical
research on ethical leadership suggests that the presence of a supervisor who adopts and
promotes ethical conduct will influence the adoption of positive behaviors by employees
(Brown et al., 2005; Detert et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 2009). However, current knowledge
regarding factors surrounding the influence of this style of leadership is still limited
(Zhu et al., 2004). While some researchers have been primarily interested in the direct
effects of ethical leadership, few have actually studied conditions in which such leaders
are more or less effective (Avey et al., 2011).

One element that can modulate the influence of ethical leaders is related to their
political skill, which can be defined as the ability to read and understand people, and to
act on that knowledge in influential ways (Ferris et al., 2005). Research has shown that
individuals who possess such attributes have the capacity to effectively influence

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014
(204)

GILL, LAPALME, AND SÉGUIN

members around them (Kolodinsky et al., 2007; Treadway et al., 2004). As argued by
Ammeter et al. (2002), individuals with high political skill not only know what to do in
different social situations, but also how to do it, rendering their influence attempts
successful. Political skill should thus contribute to ethical leaders’ effectiveness.
Accordingly, the main purpose of this study is to assess the moderating role of political
skill on the relationship between the supervisor’s ethical leadership and the adoption of
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) by subordinates.

There is now a wide acceptance among scholars that organizations can adequately
be described as “political arenas” (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981). This perspective has
led to an increasing interest in organizational politics in the field of organizational
behavior. While organizational politics can be construed under very different
perspectives, Gotsis and Kortezi (2010) note that it is most commonly equated with
selfish, covert, and crafty behaviors in the workplace that are considered inimical to
ethics. By looking at the positive interplay between political skill and ethical leadership,
this research contributes to the literature by showing that ethics and politics, two
constructs that are usually considered contradictory, can be synergistic. This research
also contributes to the ethical leadership literature by providing a better comprehension
of the conditions under which the influence of ethical leaders is exercised.

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Although the notion of ethics has long been discussed in the leadership literature

(c.f., Ciulla, 2005), ethical leadership remains a relatively new concept. According to
Brown et al. (2005), ethical leadership can be defined as “the demonstration of
normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal
relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers […]” (Brown et al., 2005:
210). Based on results obtained from structured interviews, Treviño et al. (2000, 2003)
suggested that ethical leadership is comprised of two dimensions: moral person and
moral manager.

The first dimension, moral person, refers to the personal characteristics of the leader.
More specifically, the moral person dimension is the essence of ethical leadership
(Treviño et al., 2000). It consists of three components: personal traits, behaviors, and
decision-making (Brown and Treviño, 2006). Personal traits are elements that indicate
that the individual will act in a predictable manner across time (Treviño et al., 2000);
these traits include honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. Behaviors refer to the
leader’s ability to do the right thing according to his values and those that are recognized
by the group (Treviño et al., 2000). In other words, behaviors refer to the way the leader
will act, even when people are not paying attention to his/her behaviors. To a certain
extent, these behaviors define who the leader is as an individual. Finally, the decision-
making component implies that leaders who make decisions have strong ethical values,
are objective and fair, and that they have consideration for others, for society, and the
community (Treviño et al., 2000).

The second dimension, moral manager, is the part of ethical leadership that
proactively promotes ethical behavior in others (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Treviño et
al., 2000). Moral managers put ethics at the center of their agenda. This dimension is
also composed of three components: role model, ethical communication, and reward
system. The role model component refers to the capacity to show the importance of

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

205

WHEN POLITICS MEETS ETHICS

ethics for the organization in engaging in visible actions that promote ethics. The
communication dimension implies that the leader communicates values that guide his
or her decision-making process (Treviño et al., 2000). For example, when making a
decision, the leader will explain the criteria that guided his decision in terms of ethical
principles of equity and justice. Finally, the reward system implies that the leader
rewards employees who achieve their objectives in acting in accordance with the
organizational values system (Treviño et al., 2000). Conversely, he will discipline an
employee who does not act consistently with these accepted values.

The moral person and moral manager dimensions adequately define the ethical
leadership construct. However, researchers have struggled to differentiate between
these two dimensions empirically, and have thus considered and operationalized ethical
leadership as a unidimensional construct (Brown et al., 2005, Brown and Treviño, 2006;
Piccolo et al., 2010; Schaubroeck et al., 2012; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009).

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND OCBs

The research on ethical leadership has shown the influence of this concept on

diverse outcomes. For example, ethical leadership has been linked to subordinates’
ethical decision-making (Brown and Treviño, 2006), job satisfaction (Brown et al., 2005;
Neubert et al., 2009), affective commitment (Neubert et al., 2009), job dedication (Brown
et al., 2005), and reduction in counterproductive behaviors (Mayer et al., 2009).
Altogether, these studies have shown that ethical leadership offers positive outcomes for
the organization. One important outcome is in the area of OCBs. An OCB is defined as
an “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the
formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of
the organization” (Organ, 1988). Examples of such behaviors include helping co-
workers, attending non-mandatory meetings, considering how one’s actions affect
others’ work, or keeping up with organizational issues. OCBs are particularly rewarding
for the organization because employees voluntarily practice them in order to contribute
to the organization’s effectiveness. Because such behaviors have been associated with a
variety of individual- and unit-level performance outcomes (Podsakoff et al., 2009), they
have attracted much interest from both practitioners and academicians. Over the years,
there has been debate over the dimensionality of OCBs (Coleman and Borman, 2000;
LePine et al., 2002). However, in their meta-analysis, LePine et al. (2002) noted that
dimensions of OCB are “highly related to one another and that there are no apparent
differences in relationships with the most popular set of predictors” (LePine et al., 2002:
60). Accordingly, following others, this study conceptualizes OCB as an aggregate
construct vis-à-vis its dimensions (Farh et al., 2004).

The relationship between ethical leadership and OCB may be explained using two
theoretical perspectives, namely, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Social learning theory suggests that individuals learn by
reproducing behaviors from a model that they consider to be credible and attractive
(Bandura, 1977). According to Mayer et al. (2009), employees will follow their ethical
leader and replicate his behaviors because ethical leaders are attractive role models due
to their positive behaviors and the importance they give to appropriate ethical conduct.
The moral person dimension of ethical leadership implies an ethical leader acts as a role
model in terms of ethics (Mayer et al., 2009, Brown and Treviño, 2006, Treviño et al.,

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

206

GILL, LAPALME, AND SÉGUIN

2000). Thus, if ethical leaders act as role models, it is possible to believe that if they
themselves engage in positive behaviors, such as OCB, toward the organization,
subordinates will in turn also engage in such behaviors.

Another element deriving from the social learning theory that can help in
understanding the link between ethical leadership and the adoption of OCBs by
subordinates is the notion of reinforcement (Brown et al., 2005). Social learning theory
states that individuals learn to behave in a certain way not only by observing others’
behaviors, but also by observing the outcomes of those behaviors. This process, called
vicarious reinforcement, refers to individuals’ propensity to reproduce behaviors that
they see others rewarded for performing. Because ethical leaders use rewards to
encourage positive conduct that is in accordance with organizational values, they make
ethics a leadership message that gets followers’ attention and orient their behaviors
(Brown and Treviño, 2006). As mentioned earlier, OCBs represent such positive
behaviors, which contribute to organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988). It is
conceivable that ethical leaders will encourage OCBs and foster employees’ willingness
to adopt them.

In addition to social learning theory, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), and more
specifically, the concept of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), also offer an explanation for
the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Brown
et al., 2005). The notion of reciprocity stipulates that an individual who adopts a
beneficial behavior towards another will create an obligation for reciprocation from the
individual targeted. The individual who benefited from the behavior will then offer
something in exchange (Blau, 1964), in order to neutralize this obligation. As indicated,
ethical leaders are perceived as being fair, honest, and as behaving correctly toward
subordinates (Brown et al., 2005). This kind of treatment should thus create a need for
reciprocation from subordinates. In order to reciprocate, subordinates may adopt
behaviors that are specifically targeted at the leader, such as helping him or her with
work-related problems. However, subordinates may also reciprocate the leader’s
behavior by adopting positive behaviors targeted towards the organization as a whole.
Indeed, as noted by Levinson (1965), actions that are taken by agents of the organization
are often considered as stemming from the organization itself. Because leaders
represent the organization’s main agents, their actions are often interpreted as reflective
of the organization’s intent rather than solely as their own individual actions. This
personification of the organization would thus lead subordinates to reciprocate the
leader’s actions by adopting behaviors that generally benefit the organization. Based on
these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Ethical leadership is positively related to the adoption of OCB by

subordinates.

THE MODERATING ROLE OF POLITICAL SKILL

While empirical results support the relationship between ethical leadership and
positive employee behaviors (Kacmar et al., 2013; Mayer et al., 2009; Shin, 2012), few
researchers have studied the conditions under which ethical leadership could be more
or less effective (Avey et al., 2011). One such condition could be leaders’ political skill.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

207

WHEN POLITICS MEETS ETHICS

The notion of political skill is grounded in the perspective that work environments are
inherently political and that political savvy is a key element to managerial success
(Mintzberg, 1983). Indeed, recent research efforts have shown that political skill can be
beneficial for both the individual and the organization (Bing et al., 2011; Tocher et al.,
2012). Political skill is defined as “the ability to effectively understand others at work,
and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal
and/or organizational objectives” (Ahearn et al., 2004). Ferris et al. (2005) developed the
concept of political skill as including four dimensions. Social astuteness refers to the
individual’s capacity to understand and interpret social interactions. Apparent sincerity
refers to the individual’s personal characteristic that makes him/her appear to be
authentic, genuine, and open. Interpersonal influence is the ability to influence people by
adapting one’s behavior to each situation in order to obtain this influence. Network ability
is the individual’s ability to develop a large network of people with whom he/she can
develop beneficial alliances.

Various arguments can be advanced to support the moderating role of political skill
on the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB. First, the social astuteness
dimension of political skill should enhance the modeling process through which ethical
leaders influence their followers’ behaviors. As earlier mentioned, social learning theory
posits that individuals will emulate the behaviors of leaders that are deemed attractive
and credible. Although it has been suggested that ethical leaders possess such
characteristics, it can be argued that politically skilled leaders, because they are socially
astute, are most likely to make these characteristics appear more salient. Moreover, as
noted by Blass and Ferris (2007), socially astute individuals are extremely observant of
others. They can easily understand social dynamics and adjust their behaviors to
situational requirements. Therefore, even in situations where behaving and managing
ethically is not highly valued by followers, ethical leaders who are socially astute, and
thus able to calibrate their behaviors to project the most positive image of themselves to
others (Ferris et al., 2007), should increase their attractiveness and enhance their
capacity to serve as models.

Secondly, the apparent sincerity dimension of political skill should enhance ethical
leadership influence by making ethical leaders’ actions appear genuine and authentic,
thereby enhancing the modeling process through which they exercise their influence.
Brown et al. (2005) argue that because ethical leaders engage in normatively appropriate
behaviors that suggest altruistic motivation, they become legitimate and credible role
models for followers to emulate. However, it has been argued that even the most sincere
actions may be perceived as manipulative or self-serving (Meurs et al., 2011). This
suggests that, in order to exert influence on their followers’ behaviors, not only do
ethical leaders need to behave ethically, they also need to do so in a manner that will
appear honest, genuine, and not driven by ulterior motives.

Thirdly, as previously argued, ethical leaders promote positive behaviors not only
by behaving ethically and acting as role models, but also by setting standards and norms
regarding appropriate conduct. This notion of moral manager refers to the leaders’
intentional efforts to influence others and guide the behaviors of followers (Eisenbeiss,
2012). The interpersonal influence dimension of political skill should thus help leaders
in their efforts to orient their employees’ behavior. As noted by Ferris et al. (2005),
politically skilled individuals who possess high levels of interpersonal influence have the
capacity to manage their own behavior in order to get the influence needed to elicit

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

208

GILL, LAPALME, AND SÉGUIN

desired responses from others. They know how to communicate effectively with others
and develop a good rapport with most people, which should strengthen their influence.

Finally, it is argued that in order to orient employees’ behaviors, ethical leaders
must gain their attention by making an ethics message salient enough to stand out in
the organizational environment (Treviño et al., 2003). One of the key roles of ethical
leaders is to institutionalize the organization’s values. Networking ability should
enhance ethical leaders’ capacity to do so by helping them build a stronger consensus
regarding the importance of ethics among the organizational elite. This recognition of
ethics by high-level managers should further encourage employees to adopt normatively
appropriate behaviors such as OCB. In light of the arguments presented above, the
following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Leaders’ political skill moderates the relationship between ethical

leadership and OCB such that the relationship is stronger when
the leader has high political skill.

METHOD

Sample

Questionnaires were sent to 589 employees working in four branches of a large
Canadian financial institution. The employees surveyed occupied a variety of positions,
such as cashier, financial consultant, and recovery officer. They were asked to evaluate
their supervisor’s ethical leadership and political skill, and to assess their own adoption
of OCBs. From the questionnaires distributed, 226 were returned and considered
usable, giving a response rate of 38.4%. The average age of the respondents was 41 years
old, with a standard deviation of 10.9; 87.5% of the respondents were women, and the
average tenure was 10 years, with a standard deviation of 9.63.

Measures

Existing validated scales were used to measure the study variables. All items in this
study were measured using a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 being “Do not agree at all”
and 7 being “Totally agree.” Due to organizational constraints associated with the size
of the questionnaire, some of the scales were not used in their entirety. The shortened
scales were built by selecting the most representative items from the original validated
ones.

Ethical leadership. Ethical leadership was assessed using the 10-item scale
developed by Brown et al. (2005). Respondents were asked to answer items regarding
their supervisors, such as “Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards” or
“Makes fair and balanced decisions.” The reliability coefficient for this measure was 0.93.

OCBs. OCBs were measured using 11 items from the Podsakoff et al. (1990) scale.
Respondents were asked to assess their adoption of four OCB dimensions, namely,
courtesy, altruism, conscientiousness, and civic virtue. Examples of items were: “I take
steps to prevent problems with others” or “I obey the organization’s rules and
regulations even when no one is watching.” The reliability coefficient for this measure
was 0.89.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

209

WHEN POLITICS MEETS ETHICS

Political skill. Leaders’ political skill was measured by asking subordinates to give
their perception of their supervisor’s political skill using 12 items adapted from the
Ferris et al. (2005) scale. Following Treadway et al. (2004), the items were modified so
that employees were able to report on the level of political skill of their leader. The items
selected are presented in Appendix A. The reliability coefficient for this measure was
0.95.

RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

To ensure that the measures properly assessed the study constructs, confirmatory
analyses using AMOS 19.0 were conducted. A three-factor model in which all the items
were specified to load on their respective constructs was first tested. Following Ferris et
al. (2005), political skill was designed as a second-order factor, under which four first-
order factors representing each political skill dimension (social astuteness, interpersonal
influence, networking, and apparent sincerity) were subsumed. This model provided a
good fit to the data ( 2(486) = 1030.70, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA =
0.07). In order to evaluate the distinctiveness of the study variables, the three-factor
model was compared with a one-factor model ( 2(3) = 981.74, p < 0.01), and of a two-
factor model, in which the ethical leadership and political skill indicators were brought
together, as these items all targeted the leader ( 2(2) = 159.76, p < 0.01). The results
presented in Table 1 confirm that the three-factor model, in which all the constructs
correspond to separate factors, provides the best fit to the data.

Table 1
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Models 2 2 df df CFI TLI RMSEA

1. 1-factor model 2012.44 981.74** 489 3 0.74 0.72 0.12

2. 2-factor model 1190.46 159.76** 488 2 0.88 0.87 0.08

3. 3-factor model 1030.70 — 486 — 0.91 0.90 0.07

Note. ** p < 0.01

Because the data were collected from a single source, common method variance

bias may be a concern. The correlational marker technique described by Lindell and
Whitney (2001) was used to address this issue. This technique requires that a
theoretically unrelated marker variable be selected and that the correlation be used
between this variable and the substantive variables of the study as an estimate of CMV.
If any of the correlations between the variables of the study remain significant after the
effect of this estimate is partialed out, researchers can conclude that CMV cannot affect

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

210

GILL, LAPALME, AND SÉGUIN

results (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). In this study, a seven-point Likert item measuring
the extent to which employees hid their emotions when interacting with clients was used.
Results indicated that all of the correlations remained significant after the effect of the
marker variable was partialed out, suggesting that common variance is probably not a
serious problem in this study. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations
for the study variables.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics

Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Age 41.18 10.90 —

2. Gendera 1.88 0.32 0.10 —

3. Tenure 10.10 9.63 0.57** 0.11 —

4.
Ethical

Leadership 5.37 1.06 -0.07 -0.09 -0.03 (0.93)

5. Political skill 5.46 1.07 -0.05 -0.11 -0.06 0.83** (0.95)

6. OCB 5.85 0.76 0.12 -0.11 -0.02 0.40** 0.39** (0.89)

Note: n=226, p < 0.01 **
a Male=1, Female=2.
The internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha ( ) are reported in diagonal.

Hypotheses Testing

Multiple regression analysis was used to test the research hypotheses, controlling
for age, gender, and tenure in the organization, as these variables have been associated
with OCB in previous studies (Ehigie and Otukoya, 2007; Arthaud-Day et al., 2012;
Lambert, 2000). Following Cohen et al. (2002), all variables were centered prior to
analysis to avoid problems of multicollinearity.

As shown in Table 3, there is a significant main effect of ethical leadership on OCB
( = 0.23; p < 0.05). This result supports Hypothesis 1, which states that ethical
leadership is positively related to employees’ adoption of OCBs.

The results also indicate a significant interaction effect between ethical leadership
and political skill on OCB ( = 0.19; p < 0.05). Figure 1 and the simple slopes analysis
reveal that the relationship between ethical leadership and employees’ adoption of OCB
is stronger when political skill is high, and that at low levels of political skill, the
relationship becomes non-significant ( high = 0.41, p < 0.01; low = 0.16, p = n.s.).
Overall, these results support Hypothesis 2.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

211

WHEN POLITICS MEETS ETHICS

Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Results

OCB
Independent
Variables

Step 1

t Step 2

t Step 3 t

Step 1 – Control
Age 0.20 2.51* 0.22 3.02** 0.23 3.16**
Gender -0.12 -1.83 -0.08 -1.35 -0.09 -1.41
Tenure -0.14 -0.42 -0.11 -1.53 -0.11 -1.49

Step 2 – Main
effects

Ethical
leadership

0.23 2.08* 0.28 2.54*

Political skill 0.20 1.86 0.25 2.30*
Step 3 –
Interaction effects

Ethical
leadership X
Political skill

0.19 2.76**

F 3.06* 11.31** 10.97**
R2 0.03 0.19 0.21
R2 0.16 0.02

Note. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

Figure 1
Moderating Effect of Political Skill

O
rg

an
iz

at
io

na
l c

it
iz

en
sh

ip

be
ha

vi
or

s

Ethical leadership

Low

High

Political skill

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

212

GILL, LAPALME, AND SÉGUIN

DISCUSSION

Ethical leadership and political skill are concepts that have aroused a lot of interest
among scholars in recent years. The results of this study show that the positive
relationship between ethical leadership and OCBs is strengthened when leaders have
high political skill.

This study argues that employees working with ethical leaders would more likely
adopt OCBs because of their leaders’ capacity to act as role models and develop positive
exchange relationships with their followers. Consistent with previous research, the
results from this study demonstrated the positive relationship between ethical leadership
and employees’ citizenship behaviors (Bing et al., 2011).

The main contribution of this study lies in its illustration of the moderating effect
of political skill on the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB. As mentioned
earlier, few researchers have studied the conditions under which ethical leadership is
more or less efficient (Avey et al., 2011; Brown and Treviño, 2006). The moderating
effect found in this study suggests that possessing political skill is a key element that
contributes to the effectiveness of ethical leadership, and can thus be considered as a
boundary condition under which ethical leaders can influence their followers. More
specifically, the results show that employees are more likely to adopt OCBs when
working with an ethical leader who shows strong political skill. This result is consistent
with social learning theory, which posits that in order to influence their followers’
behaviors, leaders must be perceived as attractive role models. As argued by Ferris et al.
(2005), politically skilled individuals enjoy the respect and liking of their surroundings,
which can lead to greater cooperation.

Moreover, the results suggest that ethical leaders who show little or no political skill
will not be able to foster the adoption of OCBs among their employees. This is of
particular interest as ethical leadership scholars generally assume that because they
engage in behaviors that are normatively appropriate and motivated by altruism, ethical
leaders are considered as attractive and legitimate role models by their followers, who
are more likely to emulate their leaders and engage in behaviors that will help the
organization or fellow employees (Brown et al., 2005). The results in this study add
nuance to this argument, and indicate that behaving ethically is not a sufficient condition
for eliciting discretionary positive behaviors among employees. As stated by Treviño et
al. (2003), to be influential, ethical leaders must convey their message in such a way that
it stands out and is noticed. Some leaders may be “quietly ethical,” and thus unable to
get the attention needed to influence others. In such cases, followers may overlook their
message. Because political skill strengthens individuals’ ability to develop high levels of
social capital, enhancing their reputation and ability to be influential (Ferris et al., 2005),
it can be seen as an essential factor for effective ethical leadership.

In terms of practical implications, the positive relationship between ethical
leadership and OCB found in this study points to the need for organizations to develop
such a leadership style among their managers. For instance, training activities focusing
on ethical awareness and decision-making should increase managers’ capacity to act as
ethical models. The results also suggest that organizations must be especially attentive
to the political skill of their leaders. They should thus provide opportunities for political
skill development or consider political skill assessments in personnel selection decisions.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

213

WHEN POLITICS MEETS ETHICS

Limitations and Future Research

This study has a number of limitations. First, a shortened version of the political
skill inventory (Ferris et al., 2005) was used to assess leaders’ political skill. Although the
12 items chosen in this study reflect the four construct dimensions, using the full-scale
version would have allowed the concept to be grasped in a more comprehensive manner.

The second limitation is related to common method variance, as all the study
constructs were assessed by the same source (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Results from
Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) correlational marker technique indicate that common
method variance should not be a problem in this study. However, it would be interesting
to replicate this study using multiple sources of data, such as OCB assessed by the
supervisor.

The third limitation concerns the cross-sectional design of the study, which prevents
the inference of causality with regard to the relationships between the variables.
Although both theoretical arguments and past empirical research support the order of
the constructs presented in the current study, the relationships proposed here should
be tested using a longitudinal design.

Fourth, the possibility that the results might have been affected by the respondents
being predominantly female cannot be ruled out. Indeed, recent research has shown
that while both men and women generally engaged in OCB in response to ethical
leadership, women responded more positively to ethical leadership in certain
circumstances, namely when their perceptions of organizational politics were low
(Kacmar et al., 2011). Another particularity of the study’s sample is that although
working in four different branches, all respondents were from the financial sector, where
employees might be more sensitive to ethical issues. While this should not be a serious
limitation to the study due to the fact that positive relationships between ethical
leadership and OCB have been found in previous studies conducted among employees
from other sectors (Mayer et al., 2009), it still might be of interest to examine the
relationships proposed in this study using a more diverse sample both in terms of gender
and sector and to integrate the potential influence of various contextual elements.

Finally, the relationships explored in this study were all tested at the individual level
of analysis. In addition to the research avenues presented above, another area worth
exploring would be using a multilevel approach to the study of ethical leadership. This
would allow the delineation of the influence of individual perceptions of ethical
leadership from that of the overall pattern of ethical leaders’ behaviors on employees’
OCB.

It has been argued in this study that ethics and politics can go hand-in-hand when
it comes to the exercise of leadership. This study provides interesting results regarding
the moderating effect of political skill on the influence of ethical leadership. Future
research should consider exploring other boundary conditions regarding the
effectiveness of ethical leadership. Finally, relying on the social learning and social
exchange theories, a direct relationship between ethical leadership and OCB was
hypothesized in this study. Future research should expand the understanding developed
herein and explore potential mediating variables explaining this relationship, such as
trust or ethical climate.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

214

GILL, LAPALME, AND SÉGUIN

Appendix A

1. At work, my supervisor knows a lot of important people and is well
connected.

2. My supervisor is good at using his/her connections and networks to make
things happen at work.

3. My supervisor is good at building relationships with influential people at
work.

4. It is important for my supervisor that people believe he/she is sincere in
what he/she says and does.

5. When communicating with others, my supervisor tries to be genuine in
what he/she says and does.

6. My supervisor tries to show a genuine interest in other people.
7. My supervisor always seems to instinctively know the right thing to say or

do to influence others.
8. My supervisor has good intuition or savvy about how to present him/

herself to others.
9. My supervisor is particularly good at sensing the motivations and hidden

agendas of others.
10. It is easy for my supervisor to develop good rapport with most people.
11. My supervisor is able to make most people feel comfortable and at ease

around him/her.
12. My supervisor is able to communicate easily and effectively with others.

References

Ahearn, K. K., G. R. Ferris, W. A. Hochwarter, D. Ceasar, and A. P. Ammeter. 2004.
“Leader Political Skill and Team Performance.” Journal of Management 30: 309-327.

Ammeter, A. P., C. Douglas, W. L. Gardner, W. A. Hochwarter, and G. R. Ferris. 2002.
“Toward a Political Theory of Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 13: 751-796.

Arthaud-Day, M. L., J. C. Rode, and W. H. Turnley. 2012. “Direct and Contextual
Effects of Individual Values on Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Teams.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 97: 792-807.

Avey, J. B., M. E. Palanski, and F. O. Walumbwa. 2011. “When Leadership Goes
Unnoticed: The Moderating Role of Follower Self-Esteem on the Relationship
Between Ethical Leadership and Follower Behavior.” Journal of Business Ethics 98:
573-582.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bing, M. N., H. Davison, I. Minor, M. M. Novicevic, and D. D. Frink. 2011. “The

Prediction of Task and Contextual Performance by Political Skill: A Meta-Analysis
and Moderator Test.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 79: 563-577.

Blass, F. R. and G. R. Ferris. 2007. “Leader Reputation: The Role of Mentoring, Political
Skill, Contextual Learning, and Adaptation.” Human Resource Management 46(1): 5-
19.

Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

215

WHEN POLITICS MEETS ETHICS

Brown, M. E. and L. K. Treviño. 2006. “Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future
Directions.” Leadership Quarterly 17: 595-595.

Brown, M. E., L. K. Treviño, and D. A. Harrison. 2005. “Ethical Leadership: A Social
Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing.” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97: 117-134.

Ciulla, J. B. 2005. “The State of Leadership Ethics and the Work that Lies Before Us.”
Business Ethics: A European Review 14: 323-335.

Cohen, J., P. Cohen, L. S. Aiken, and S. G. West. 2002. Applied Multiple Regression /
Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Coleman, V. I. and W. C. Borman. 2000. “Investigating the Underlying Structure of the
Citizenship Performance Domain.” Human Resource Management Review 10(1): 25-
44.

Detert, J. R., L. K. Treviño, E. R. Burris, and M. Andiappan. 2007. “Managerial Modes
of Influence and Counterproductivity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Business-
Unit-Level Investigation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 993-1005.

Dickson, M. W., D. B. Smith, M. W. Grojean, and M. Ehrhart. 2001. “An Organizational
Climate Regarding Ethics: The Outcome of Leader Values and the Practices that
Reflect Them.” Leadership Quarterly 12: 197-217.

Ehigie, B. O. and O. W. Otukoya. 2007. “Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour in a Government-Owned Enterprise in Nigeria.” European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology 14: 389-399.

Eisenbeiss, S. A. 2012. “Re-thinking Ethical Leadership: An Interdisciplinary Integrative
Approach.” The Leadership Quarterly 23: 791-808.

Farh, J. L., C. B. Zhong, and D. W. Organ. 2004. “Organizational Citizenship Behavior
in the People’s Republic of China.” Organization Science 15: 241-253.

Ferris, G. R., D. C. Treadway, R. W. Kolodinsky, W. A. Hochwarter, C. J. Kacmar, C.
Douglas, and D. D. Frink. 2005. “Development and Validation of the Political Skill
Inventory.” Journal of Management 31:126-152.

————, ————, P. L. Perrewé, R. L. Brouer, C. Douglas, and S. Lux. 2007. “Political
Skill in Organizations.” Journal of Management 33: 290-320.

Gotsis, G. N. and Z. Kortezi. 2010. “Ethical Considerations in Organizational Politics:
Expanding the Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 93: 497-517.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The Psychology of Behavioral Exchange. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Kacmar, M. K., M. C. Andrews, K. J. Harris, and B. J. Tepper. 2013. “Ethical Leadership
and Subordinate Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Organizational Politics and the
Moderating Role of Political Skill.” Journal of Business Ethics 115: 33-44.

————, D. G. Bachrach, K. J. Harris, and S. Zivnuska. 2011. “Fostering Good
Citizenship through Ethical Leadership: Exploring the Moderating Role of Gender
and Organizational Politics.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 633-642.

Kolodinsky, R. W., D. C. Treadway, and G. R. Ferris. 2007. “Political Skill and Influence
Effectiveness: Testing Portions of an Expanded Ferris and Judge (1991) Model.”
Human Relations 60: 1747-1777.

Lambert, S. J. 2000. “Added Benefits: The Link between Work-Life Benefits and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” Academy of Management Journal 43: 801-815.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

216

GILL, LAPALME, AND SÉGUIN

LePine, J. A., A. Erez, and D. E. Johnson. 2002. “The Nature and Dimensionality of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal
of Applied Psychology 87: 52-65.

Levinson, H. 1965. “Reciprocation: The Relationship between Man and Organization.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 9: 370-390.

Lindell, M. K. and D. J. Whitney. 2001. “Accounting for Common Method Variance in
Cross-sectional Research Designs.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 114-121.

Mayer, D. M., M. Kuenzi, R. Greenbaum, M. Bardes, and R. Salvador. 2009. “How Low
Does Ethical Leadership Flow? Test of a Trickle-Down Model.” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108: 1-13.

Meurs, J. A., P. L. Perrewé, and G. R. Ferris. 2011. “Political Skill as Moderator of the
Trait Sincerity–Task Performance Relationship: A Socioanalytic, Narrow Trait
Perspective.” Human Performance 24: 119-134.

Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power In and Around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Neubert, M. J., D. S. Carlson, K. M. Kacmar, J. A. Roberts, and L. B. Chonko. 2009.
“The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behavior: Evidence from the Field.”
Journal of Business Ethics 90(2): 157-170.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Piccolo, R. F., R. Greenbaum, D. N. den Hartog, and R. Folger. 2010. “The Relationship

between Ethical Leadership and Core Job Characteristics.” Journal of Organizational
Behavior 31: 259-278.

Podsakoff, N. P., S. W. Whiting, P. M. Podsakoff, and B. D. Blume. 2009. “Individual-
and Organizational-level Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A
Meta-analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94: 122-141.

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, R. H. Moorman, and R. Fetter. 1990.
“Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in
Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” The Leadership
Quarterly 1: 107-142.

———— and D. W. Organ. 1986. “Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems
and Prospects.” Journal of Management 12: 531-531.

Schaubroeck, J. M., S. T. Hannah, B. J. Avolio, S. W. J. Kozlowski, R. G. Lord, L. K.
Treviño, N. Dimotakis, and A. C. Peng. 2012. “Embedding Ethical Leadership
Within and Across Organization Levels.” Academy of Management Journal 55: 1053-
1078.

Shin, Y. 2012. “CEO Ethical Leadership, Ethical Climate, Climate Strength, and
Collective Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” Journal of Business Ethics 108: 299-
312.

Tocher, N., S. L. Oswald, C. L. Shook, and G. Adams. 2012. “Entrepreneur Political
Skill and New Venture Performance: Extending the Social Competence
Perspective.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 24: 283-305.

Treadway, D. C., W. A. Hochwarter, G. R. Ferris, C. J. Kacmar, C. Douglas, A. P.
Ammeter, and M. R. Buckley. 2004. “Leader Political Skill and Employee
Reactions.” Leadership Quarterly 15: 493-513.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

217

WHEN POLITICS MEETS ETHICS

Treviño, L. K., M. Brown, and L. P. Hartman. 2003. “A Qualitative Investigation of
Perceived Executive Ethical Leadership: Perceptions from Inside and Outside the
Executive Suite.” Human Relations 56: 5-37.

————, L. P. Hartman, and M. Brown. 2000. “Moral Person and Moral Manager: How
Executives Develop a Reputation for Ethical Leadership.” California Management
Review 42: 128-142.

Walumbwa, F. O. and J. Schaubroeck. 2009. “Leader Personality Traits and Employee
Voice Behavior: Mediating Roles of Ethical Leadership and Work Group
Psychological Safety.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94: 1275-1286.

Zhu, W., D. R. May, and B. J. Avolio. 2004. “The Impact of Ethical Leadership Behavior
on Employee Outcomes: The Roles of Psychological Empowerment and
Authenticity.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 11: 16-26.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

218

108

132

The JMI in Brief

Volume XXVI Number 3 Fall 2014

When Politics Meets Ethics: How Political Skill Helps Ethical Leaders
Foster Organizational Citizenship Behaviors …………………………………………………… 204

Andréa Gill, Marie-Ève Lapalme, and Michel Séguin

This paper investigates the moderating effect of leaders’ political skill in the
relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs). Results obtained from a sample of 226 employees working
in the Canadian banking sector show that the positive effects of a leader’s
ethical leadership are enhanced when the leader has strong political skill.
This study contributes to the literature by suggesting that in the context of
leadership, ethics and political savvy are not mutually exclusive, but rather,
can be synergistic. Ethical leaders are likely to be more effective in
stimulating OCBs from others if they learn to mobilize their political skill.

TMT Shared Leadership and Firm Performance: Investigating the
Mediating Role of Absorptive Capacity …………………………………………………………. 219

Joshua J. Daspit, Indu Ramachandran, and Derrick E. D’Souza

Research has emphasized the importance of top management team (TMT)
characteristics and leadership styles in influencing firm performance;
however, less is known about how emerging forms of leadership, specifically
shared leadership, influence the firm. Using a capability perspective, the
firm’s absorptive capacity is hypothesized to mediate the relationship
between TMT shared leadership and firm performance. Empirical results,
based on a sample of firms in the software industry, confirm this relationship.
Further, empirical findings suggest shared leadership positively influences
each capability of absorptive capacity (acquisition, assimilation, and
transformation) with the exception of the exploitation capability. The
findings extend understanding of how shared leadership influences firm
performance noting the value-creating role of the firm’s absorptive capacity
and demonstrate the potential for further investigating leadership forms
from a capability perspective.

(201)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

The Ethics ‘‘Fix’’: When Formal Systems Make a Difference

Kristin Smith-Crowe • Ann E. Tenbrunsel •

Suzanne Chan-Serafin • Arthur P. Brief •

Elizabeth E. Umphress • Joshua Joseph

Received: 30 June 2011 / Accepted: 12 December 2013 / Published online: 14 January 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This paper investigates the effect of the coun-

tervailing forces within organizations of formal systems

that direct employees toward ethical acts and informal

systems that direct employees toward fraudulent behavior.

We study the effect of these forces on deception, a key

component of fraud. The results provide support for an

interactive effect of these formal and informal systems.

The effectiveness of formal systems is greater when there

is a strong informal ‘‘push’’ to do wrong; conversely, in the

absence of a strong push to do wrong, the strength of

formal systems has little impact on fraudulent behavior.

These results help to explain why the implementation of

formal systems within organizations has been met with

mixed results and identifies when formal systems designed

to promote ethical behavior will be most efficacious.

Keywords Ethics � Formal systems � Fraud � Informal

systems � Unethical behavior

Introduction

First comes the scandal, then comes the public outrage, and

then comes the big fix: beefing up the formal systems to

keep companies honest. Pattern sound familiar? A quick

perusal of newspaper headlines from just the last several

decades reveals a cyclical pattern of corporate scandal,

public outrage, and corporate atonement (Berg 1983;

Blumenthal 1983; Carroll 1985; Gerth 1980; Halloran

1985). Arthur Anderson, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and,

more recently, Goldman Sachs were preceded by General

Electric, Investors Overseas Services, Lincoln Savings &

Loan, Sears, and Shoney’s. These all are companies that

have grabbed headlines by doing wrong, illustrating that

wrongdoing in corporations is not a present fad. Neither is

the fix.

Organizations and financial institutions implicated in

ethics scandals typically attempt to regain public trust by

recasting themselves as ethical entities. The envisioned

path toward this recasting, while varied, seems to converge

on establishing or, in some cases, re-establishing formal

structures to ensure and enforce ethical behavior. The

Sarbanes–Oxley Act passed by the United States Congress

is one example of these changes, resulting in enhanced

formal control systems and the requirement of a chief

compliance officer at all 9,000 publicly held corporations

(Hurt 2005), thus directly affecting formal systems within

organizations. Management observers have predicted that

K. Smith-Crowe (&) � A. P. Brief

Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City,

UT, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

A. P. Brief

e-mail: [email protected]

A. E. Tenbrunsel

Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame,

Notre Dame, IN, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

S. Chan-Serafin

Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales,

Sydney, NSW, Australia

e-mail: [email protected]

E. E. Umphress

Foster School of Business, University of Washington,

Seattle, WA, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

J. Joseph

Partnership for Public Service, Washington, DC, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2015) 131:791–801

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-2022-6

the ‘‘new agenda’’ would be comprised of ‘‘greater

investment in financial systems, ethics training, and cor-

porate governance’’ (Byrne 2002). Providing an even more

recent example of the emphasis on the formal systems

‘‘fix,’’ the Obama administration’s initiative in response to

the 2008 global financial crisis includes revamping finan-

cial regulation aimed at discouraging further greed and

risky bets by Wall Street firms (Appelbaum and Herszen-

horn 2010; Plender 2009; Scannell 2009).

The million dollar question is will these formal systems

work? To date, the research on the effectiveness of formal

systems within organizations has been mixed, with some

ethics programs producing discernible effects on behavior

and others having no effect (for a review see Tenbrunsel

and Smith-Crowe 2008). We posit that the primary reason

for the unpredictable effectiveness of ethics programs is

that the designers and implementers focus on formal sys-

tems, one component of an organization’s ethical infra-

structure (Tenbrunsel et al. 2003), to the exclusion of other

important components of the ethical infrastructure. One

such ignored aspect is the informal systems of the orga-

nization, such as pressure from peers and colleagues to

behave unethically, including fraudulent behaviors. We

argue that to better understand when formal systems to

promote ethics will be effective, unethical and fraudulent

behavior in organizations needs to be recognized as a

product of an interaction between formal and informal

organizational forces. Empirically, we investigate the

effects of two countervailing forces that exist in some

organizations: formal systems that pull individuals toward

ethical behavior and informal systems that push them

toward fraudulent behavior.

Specifically, we consider the interactive effect of these

systems on deception, a key component of fraud, which is

defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) as ‘‘the

quality or disposition of being deceitful; faithlessness,

insincerity.’’ Though the term fraud is sometimes used in a

more strict criminal sense, here we use the term in a

broader sense of acts of bad faith that may or may not

constitute legal violations. Certainly, such acts can be quite

harmful to organizations in terms of damage to reputation,

litigation, and so forth, regardless of their legal status.

Interestingly, despite the pervasiveness of deception and its

harmful effects on organizations, it has remained largely

unaddressed in organizational research (Grover 2005;

except in the contexts of negotiation and lie detection, e.g.,

Eckman and O’Sullivan 1991; Tenbrunsel 1998; Aquino

and Becker 2005).

In addition to focusing on a rarely studied, though key

component of fraud (deception), this paper offers several

contributions. First, the constructs and hypotheses are

theoretically derived largely from research on ethical

infrastructure and social information processing; we also

acknowledge some of the parallels between formal and

informal systems as we discuss them in our study, and

formal and informal systems as discussed in institutional

theory. Importantly, however, the scope of our theorizing is

limited to formal and informal systems as they exist within

specific organizations and not at the level of institutions.

Our theoretical approach addresses previous criticisms

regarding the atheoretical approaches to these issues (i.e.,

see Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008). Second, we pro-

vide the first empirical investigation of the interaction

between formal and informal systems as they exist within

organizations. Third, our findings shed light on the incon-

sistent findings regarding the effectiveness of formal sys-

tems in organizations on unethical behavior (see

Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008). We thus extend our

current understanding of the effectiveness of formal sys-

tems, providing insight into the ethical infrastructure of

organizations and its impact on fraudulent behavior.

Theoretical Background

An organization’s ethical infrastructure incorporates mul-

tiple components, including formal and informal systems

(Tenbrunsel et al. 2003). Formal systems are the tangible

objects and events pertaining to ethics that are purposefully

designed and implemented, whereas informal systems are

the unofficial policies, practices, and procedures that are

relevant to ethics. Examples of the former include ethics

training programs and advice hot lines that recognize eth-

ical behavior as an important organizational attribute,

whereas examples of the latter include the implicit pressure

from co-workers, supervisors, and top management to

engage in ethical or unethical behavior. Distinguishing

between, and focusing on, the formal and informal com-

ponents of the ethical infrastructure is consistent with

institutional theory, which classifies institutions as either

formal or informal (Coase 1998; Helmke and Levitsky

2006; North 1990). Formal institutions represent explicit

codified contracts and rules that govern exchanges within

society, while informal institutions represent implied, often

unwritten conventions, norms, and behavioral codes

(Helmke and Levitsky 2006; North 1990). We take a

similar view of formal and informal systems, where one is

codified and explicit, and one is not. Yet we do not seek to

study these systems at the institutional level, rather our

focus is on these systems as they exist within organizations.

While formal and informal systems can be ‘‘good’’

(promoting ethical behavior) or ‘‘bad’’ (promoting unethi-

cal and fraudulent behavior), in this paper we focus on one

particular combination of the two: formal systems that pull

the employee to do right and informal systems that push

the employee to do wrong. Due to legal liabilities,

792 K. Smith-Crowe et al.

123

organizations are much more likely to have formal systems

that promote ethical rather than unethical behavior. Given

the likelihood then that organizations’ formal systems

focus on promoting ethical behavior, it is important to

consider the countervailing force of an informal system

that focuses on unethical behavior. Indeed, it is such

pressure toward unethical behavior that formal systems are

designed to combat. Further, within formal systems we

focus on two components—training and ‘‘hot lines’’—

which allow for an interactive communication of codes of

conduct and ethical values (versus the mere existence of

static, and often ‘‘boiler plate’’ codes of conduct; see

Loughran et al. 2009). In this sense, we are focusing on

those indicators of a formal system that would be expected

to be especially impactful.1 Within informal systems, we

focus on the informal pressures that individuals experience

to behave unethically; such pressure is the essence of

informal systems (cf. Tenbrunsel et al. 2003).

Here it is important for us to note two things. First, our

conceptualizations and measures of formal systems that

promote ethical behavior and informal systems that pro-

mote unethical behavior rest on the assumption that that

good and bad are not necessarily opposites – they can be

qualitatively distinct. Our view is informed by Bradley

et al. (2008, p. 179; see also Paine 2003) who pointed out

that ‘‘…behaviors defined as good, for instance, are not

necessarily the polar opposite of those defined as bad.

Theft, for instance, is a bad action that has no correspon-

dent in the goodness category because abstaining from

theft is not enough to be labeled good.’’ Similarly, we do

not conclude that the absence of a formal system that

promotes ethical behavior constitutes a formal system that

promotes unethical behavior, or that the absence of an

informal system that promotes unethical behavior consti-

tutes an informal system that promotes ethical behavior.

Second, our paper concerns the interactive effects of formal

and informal systems as they currently exist in organiza-

tions. Our scope does not extend to a discussion of the

emergence of these systems (see DiMaggio and Powell

1983; Kraatz and Block 2008; Scott 1991). Below, we

briefly review previous research and theory on formal and

informal systems, and then develop a theoretical argument

for why we expect that the two systems interact to predict

fraudulent behavior.

Formal Systems and the Pull Away from Fraudulent

Behavior

Drawing on Pugh et al. (1968), formal systems are defined

as those that ‘‘are documented and standardized, visible to

anyone inside or outside the organization’’ (Tenbrunsel

et al. 2003, p. 288) and they are carried out through formal,

administrative channels (Lange 2008), a staple of organi-

zations’ ethical infrastructure. Importantly, formal systems

vary in strength across organizations, with some organi-

zations employing stronger formal systems with numerous

components and other organizations employing weaker

systems with few features. As these systems are public and

can be observed from outside of the organization (e.g., by

customers), they tend to convey messages that pull the

employee toward ethical behavior and away from fraudu-

lent behavior. Hence, here we focus on formal systems that

promote ethical behavior rather than unethical behavior.

Formal systems constitute an important part of the eth-

ical infrastructure because individuals look to their orga-

nizations for guidelines regarding what constitutes

appropriate behavior (Schneider 1975). Official commu-

nications, such as training and advice ‘‘hot lines,’’ provide

one source for this information (Jansen and Van Glinow

1985). These formal mechanisms allow organizations an

opportunity to promote ethical behavior and guard against

fraudulent behavior (Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Trevino

1990). Indeed, it has been found that formal systems can

decrease the unethical behavior of employees within

organizations (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010; McCabe et al.

1996). Yet, as we previously noted, research on the

effectiveness of formal systems has produced mixed

results, an inconsistency that we argue can be better

understood by considering their interactive effect with

informal systems. Below, we discuss the influence of

informal systems on fraudulent behavior and then argue

that one must consider both formal and informal systems

when predicting how and when they will influence uneth-

ical behavior.

Informal Systems and the Push toward Fraudulent

Behavior

Informal systems can be thought of as emitting ‘‘signals

regarding appropriate ethical conduct that are received by

the organizational members’’ (Tenbrunsel et al. 2003,

p. 288), and like formal systems can vary in strength across

organizations. In contrast to their formal counterparts, the

signals conveyed through informal systems do not entail

official pronouncements or actions, but rather they are

‘‘felt’’ by organizational members (Lawler and Rhode

1976; Lange 2008; Selznick 1943). Informal systems rep-

resent the unofficial messages regarding ethical norms

1 For instance, based on dialogical theories of learning, Burke et al.

(2007) have argued that leaning is a social activity that is facilitated

by social interaction. Specifically, in the context of safety training,

Burke et al. (2006) demonstrated that more learning takes place when

trainees have opportunities to interact with each other and the trainers

(getting feedback from trainers, etc.) compared to more passive forms

of training like watching a video. The selection of training and ‘‘hot

lines’’ as two aspects of formal systems are interactive and thus

consistent with this definition.

The Ethics ‘‘Fix’’ 793

123

within the organization, obtained in part via socialization

and the process of social learning (Ashforth and Anand

2003; Brief et al. 2001; Burgess and Akers 1966; Palmer

2008; Warren and Smith-Crowe 2008) in which employees

learn through conversations with peers and management

and through observation what is considered ethical and

what is not. Like formal systems, informal systems provide

people with the behavioral guidelines they seek so that they

will know how to act appropriately in their environments

(Schneider 1975). The norms espoused by these informal

systems may or may not be ethical. Our focus is on the

latter case: systems that push employees to do wrong, and,

thus, may exist in tension with the aforementioned formal

systems. The power of informal systems that reinforce

unethical behavior is illustrated in the demise of Enron and

Arthur Anderson. At Enron, Mr. Lay made it clear that

informal systems trumped formal systems (Barrioneuvo

2006):

Ethical rules that he had helped set up at En-

ron…somehow did not apply to him, Mr. Lay sug-

gested. When questioned by Mr. Hueston on Tuesday

about a $160,000 personal investment he made in a

photo-sharing company that did more than 80 percent

of its business with Enron, Mr. Lay called sugges-

tions of impropriety ‘‘form over substance.’’ Rules,

he said, ‘‘are important, but you should not be a slave

to rules, either.’’

The importance of informal systems is consistent with

branches of institutional theory (Helmke and Levitsky

2006; Knack and Keefer 1997; Lauth 2000; North 1990)

and social information processing theory (Salancik and

Pfeffer 1977, 1978). At the macro level, research on the

impact of informal institutions on political structures

(Lauth 2000) and transaction costs (Knack and Keefer

1997) has demonstrated the importance of considering

those systems that exist ‘‘outside officially sanctioned

channels’’ (Helmke and Levitsky 2006, p. 5), yet have a

tremendous potential to affect significant sociological

processes that exist within a society (North 1990). Simi-

larly, at a more micro level and more relevant to our focus

on systems within organizations, the social information

received from peers plays an important role in individuals’

attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. For instance, Roy

(1952), a sociologist studying the informal systems in a

steel processing company, described the social pressure to

under produce as he experienced as a radial-drill operator

when he over produced. Roy was censured by a fellow

worker who said, ‘‘What’s the matter? Are you trying to

upset the apple cart?’’ (p. 431). Economists are similarly

finding that social pressures can influence behavior (e.g.,

cooperation and productivity) beyond what would be pre-

dicted simply on the basis of monetary incentives

(Bandiera et al. 2005; Dal Bo and Dal Bo 2010). Further, in

a recent meta-analysis (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010), psy-

chologists found that organizational members’ perceptions

of what their organizations expect and what values they

espouse in relation to ethics (essentially, organizational

level ethical climate and culture, respectively) were mod-

erately to strongly, negatively correlated with unethical

behavior, providing additional evidence that organizational

members are strongly influenced through informal, social

channels.

Informal systems regarding unethical behavior are per-

haps best captured by the pressure that employees feel from

their peers, supervisors, and top management to violate the

organization’s published values. Pressure from these

groups informally communicates the values that the orga-

nization ‘‘really’’ espouses. Indeed, conformity pressures,

which include both informal surveillance to see who is

behaving ‘‘right’’ and the accompanying sanctions, have

been implicated in organizational wrongdoing (Sutherland

1983; Brief et al. 2001). A good case can thus be made that

informal systems are an important force. Yet, formal and

informal systems coexist within organizations. While one

can predict main effects for each system, we argue below

that it is their interactive effect that is important in pre-

dicting fraudulent behavior.

Interactive Effects of Formal and Informal Systems

To assert that there is an interactive effect between formal

systems that promote ethical behavior and informal systems

that promote fraudulent behavior is not a foregone conclu-

sion. Empirically, to our knowledge, there has been no

demonstration of their interactive effects. Theoretically, the

relationship between formal systems that promote ethical

behavior and informal systems that promote unethical

behavior has been characterized in two contradictory ways:

as primarily independent (see Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe

2008 for a review) or as primarily interdependent (Cross-

land and Hambrick 2011; Keefer and Knack 2005; Miller

and Form 1980). The latter characterization is most ger-

mane to our theoretical arguments and predictions.

Miller and Form (1980, p. 362) provide an apt

description of the importance of considering both systems

at the same time:

The student of social organization needs to know how

both formal and informal organizations operate. The

relationship between these two types of organization

is not supplementary, but interactive. In a very real

sense, then, it is impossible to understand how the

supervisory structure actually operates without sys-

tematic knowledge of the ongoing informal relations

in it.

794 K. Smith-Crowe et al.

123

This assertion, which rests on interdependence between the

two systems, and more specifically, on the notion that

formal systems are interpreted within the context of

informal systems, finds support in institutional theory

(Dobbin 1994; Keefer and Knack 2005; Crossland and

Hambrick 2011) and social information processing theory

(Salancik and Pfeffer 1977, 1978). Informal norms are

argued to be the initial force guiding transactive exchanges

in small, homogenous societal groups. As the groups grow

larger and more diverse, formal institutions (i.e., contracts,

codes of conduct, etc.) emerge to facilitate these pre-

existing informal institutions so that societal members can

trade safely with those who are dissimilar or unfamiliar

(North 1990; Bates 2001); however, the development of

these formal institutions is argued to be constrained by the

informal norms that preceded them (Dobbin 1994). Infor-

mal institutions are thus seen as more primary and deep

seated than formal institutions (Keefer and Knack 2005),

and, as such, act as a constraint on formal institutions

(Crossland and Hambrick 2011).

A social information processing perspective, which

posits a central role of the influence of the social context on

job attitudes, asserts that the social environment provides a

template that individuals utilize to interpret complex

environmental cues (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978). Salancik

and Pfeffer (1978) further argued that objective informa-

tion, such as that on job variety and autonomy, actually

lacks meaning unless it is interpreted within a social con-

text and as such cannot be used in isolation to predict job

attitudes (cf. Burke et al. 2006, 2007). Thus, the social

context dictates the meaning of the more objective infor-

mation conveyed by formal systems. We agree with these

assertions and, applying them to the domain of fraudulent

behavior, predict that the impact of formal systems can

only be fully understood when one considers the informal

systems within which the formal systems operate.

In the context of institutional theory, Scott (1987)

indicated, however, that the nature of this formal–informal

interaction potentially can take several forms: ‘‘Formal

structures purposefully designed to regulate behavior in the

service of specific goals are seen to be greatly affected—

supplemented, eroded, transformed—by the emergence of

informal structures’’ (p. 54). Making use of the parallels

between formal and informal systems at the institutional

level and at the organizational level, the same logic can be

applied to thinking about formal and informal systems

within organizations. Here, we investigate two possible

interaction effects: informal systems may either increase or

decrease the effectiveness of formal systems.2

Increased Effectiveness

On the one hand, it could be argued that formal systems are

made more effective by informal systems. In other words,

formal systems designed to pull employees toward ethical

behavior only have meaning, and, thus, efficacy, when

there are strong informal systems pushing employees to

behave unethically. A social information processing per-

spective is based on the premise that job characteristics are

socially constructed and that it is the intrinsic features of

the situation that help makes sense of the extrinsic features

of the job (Salancik and Pfeffer 1977). Given that informal

systems have been linked with intrinsic processes and

formal systems with extrinsic processes (Tenbrunsel et al.

2003), this line of reasoning suggests that when the infor-

mal system to do wrong is weak, formal systems designed

to enforce ethical values lack meaning, and, thus, have

relatively little impact as there is no context within which

to understand why such behavior is being prescribed. That

is, when there are no informal pressures to behave uneth-

ically, a strong formal system to behave ethically will be

out of place and lack significance. In contrast, when there

are strong informal pressures to do wrong, the prescribed

behavior espoused by a formal system to do right has

meaning as it is interpreted within the social context of the

pressure exerted by the informal norms.

In this sense, a formal system to do right exists to

countervail an informal system to do wrong. This argument

is consistent with Roberts’ (2001) discussion of corporate

governance in which the ideal use of formal systems is as a

‘‘fail safe device’’ for fixing informal mechanisms that are

broken. Along these lines, we argue that formal systems

will be more effective when the informal system has gone

awry (i.e., when informal systems that encourage unethical

behavior are strong). This line of reasoning suggests the

following hypothesis:

H1a Informal systems promoting fraudulent behavior

will strengthen the negative relationship between formal

systems that promote ethical behavior and fraudulent

behavior.

Decreased Effectiveness

Conversely, it is possible that the effectiveness of formal

systems is made less effective by the presence of strong

informal systems. This argument is consistent with the

inverse relationship posited between extrinsic and intrinsic

motivation, such that a strong intrinsic motivation is seen

as diminishing the perceived effect of an extrinsic moti-

vator and vice versa (Calder and Staw 1975). Under-

standing informal systems to be more intrinsic than formal

systems (Tenbrunsel et al. 2003), an increase in the

2 As Scott (1987) notes, formal systems may also be transformed, or

changed by informal systems. As this paper focuses on a single point

in time, this possibility is not investigated.

The Ethics ‘‘Fix’’ 795

123

strength of the informal system should make formal sys-

tems less effective in curbing fraudulent behavior. It has

been found that the codes of conduct are less effective

when they are inconsistent with the informal norms of the

organization (McCabe et al. 1996); thus, the effectiveness

of a formal system that pulls toward ethical behavior will

be diminished when it faces opposition with an informal

system that pushes toward unethical behavior. It has also

been argued that formal constraints are stronger when the

informal constraints are relatively weaker, such as in more

developed countries where the rule of law is more salient

(Peng 2002; Crossland and Hambrick 2011), suggesting an

inverse relationship between formal and informal systems.

Indeed, Elffers et al.’s (2003) investigation of regulatory

compliance in the Netherlands demonstrated that individ-

uals complied with the law more when they were aware

that social norms for non-compliance were weak (i.e., weak

informal systems). More specifically, this line of reasoning

suggests the following hypothesis:

H1b Informal systems promoting fraudulent behavior

will weaken the negative relationship between formal

systems that promote ethical behavior and fraudulent

behavior.

Below we describe a study designed to test our two

competing hypotheses regarding the possible interactive

effects of formal and informal systems on fraud. We

investigated fraud in terms of instances of deception

including falsifying records, withholding information,

misreporting information, and lying to stakeholders. Fol-

lowing the description of our study, we report our results,

which indeed indicate that the relationship between formal

systems that promote ethical behavior and fraud (i.e.,

deception) is moderated by informal systems that promote

fraudulent behavior.

Method

Sample

The data used in the current study were collected by the

Ethics Resource Center via their ‘‘2000 National Business

Ethics Survey’’ (2000 NBES; Joseph 2000). The 2000

NBES was administered via telephone interviews con-

ducted with a nationally representative sample of 1,500

U.S. employees between November 1999 and February

2000. Only data from employees of for-profit organizations

working at a location with one or more other employees

were included in our study. The final sample included 974

respondents of which 80.4 % were White, 8.3 % were

Black, and 6.2 % were Hispanic. Over half (51.5 %) of the

respondents were male and just under half (42.7 %) were

between 31 and 45 years of age. Over half (55.2 %) had

some post-secondary education (i.e., completed at least two

full years of college), 46.1 % served in management or

supervisory positions, and 86.4 % had been in their orga-

nizations for over a year.

Measures

Formal Systems to Promote Ethical Behavior

Two items assessed whether participants’ organizations

provided training on their standards of ethical conduct, as

well as specific telephone lines where advice concerning

business ethics issues could be obtained (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Because the items comprising this scale are dichotomous, we

computed Cronbach’s (1951) alpha using the upward bound

limit of phi (/max) rather than the Pearson r coefficient (Sun

et al. 2007). The estimate of internal consistency was .92. To

construct the scale, we summed the responses to the items.

Informal Systems to Promote Fraudulent Behavior

Three items assessed the extent to which participants

agreed that they felt pressure to violate their organizations’

ethical standards from their co-workers, supervisors, and

top management, respectively (1 = strongly disagree,

2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s

(1951) alpha for this scale was .92. To construct the scale,

we summed the responses to the items.

Deception

Four items assessed whether participants had observed

different instances of deception (0 = no, 1 = yes): falsi-

fying records and reports; misreporting actual time or hours

worked; withholding needed information from employees,

customers, vendors, or the public; and lying to employees,

customers, vendors, or the public. Because these items are

dichotomous, we used Sun et al.’s (2007) modified version

of Cronbach’s (1951) alpha in order to calculate a more

accurate estimate of internal consistency. The internal

consistency estimate for this scale which is composed of

dichotomous items was .93 (Sun et al. 2007). To construct

the scale, we summed the responses to the items.

Control Variables

We controlled for various factors that impact reports of

unethical behavior in organizations (see O’Fallon and But-

terfield 2005; Trevino et al. 2006; Tenbrunsel and Smith-

Crowe 2008 for reviews). Consistent with recommendations

by Becker (2005), we provide a brief rationale for the

inclusion of these variables. Organizational tenure (1 = less

796 K. Smith-Crowe et al.

123

than a year; 2 = 1 to 2 years; 3 = 3 to 5 years; 4 = 6 to

10 years; 5 = 11 or more years) and position in organization

(1 = non-supervisory position; 2 = first line supervisor;

3 = middle management; 4 = senior management) were

included as prior research has demonstrated that they are

negatively related to moral reasoning (Elm and Nichols

1993; Ponemon 1990). Respondents who have longer tenure

and are in higher positions in the organization compared to

their counterparts with less tenure and in lower positions, we

argue, will have less ability to morally reason and thus also to

observe and report incidences of deception. Gender

(1 = male; 2 = female) also was controlled because some

research has shown that women are more ethically aware

than men (Ameen et al. 1996); as such women may have

been more likely to recognize incidences of deception than

men. Organizational size (1 = 2–24; 2 = 25–99;

3 = 100–499; 4 = 500–1999; 5 = 2000–9999; 6 = 10,000

or over) was controlled, as there is empirical research

showing that as organizational size increases, unethical

decisions also increase (Weber 1990). Organizational size

thus may be positively related to deception. Finally, orga-

nizational disruption (0 = no merger, acquisition or

restructuring; 1 = merger, acquisition, or restructuring with

no layoffs; 2 = merger, acquisition, or restructuring with

layoffs) was included as a control variable because events

such as layoffs and mergers are highly stressful for the

organization and its members (Brockner et al. 1993),

potentially causing competition between organizational

members. Such competitive environments have been argued

to raise one’s ‘‘moral antennae’’ thus sensitizing one to

incidences of deception (Butterfield et al. 2000).

Results

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis in order to

examine the distinctiveness of the scales used to measure the

main study variables: formal systems, informal systems, and

deception. The three-factor model demonstrated a good fit

v2 = 56.79, df = 24, p .001; CFI = .99, TLI = .98,

RMSEA = .04. All the indicators loaded significantly onto

their corresponding latent constructs (standardized path

estimates range was .40 to .94), which demonstrates that the

latent constructs are clearly distinct from each other. Fur-

ther, results of the Chi square difference tests suggest the

three-factor model had a better fit than either the two-factor

model combining formal and informal systems Dv2 = 167,

Ddf = 2, p .001, and any other conceivable two-factor

models, or the one-factor model Dv2 = 564.79, Ddf = 3,

p .001. Descriptive statistics and correlations for all study

variables are reported in Table 1.

We tested our hypotheses using multiple regression and

centered predictor variables. The results are presented in

Table 2. Consistent with previous research and theory,

Model 2 indicates a significant negative correlation

between formal systems and deception, and a significant

positive correlation between informal systems and decep-

tion. However, of greater interest here, Model 3 indicates a

significant interaction effect of formal and informal sys-

tems on deception. Supportive of Hypothesis 1a, the rela-

tionship between formal systems and fraudulent behavior

was stronger when informal systems were strong and

weaker when they were weak (see Fig. 1). Analysis of the

simple slopes (Aiken and West 1991) one standard devia-

tion above and below the mean for informal systems

yielded consistent results: the relationship between formal

systems and deception was stronger when informal systems

were strong b = -.15, p .01 versus weak b = .01,

p[ .05.

Discussion

Our aim in this paper was to provide a systematic inves-

tigation of two components of the ethical infrastructure of

organizations—formal systems that pull individuals toward

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for study variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Organizational tenure 3.15 1.38

2. Position in organization 1.85 1.05 .20**

3. Gender 1.48 .50 -.10** -.10**

4. Organizational size 3.41 1.86 .05 -.22** .04

5. Organizational disruption .61 .74 .02 -.15** .02 .36**

6. Formal systems 1.00 .84 .06 -.08* .02 .41** .16**

7. Informal systems 3.46 1.36 .02 -.13** -.02 .08* .19** -.05

8. Deception .84 1.17 .01 -.09** -.03 .11** .20** -.10** .46**

* p .05; ** p .01

The Ethics ‘‘Fix’’ 797

123

ethical behavior and informal systems that push employees

toward unethical behavior—so as to further our under-

standing of when formal systems are likely to be effective.

We proposed that to predict fraudulent behavior, the

interactive effect of formal and informal systems within

organizations must be considered. That is, the less visible

yet more intrinsic informal components of the ethical

infrastructure influence the effectiveness of formal sys-

tems. Inspection of this interaction demonstrated that the

efficacy of the formal systems depended on the perceived

pressure to do wrong: when the informal pressure was

strong (or high), formal systems were efficacious, but when

the perceived pressure to do wrong was weak (or low),

formal systems did not predict fraudulent behavior.

These results suggest that a formulation of the optimal

level of formal systems designed to promote ethical

behavior must account for the organizational environment

in which these control factors operate. When the informal

push to do wrong is strong, ‘‘pulling’’ out all the stops in

the formal systems seems to make sense. But when the

pressure to do wrong is weak, extensive formal systems

may only be a waste of time and money. Thus, the adage,

‘‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,’’ may be more than just a

cliché.

Limitations

An interpretation of these findings must certainly

acknowledge the limitations of the study. First, like any data

that are cross-sectional, it is difficult to draw inferences

about causality and no such inferences are intended. Further,

self-perceptions of formal systems are utilized, rather than

objective measures. The use of such perceptions allows for a

consistency between informal and formal systems (i.e., it is

difficult to get an objective measure of informal systems),

but it should be clearly understood that our findings are

driven by perceptions of such systems. Despite the disad-

vantages of cross-sectional data, and the limitations noted,

this type of data does have the advantage over experimental

studies of being able to translate the results much more

readily into reality (Seligman 1996). Given the difficulty of

getting reports on unethical behavior outside of the lab

(Cowton 1998), we believe that these data offer unique

insights into the ethical infrastructure of organizations, but

we also recognize the need for additional research that uti-

lizes objective measures and allows for causal inferences.

Second, our data are based on participants’ reporting of

all variables in one survey. As such, concerns about com-

mon method bias are reasonable, yet steps were taken

during the data collection and analysis processes that

should mitigate this problem. Procedurally, our data col-

lection was consistent with suggested approaches for

avoiding common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

Specifically, respondents were guaranteed anonymity, steps

were taken to reduce respondents’ evaluation apprehension

(e.g., there were no value laden/judgmental words used in

the survey and the interviewers merely asked respondents

for their opinions and thoughts about ethics at work), and

the items that constitute the three study variables were

scattered across the survey. Empirically, a confirmatory

Table 2 Results of the regression analysis

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Control variables

Organizational tenure .00 -.02 -.01

Position in organization -.07 -.01 -.01

Gender .00 .01 .00

Organizational size .07 .13** .12**

Organizational disruption .17** .10** .10**

Main effects

Formal systems -.14** -.14**

Informal systems .41** .39**

Interaction term

Formal 9 Informal systems -.09**

R2 .05 .24 .25

DR2 .05 .19 .01

DF 8.67** 95.51** 7.24**

* p .05; ** p .01

Note. Unless otherwise indicated, the numbers in the table are stan-

dardized regression weights

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

low high

Formal Systems

D
ec

ep
tio

n

Informal Systems low

Informal Systems high

Fig. 1 Interaction effect of formal systems and informal systems on

deception

798 K. Smith-Crowe et al.

123

factor analysis was conducted to ensure that the three study

variables were indeed distinct from one another.

Finally, our analysis and the corresponding implica-

tions are limited to specific components of the ethical

infrastructure—formal systems, which promote ethical

behavior, and informal systems, which promote fraudulent

behavior—and the specific items which we utilized to

represent these constructs. The items we examined within

each construct do not represent the full spectrum of for-

mal and informal systems, and, as such, future research

should investigate whether other components of these

systems exhibit the same relationships found within this

study. We also did not examine formal systems which

promote fraudulent behavior (though we think that these

are relatively uncommon) or informal systems that pro-

mote ethical behavior; we believe that future research that

investigates these aspects of formal and informal systems

will help add to our understanding of formal and informal

systems. Keeping in mind these limitations, the results do

highlight important organizational and theoretical

implications.

Theoretical and Practical Implications and Directions

for Future Research

We believe this research makes significant theoretical and

practical contributions. By theoretically examining the

ethical infrastructure, its components and their interactive

effects, we address calls for a more theory-based approach

to ethics in organizations (Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe

2008). To provide a platform for future research, we uti-

lized a theoretically driven classification of formal and

informal systems. Furthermore, because of their potential

interactive effects, we considered it essential that these

components be examined in conjunction with one another

rather than as part of isolated studies as has historically

been the case. As our findings suggest, these components

interact with one another, meaning that drawing conclu-

sions about the effect of one element in the absence of the

other is likely to be problematic. The importance of con-

sidering formal and informal systems simultaneously is not

only applicable to the study of ethical behavior in organi-

zations, but also to the theoretical framework offered by

social information processing theory, which we drew upon

to derive our predictions.

The organizational implications of these findings are

directly connected to the theoretical contributions. Just as

future researchers need to recognize the interdependent

influence of each of the identified components, so do

managers. Considered in isolation, formal systems may

appear to have a positive impact on fraudulent behavior.

However, when there is little push to do wrong via infor-

mal systems, extensive formal systems may just be a waste

of resources. This finding is useful in understanding why

research on the effectiveness of formal systems has pro-

duced mixed results. Focusing on formal systems exclu-

sively, while ignoring informal systems can lead to

unnecessary costs and frustration for organizations truly

committed to discouraging unethical behavior. Organiza-

tions that find that their formal systems do not impact

behavior may erroneously conclude that formal systems

are never useful and may be unlikely to rely on them

in situations in which they would be most effective,

namely when they are in the presence of informal pres-

sures to do wrong. Further, we encourage future research

that seeks to refine our understanding of the interactive

effects of formal and informal systems, specifically

research that considers the varying effectiveness of dif-

ferent components of formal and informal systems. Such

research would be informative in highlighting components

of formal and informal systems that are more or less

influential in themselves, and how these components of

varying influence then interact with each other. We also

encourage research that explores different combinations of

formal and informal systems, such as formal systems that

promote fraudulent behavior and informal systems that

promote ethical behavior.

The results also suggest that an organization cannot

simply ‘‘borrow’’ another organization’s ‘‘formal’’ ethics

plan, but rather must consider the appropriateness of a plan

in its own unique context (i.e., in the context of its par-

ticular informal systems). This recommendation resonates

with similar thinking at the institutional level (Shirley

2005, pp. 629–630):

[the] stickiness of beliefs and norms explain why

underdevelopment cannot be overcome by simply

importing institutions that were successful in other

countries. There are numerous examples of failure.

Latin America copied the U.S. constitution, transi-

tional countries emulated U.S. or European bank-

ruptcy laws and commercial codes…all with very

different and generally disappointing results.

Likewise, we argue that within an ethical infrastructure, a

formal system cannot be copied or even mandated without

first understanding the informal system in which it will be

embedded.

The findings suggest that there is no quick fix to scan-

dals and wrongdoing—organizations must engage in the

hard work of understanding if there are strong informal

systems that promote fraudulent behavior. Likely, this

conclusion is not what organizational leaders want to hear;

it is, however, a message that they must hear if they truly

desire to exact change. We hope that our research provides

a blueprint for how such an informed understanding can

help achieve that change.

The Ethics ‘‘Fix’’ 799

123

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing

and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1996). Gender

differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future

accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5),

591–597.

Appelbaum, B., & Herszenhorn, D. M. (2010). Financial overhaul

signals shift on deregulation. The New York Times, Jul 15.

Aquino, K., & Becker, T. E. (2005). Lying in negotiations: How

individual and situational factors influence the use of neutral-

ization strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,

661–679.

Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption

in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25,

1–52.

Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2005). Social preferences and

the response to incentives: Evidence from personnel data. The

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 917–962.

Barrioneuvo, A. (2006). Hostility may cost ken lay. The New York

Times, May 3.

Bates, R. H. (2001). Prosperity and violence: The political economy

of development. New York: Norton and Company.

Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control

of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis

with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8,

274–289.

Berg, E. N. (1983). Insurance broker still suffering from scandal. The

New York Times, June 22.

Blumenthal, R. (1983). Corruption cited in waste business. The New

York Times, May 1.

Bradley, J. C., Brief, A. P., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). The Good

Corporation. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place:

Exploring dynamic linkages between individuals and organiza-

tions (pp. 175–223). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001). Collective

corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. In

M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp.

471–500). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brockner, J., Grover, S., O’Malley, M. N., Reed, T. F., & Glynn, M.

A. (1993). Threat of future layoffs, self-esteem, and survivors’

reactions: Evidence from the laboratory and the field. Strategic

Management Journal, 14, 153–166.

Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-

reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14,

128–147.

Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S.,

Salvador, R. O., & Islam, G. (2006). Relative effectiveness of

worker safety and health training methods. American Journal of

Public Health, 96, 315–324.

Burke, M. J., Scheurer, M. L., & Meredith, R. J. (2007). A dialogical

approach to skill development: The case of safety and health

skills. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 235–250.

Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2000). Moral

awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related

and social context factors. Human Relations, 53, 981–1018.

Byrne, J. A. (2002). After Enron: The ideal corporation. Business

Week 68, August 26.

Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). The self-perception of intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 31, 599–605.

Carroll, M. (1985). Inquiry ordered into corruption in construction.

The New York Times, June 26.

Coase, R. (1998). The new institutional economics. American

Economic Review, 88, 72–74.

Cowton, C. J. (1998). The use of secondary data in business ethics

research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 423–434.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of

tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Differences in managerial

discretion across countries: how nation-level institutions affect the

degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32,

797–819.

Dal Bo, E., & Dal Bo, P. (2010). ‘‘Do the right thing:’’ The effects of

moral suasion on cooperation. Working Paper.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:

Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organiza-

tional fields. American Journal of Sociology, 48, 147–160.

Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States,

Britain, and France in the railway age. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Eckman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). How to catch a liar. American

Psychologist, 46, 913–920.

Elffers, H., van der Heijden, P., & Hezemans, M. (2003). Explaining

regulatory non-compliance: A survey study of rule transgression

for two Dutch instrumental laws, applying the randomized

response method. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19,

409–439.

Elm, D., & Nichols, M. L. (1993). An investigation of the moral

reasoning of managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 817–833.

Ethics Resource Center. (2007). National Business Ethics Survey.

Retrieved from http://www.ethics.org/files/u5/The_2007_National_

Business_Ethics_Survey.pdf.

Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework

for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal

of Marketing, 49, 87–96.

Gerth, J. (1980). Focus on companies for accountability. The New

York Times, September 5.

Grover, S. L. (2005). The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth: The causes and management of workplace lying. Academy

of Management Executive, 19, 148–157.

Halloran, R. (1985). The trouble with defense contractors. The New

York Times, December 8.

Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2006). Informal institutions and

democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Hurt, H. (2005). Drop that ledger! This is the chief compliance

officer. The New York Times, May 15.

Jansen, E., & Van Glinow, M. A. (1985). Ethical ambivalence and

organizational reward systems. Academy of Management

Review, 10, 814–822.

Joseph, J. (2000). 2000 National business ethics survey: How

employees perceive ethics at work. Washington, DC: Ethics

Resource Center.

Keefer, P., & Knack, S. (2005). Social capital, social norms, and the

new institutional economics. In C. Menard & M. M. Shirley

(Eds.), Handbook of new institutional economics (pp. 701–725).

New York: Springer.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Bad

apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about

sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95, 1–31.

Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic

payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 112, 1251–1288.

Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of

institutional pluralism. In R. Greewood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-

Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The handbook of organiza-

tional institutionalism (pp. 243–275). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

800 K. Smith-Crowe et al.

123

Lange, D. (2008). A multidimensional conceptualization of organi-

zational corruption control. Academy of Management Review,

33, 710–729.

Lauth, H. J. (2000). Informal institutions and democracy. Democra-

tization, 7(4), 21–50.

Lawler, E. E., & Rhode, J. G. (1976). Information and control in

organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing

Company.

Loughran, T., McDonald, B., & Yun, H. (2009). A wolf in sheep’s

clothing: The use of ethics-related terms in 10-K reports. Journal

of Business Ethics, 89, 39–49.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1996). The

influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-

related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6,

461–476.

Miller, D. C., & Form, W. H. (1980). Industrial sociology: Work in

organizational life. New York: Harper and Row.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic

performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the

empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2005. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.

Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). ‘Fraud’, Retrieved from http://

www.oed.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/view/Entry/74298.

Paine, L. S. (2003). Value shift: Why companies must merge social

and financial imperatives to achieve superior performance. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Palmer, D. (2008). Extending the process model of collective

corruption. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 107–135.

Peng, M. W. (2002). Towards an institution-based view of business

strategy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 251–267.

Plender, J. (2009). Respinning the web. FinancialTimes.com, June 21.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Ponemon, L. (1990). Ethical judgments in accounting: A cognitive-

developmental perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,

1, 191–215.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968).

Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 13, 65–105.

Roberts, J. (2001). Trust and control in anglo-american systems of

corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing

effects of processes and accountability. Human Relations, 12,

1547–1572.

Roy, D. (1952). Quote restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop.

American Journal of Sociology, 57, 427–442.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-

satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 22, 427–456.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing

approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

Scannell, K. (2009). Insider trading probe at SEC. The Wall Street

Journal, A1, May 16.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel

Psychology, 18, 447–479.

Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open
systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In W.

W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in

organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1996). Science as an ally of practice. American

Psychologist, 51(10), 1072–1079.

Selznick, P. (1943). An approach to a theory of bureaucracy.

American Sociology Review, 8, 47–54.

Shirley, M. M. (2005). Institutions and development. In C. Menard &

M. M. Shirley (Eds.), Handbook of new institutional economics

(pp. 611–638). New York: Springer.

Sun, W., Chou, C.-P., Stacy, A. W., Ma, H., Unger, J., & Gallaher, P.

(2007). SAS and SPSS macros to calculate standardized

cronbach’s alpha using the upper bound of the phi coefficient

for dichotomous items. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 71–81.

Sutherland, E. H. (1983). White collar crime: The uncut version. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of

misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives

and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3),

330–339.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision

making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of

Management Annals, 2, 545–607.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. E. (2003).

Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in

organizations. Social Justice Research, 16, 285–307.

Trevino, L. K. (1990). A cultural perspective on changing and

developing organizational ethics. Research in Organizational

Change and Development, 4, 195–230.

Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral

ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32,

951–990.

Warren, D. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Deciding what’s right: The

role of external sanctions and embarrassment in shaping moral

judgments in the workplace. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 28, 81–105.

Weber, J. (1990). Managers’ moral reasoning: Assessing their

responses in three moral dilemmas. Human Relations, 43(7),

687–702.

The Ethics ‘‘Fix’’ 801

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Linking Ethical Leadership to Employees’ Organizational
Citizenship Behavior: Testing the Multilevel Mediation Role
of Organizational Concern

Shenjiang Mo1
• Junqi Shi1

Received: 4 September 2014 / Accepted: 16 June 2015 / Published online: 21 June 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract This study empirically examined the proposi-

tions that ethical leadership is related to employees’

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) through two

psychological mechanisms: (a) a social learning mecha-

nism, where employees emulate their supervisor’s behavior

such as caring about their organization; and (b) a social

exchange mechanism that links ethical leadership to per-

ceived procedural justice and employee’s organizational

concern. Our theoretical model was tested using data col-

lected from employees in a pharmaceutical retail chain

company. Analyses of multisource time-lagged data from

93 team supervisors and 486 employees showed that

supervisors’ and employees’ organizational concern

sequentially mediated the relationship between ethical

leadership and employee OCB. It was also found that the

link between ethical leadership and employee OCB was

sequentially mediated by perceived procedural justice and

employee’s organizational concern. Theoretical and prac-

tical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords Ethical leadership � Organizational citizenship

behavior � Organizational concern � Procedural justice

Introduction

Ethical leadership has recently been considered as a key

predictor influencing employees’ moral attitude and behav-

ior toward organizations (Mo et al. 2012). It places great

emphasis on the role modeling effect of leader’s moral

behaviors in the workplace (Treviño et al. 2000, 2003;

Brown 2007). Drawing on social learning theory (Bandura

1977), previous research showed that employees working

with ethical leaders are more likely to go ‘‘above and

beyond’’ the official call of duty to help organizations

achieve long-term goals (Podsakoff et al. 1997, 2000; Pic-

colo et al. 2010; Kalshoven et al. 2011; Zoghbi-Manrique-

de-Lara and Suarez-Acosta, 2013; Boehm and Dwertmann

2015). However, little was known regarding the underlying

mechanisms through which ethical leadership enhances

employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)

(Brown and Treviño 2006; Kirkman et al. 2009).

Recent studies shared a common observation that ethical

leaders enhance employees’ proactive behaviors in the

cross-level leader-member interactive processes (Jordan

et al. 2013). For example, Mayer et al. (2009) demonstrated

a trickle-down model of ethical leadership. Results showed

that the relationship between top management ethical

leadership and employees’ OCB was significantly mediated

by employees’ perception of supervisory ethical leadership

(Mayer et al. 2009). Besides, Schaubroeck et al. (2012)

developed and tested another model describing how

higher-level ethical leadership relates to lower-level

employees’ ethical cognitions and behaviors (Schaubroeck

et al. 2012). Specifically, ethical leaders embed shared

understandings through their influence on team ethical

culture, which in turn influence followers’ ethical behavior.

These empirical studies tried to lay out specific modes of

transmission, such as emulating ethical leadership behav-

iors and developing ethical culture, through which ethical

leadership links to employee OCB. However, since

employee OCB is emphasized as proactive behaviors that

are primarily motivated by employees’ willingness to

voluntarily contribute to the organization (Lavelle 2010),

& Junqi Shi

[email protected]

1 Department of Management¸ Lingnan (University) College,

Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

123

J Bus Ethics (2017) 141:151–162

DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2734-x

we argue that it is important to answer questions, such as

what has been changed for individual employees and why

employees are motivated to contribute to the organizations

when they are under the supervision of ethical leaders.

Accordingly, organizational concern and perceived proce-

dural justice are included as mediators in the current study

because these two variables primarily capture employees’

perceptions of employee-organization relationships.

Accordingly, the contention at the center of this research

is to examine the extent to which supervisor’s (i.e.,

supervisor’s organizational concern) and employee’s (i.e.,

perceived procedural justice, employee’s organizational

concern) perceptions and motives mediate the relationship

between ethical leadership and employee OCB. In partic-

ular, we proposed and examined two potential mechanisms

to explicate how ethical leadership enhances employee

OCB. First, ethical leaders are a key source for employees

to understand the links between themselves and the focal

teams/organizations (Brown et al. 2005). From a social

learning perspective, employees emulate and imitate their

leader’s viewpoints and behaviors, such as motives attrib-

uted to OCB. Second, ethical leaders provide employees

fair treatment and a just work environment (Kalshoven

et al. 2011). Through the lens of social exchange,

employees may feel a sense of indebtedness to those

leaders and the teams/organizations those leaders represent

for (Mayer et al. 2009). Consequently, employees tend to

reciprocate such fair treatment by expressing proactive

motives attributed to OCBs. Altogether, this research pro-

vides an important integration between theories of ethical

leadership, proactive motives, and behaviors. This inte-

gration allows for better understanding of the underlying

mechanisms that link ethical leadership to employee OCB

from a multilevel perspective.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

The Nature of Ethical Leadership

Brown et al. (2005) defined ethical leadership as the

demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through

personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the

promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way

communication, reinforcement, and decision-making (p.

120). Through 40 interviews with senior executives and

corporate ethics officers in various industries, Treviño et al.

(2000, 2003) summarized that a reputation for ethical lead-

ership eventually rests upon two pillars: moral person and

moral manager. First, ethical leaders have the responsibility

to be a moral person conforming to a complex code of

morals. They are expected to have certain traits and engage in

certain behaviors in their personal and professional lives

(Brown 2007; McCann and Holt 2009). These moral traits

and behaviors as ‘‘good compasses’’ not only provide leaders

themselves with a good sense of direction, but also point their

followers in the right way. Second, ethical leaders are rec-

ognized as moral managers creating moral codes and prin-

ciples for others. It is not enough for a leader to solely act as a

moral person with a strong sense of ethical awareness (Toor

and Ofori 2009), because in a leadership position, they are

expected to have managerial skills to direct employees’

attention on ethics and infuse the team/organization with

principles that guide ethical actions such as citizenship

behaviors (Treviño et al. 2000, 2003). Based on such argu-

ments, researchers suggested that the nature of ethical

leadership is essentially to formulate and advocate ethical

principles and concerns, and to develop moral and sustain-

able relationships between employees and the focal team/

organization (Brown et al. 2005).

Ethical Leadership and Employee OCB: The

Mediating Role of Supervisor’s and Employee’s

Organizational Concern

The concept of organizational concern primarily reflects a

desire by the individuals for the team/organization to do

well (Rioux and Penner 2001). It arises from the belief that

the welfare of the organization affects the welfare of the

individual (Halbesleben et al. 2010). Accordingly, it puts a

strong and direct emphasis on individuals’ proactive

motives toward the organization. Empirical results revealed

that employees with high organizational concern motives

are more likely to put the goals of the organization and

coworkers ahead of their own goals (Moon et al. 2008; Tan

and Tan 2008; Perrewe and Zellars 1999). Thus, people

who show concern for their teams/organizations have a

greater tendency to be involved in various citizenship

behaviors (Rioux and Penner 2001). As we will further

explain below, since employee OCB is emphasized as

proactive behaviors that are primarily motivated by

employees’ willingness to voluntarily contribute to the

organization (Lavelle 2010), organizational concern should

be one of the important mechanisms through which ethical

leadership manifests its effects on employee OCB.

Moreover, supervisor’s organizational concern was

conceptualized as an isomorphic construct to employee’s

organizational concern (c.f., Halbesleben et al. 2010).

Specifically, it essentially refers to the supervisor’s desire

to be helpful and cautious about future development of the

organization (Tan and Tan 2008; Halbesleben et al. 2010).

Supervisors with higher organizational concern motives are

more willing to take on extra work that is potentially

beneficial for the employees and the organization, regard-

less of individual benefits (Moon et al. 2008). As a

152 S. Mo, J. Shi

123

consequence, we argue that such leaders are influential in

directing employees’ proactive motives and behaviors.

Good Compass: Ethical Leadership Enhances Multilevel

Organizational Concern

Basically, leaders who are advanced ethical promoters

usually show greater organizational concern to the sus-

tainable development of the organization by morally bal-

ancing the benefits and values of various stakeholders

(Sama and Shoaf 2008; Groves and LaRocca 2011). They

always ask themselves what is the right thing to do for the

organization as well as for other stakeholders, such as the

employees when making decisions (Treviño et al. 2003;

Brown and Treviño 2006). In such processes, leaders

practicing ethical leadership may become more aware of

the moral compass—ethical values and motives in their

inner mind which tells them how they ought to behave for

the organization and employees.

An ethical leader as a moral person is important in

enhancing employees’ concerns toward the organization.

We believe this for a few reasons. First, social learning

theory suggests that individuals are influenced by observ-

ing role models and learn about appropriate behavior

vicariously through witnessing which actions attract

attention and which do not (Bandura 1977). Employees

observe and reproduce their supervisor’s ethical attitudes,

behaviors, and decisions in the day-to-day interactions

(McCann and Holt 2009; Neubert et al. 2009). Their

attention can be easily attracted by ethical leaders who put

a great emphasis on collective well being and the interests

of the organization (Brown et al. 2005). They learn about

what is acceptable or unacceptable by observing their

supervisors and regulate their own behaviors as a result.

Thus, through a social learning lens, employees’ attention

on collective goals may easily be focused by observing

supervisor’s attractive and credible moral actions (Sharif

and Scandura 2014). Second, employees tend to derive an

individual’s self-concept from perceived interpersonal

relationship, such as attitudes and behaviors that are

advocated in a relevant social group. In this perspective,

employees emulate supervisor’s ethical concern and

behaviors because they tend to obtain the common trait as a

member of the team/organization. Researchers demon-

strated that employees are more likely to put the organi-

zational and collective goals ahead if they have a

supervisor who makes ethics and collective success salient

in the team/organization (Mayer et al. 2012; Shin 2012).

Furthermore, according to OCB motives theory, Organ

and Ryan (1995) concluded that motives play an important

role in facilitating OCB because they affect individuals’

thoughts and feelings about a job and an organization.

Based on an empirical study with a sample of 250

American employees, Neubert and Roberts (2013) revealed

that ethical leadership positively leads to employees’ OCB

by influencing employees’ motivational orientation that

emphasizes achieving an organization’s desired end-states.

Therefore, we propose that supervisor’s organizational

concern and employee’s organizational concern positively

and sequentially mediate the impact of ethical leadership

on employee’s OCB. Following hypotheses are suggested

(as shown in Fig. 1):

H1 Supervisor’s organizational concern mediates the

positive relationship between ethical leadership and

employee’s organizational concern.

H2 There is a positive indirect effect of ethical leadership

on employee’s OCB via both supervisor’s and employee’s

organizational concern. Specifically, supervisor’s organi-

zational concern significantly mediates the positive rela-

tionship between ethical leadership and employee’s

organizational concern, while employee’s organizational

concern significantly mediates the positive relationship

between supervisor’s organizational concern and employ-

ee’s OCB.

Good Managerial Skills: Ethical Leadership Enhances

Procedural Justice

Brown and his colleagues (2005) argued that ethical lead-

ers define success not just by results but also by the way

that they are obtained. In the workplace, ethical leaders

usually show their concerns for creating and maintaining a

fair and just work environment. Meanwhile, employees

mainly develop their perceptions of organizational justice

through interactions with organizational agents, especially

the supervisors. Hence, at the individual level, an important

goal of supervisor’s ethical efforts is to enhance employ-

ees’ perceived procedural justice (Colquitt et al. 2001).

Thus, we propose that under the supervision of ethical

leaders, employees are more likely to treat team/organi-

zational decision procedures as fair and moral, and thereby

reciprocally contributing to the focal teams/organizations.

There are at least two reasons why ethical leadership

relates to employee’s citizenship behavior through per-

ceived procedural justice and concern for the organization.

First, the social exchange theory posits that interpersonal

exchange is guided by an expectation of reciprocal return

or behavior in kind (Blau 1964). When supervisors always

take care of employees’ rights, and make decisions in a fair

manner, employees may perceive high level organizational

support and procedural justice (Moorman et al. 1998). In

such situations, employees are more likely to reciprocate

the supervisor and the organization by putting collective

goals ahead. Accordingly, they tend to go beyond the call

Linking Ethical Leadership to Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Testing… 153

123

of duty (Bolino and Turnley 2003). Particularly for lower-

level employees, their emotional attachment and concerns

with the organization are mainly created through reciprocal

processes with their direct supervisor acting as an organi-

zational agent (Walumbwa et al. 2011). If the supervisor

adheres to ethical and fair values, people would want to

work for that company and would want to do well (Treviño

et al. 2000). Recent studies provided empirical evidence

that employees’ perceptions of procedural justice were

significantly influenced by the practice of ethical leader-

ship, which in turn led to employees’ extra-role actions

(Loi et al. 2012).

Second, ethical leaders define success not just by results

but also by the way that they are obtained (Brown et al.

2005). According to the counterfactual perspective,

employees under the supervision of an ethical leader are

more likely to shift attention from fairness ends to fairness

means (Folger and Kass 2000). Accordingly, employees

tend to get involved in team/organizational activities when

they believe their supervisor always adheres to fair pro-

cedural criteria and welcome organization-concern voice

during a decision-making process (Colquitt et al. 2001).

With a sample of 190 supervisor-employee dyads, Resick

et al. (2013) study indicated that employees tend to judge

the managerial processes as morally fair when they are

under the supervision of an ethical leader.

Therefore, the organizational concern view proposes

that employees engage in OCB because organizations have

looked after them by fair treatment, inspirational work, and

so on (Organ, 1990; Organ and Ryan 1995). Employees are

more likely to put the organizational and collective goals

ahead if they work in a fair and supportive work place

(Robinson and Morrison 1995; Walumbwa et al. 2010).

For these reasons, we expect that procedural justice and

employee’s organizational concern positively and sequen-

tially mediate the impact of ethical leadership on

employee’s OCB. We propose the hypotheses as follows

(as shown in Fig. 1):

H3 Procedural justice mediates the positive relationship

between ethical leadership and employee’s organizational

concern.

H4 There is a positive indirect effect of ethical leadership

on employee’s OCB via both procedural justice and

employee’s organizational concern. Specifically, procedu-

ral justice significantly mediates the positive relationship

between ethical leadership and employee’s organizational

concern, while employee’s organizational concern signifi-

cantly mediates the positive relationship between proce-

dural justice and employee’s OCB.

Methods

Sample and Procedures

Data in the present study were collected from employees in

a pharmacy retail chain company located in South China.

Questionnaires were distributed to 580 employees who

work in the chain stores of this pharmacy company. There

was one supervisor for each store (team). In the stores,

employees interacted with each other in everyday tasks. At

the very beginning, employees were informed that all their

individual responses would be used only for academic

purpose, and they were requested to complete the ques-

tionnaires during work time.

The final sample size comprises 93 teams (93 supervi-

sors and 486 individual employees), where the response

rate is 84.0 %. Average team size was 5.23 members. The

average age of the employees was 31.17 years

(SD = 7.14). Among them, 341 were female (70.2 %).

Average tenure was 9.23 years (SD = 8.21). Respectively,

the average age of the supervisors was 39.72 years

(SD = 7.10). Sixty-five of them were female (69.9 %).

And the average tenure of the supervisors was 17.86 years

(SD = 8.40).

Ethical
leadership

Organizational
concern

(Supervisor)

Procedural
justice

Organizational
concern

(Employee)

Organizational
citizenship

behavior (OCB)

Team level

Individual level

H1/H2

H2H3/H4

H4

H1/H2

H3/H4

Fig. 1 Theoretical model

154 S. Mo, J. Shi

123

Data were collected at two time points with 2 months in

between to warrant sufficient time lag to separate the

measurement of predictors and mediators from the out-

come variables. Specifically, at Time 1, employees were

required to report their demographic information, such as

age, gender, and work tenure, as well as their perception of

procedural justice, while supervisors completed a ques-

tionnaire regarding their demographic information and

self-evaluation of ethical leadership. At Time 2, employees

reported their levels of organizational concern and OCB,

while supervisors were asked to rate their own concern for

the organization. All surveys were translated from English

to Chinese, using Brislin’s (1980) recommended transla-

tion-back translation procedure.

Measures

Well-established scales were employed to measure the

constructs of this study, which are summarized as follows.

Ethical Leadership

We assessed ethical leadership using Brown et al.’s (2005)

unidimensional 10-item ethical leadership scale (ELS).

Respondents were asked to evaluate their own ethical

leadership by answering statements such as ‘‘I make fair and

balanced decisions’’ and ‘‘I set an example of how to do

things the right way in terms of ethics.’’ A five-point Likert

response format (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly

agree) was used. The Cronbach’s alpha was .86.

Supervisor’s and Employee’s Organizational Concern

Supervisor’s and employee’s organizational concerns were

both measured by the 10-item scale developed by Rioux

and Penner (2001). Respondents rated their concerns for

the organization using a six-point Likert response format

(1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Typical items

in the scale were ‘‘I care what happens to the company.’’

and ‘‘I want to be fully involved in the company.’’ The

Cronbach’s alpha was .86 for the employee’s organiza-

tional concern, and .95 for the supervisor’s organizational

concern.

Procedural Justice

The scale of perceived procedural justice in

Colquitt et al.’s (2001) organizational justice scale was

used in this study. Seven items were included in the scale,

such as ‘‘I was able to express my views and feelings

during those procedures’’ and ‘‘I was able to appeal the

outcomes arrived at by those procedures.’’ A five-point

Likert response format (1 = strongly disagree;

5 = strongly agree) was used. The Cronbach’s alpha was

.94 for the perceived procedural justice.

OCB

We measured employee’s OCB using a 30-item scale

developed in Podsakoff et al. (1990). Sampling items are ‘‘I

have willingly helped others who have work-related

problems’’ and ‘‘I have helped orient new people even

though it is not required.’’ In the current study, we mainly

focused on employee’s overall OCB. Thus, in line with

prior practice, such as Chen et al. (2007) measure of

empowerment, we evaluated the overall OCB score. We

also applied a five-point Likert response format

(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The Cron-

bach’s alpha for OCB was .86.

Control Variables

Employee gender and age were included as control vari-

ables in our hypotheses testing because previous research

noted that these demographic variables are influential to the

dependent variable, employee OCB (Laczniak and Inder-

rieden 1987; Pearce and Herbik 2004). Employee tenure

was not included as a control variable because it was highly

correlated with age (r = .90, p .01). Besides, we also

controlled for team level variable team size in this research.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine

whether employees’ scores on their self-report measures

(i.e., procedural justice, organizational concern, and OCB)

captured distinctive constructs. Following previous

research (Chen et al. 2007), scores on the five dimensions

of OCB were used as indicators for the latent variables.

The hypothesized three-factor model was specified by

loading indicators on their respective latent variables, and

the correlations among latent variables were freely esti-

mated. Results showed that the three-factor model fits the

data, v2(206, N = 253) = 491.17, comparative fit index

(CFI) = .91, standardized root-mean-square residual

(SRMR) = .06, and root-mean-square error of approxi-

mation (RMSEA) = .07. Indicators all significantly loaded

on their respective latent factors. Considering that the item

contents in the measures of organizational concern and

OCB were similar, an alternative two-factor model was

specified by constraining the variances of and covariance

between organizational concern and OCB factors to be

equal (thereby their correlation equaled 1), and constrain-

ing the covariances between these two factors and proce-

dural justice to be equal. This two-factor model fits the data

Linking Ethical Leadership to Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Testing… 155

123

significantly worse than the three-factor model, Dv2(2,

N = 253) = 458.45, p .01. Therefore, measures repor-

ted by employees captured distinctive constructs.

Analytic Strategy

In the present study, all the hypotheses were proposed as

multilevel mediation effects. Accordingly, the present data

contained a hierarchical structure in which responses of

employee-level variables were nested within teams. As a

result, multilevel modeling was performed to simultane-

ously estimate the hypothesized multilevel relationships

using Mplus 5.2 software (Muthen and Muthen 2007).

Specifically, gender and age were level 1 variables, while

ethical leadership, supervisor’s organizational concern, and

team size were level 2 variables. All the mediators and

dependent variables (i.e., procedural justice, employee’s

organizational concern and employee OCB) had variances

at both level 1 and level 2. In addition, the Monte Carlo

method recommended by Preacher et al. (2010) was used to

estimate confidence intervals for the hypothesized multi-

level mediation effects to determine their significance.1

Results

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations

among studied variables are shown in Table 1. At the

individual level, perceived procedural justice was posi-

tively correlated with employee’s organizational concern

(r = .16, p .01) and employee OCB (r = .12, p .05).

Employee’s organizational concern was positively corre-

lated with employee OCB (r = .27, p .01). At the team

level, ethical leadership was positively correlated to

supervisor’s organizational concern (r = .27, p .05).

Model Estimation

To estimate the hypothesized model (Fig. 1), we specified

the relationship slopes at the individual level to be random,

i.e., perceived procedural justice—employee’s organiza-

tional concern, perceived procedural justice—employee

OCB, and employee’s organizational concern—employee

OCB. We included gender and age as control variables

with fixed effects on employee’s organizational concern

and OCB. We also controlled the effect of team size on

supervisor’s organizational concern, employee’s organiza-

tional concern and OCB. At the team level, we specified

the relationship between ethical leadership and supervi-

sor’s organizational concern, and cross-level direct impacts

of ethical leadership on perceived procedural justice,

employee’s organizational concern and employee OCB, as

well as impacts of supervisor’s organizational concern on

employee’s organizational concern and employee OCB.

To facilitate the interpretation of the research model,

individual level gender and age were group mean centered,

and team size and ethical leadership were grand mean

centered. Results showed that all of the hypothesized

relationships were well supported, as shown in Fig. 2 and

Table 2.

We used Snijders and Bosker’s (1999) formulas to cal-

culate pseudo-R2(*R2), reflecting the proportional reduc-

tion of individual level and team level errors due to

including predictors in the model. Predictors accounted for

9 % of the total variance in employee OCB, suggesting that

team level variables such that ethical leadership, supervi-

sor’s organizational concern, and individual level variables

such that procedural justice and employee’s organizational

concern can explain sizable portions of the variations in the

outcome variable-employee OCB.

Hypotheses testing

Hypothesis 1

Supervisor’s organizational concern was hypothesized to

mediate the effect of ethical leadership on employee’s

organizational concern. Figure 2 shows that ethical lead-

ership was positively related to supervisor’s organizational

concern (r = .96, p .01), and supervisor’s organizational

concern was also positively related to employee’s organi-

zational concern (r = .32, p .01). We used a parametric

bootstrap procedure (c.f. Preacher et al. 2010) to estimate

the hypothesized cross-level indirect relationship. With

20,000 Monte Carlo replications, results showed that there

was a positive indirect relationship between ethical lead-

ership and employee’s organizational concern via super-

visor’s organizational concern (indirect effect = .31, 95 %

bias-corrected bootstrap CI [.070, .591]). Hence, Hypoth-

esis 1 was well supported.

Hypothesis 2

Supervisor’s organizational concern and employee’s orga-

nizational concern were hypothesized to sequentially

mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and

employee’s OCB. The significant relationships between

ethical leadership and supervisor’s organizational concern,

supervisor’s organizational concern and employee’s orga-

nizational concern have been examined above. Figure 2

also shows the positive relationship between employee’s

organizational concern and OCB (r = .08, p .01). Fur-

thermore, with 20,000 Monte Carlo replications, the

1 More information about the R program could be found at http://

www.quantpsy.org.

156 S. Mo, J. Shi

123

indirect effect for ethical leadership ! supervisor’s orga-

nizational concern ! employee’s organizational concern

! OCB was .02, with a 95 % CI of [.003, .060]. The point

estimate here seems small; however, as noted by Preacher

and Kelley (2011), the estimates of indirect effects are

bounded by the range of possible values of regression

weight of each link in the mediation. Thus, the indirect

effect is still meaningful and important for supporting

Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3

Procedural justice was hypothesized to mediate the effect

of ethical leadership on employee’s organizational concern

in Hypothesis 3. Figure 2 shows that ethical leadership was

positively related to procedural justice (r = .23, p .01),

and procedural justice was also positively related to

employee’s organizational concern (r = .33, p .01).

With 20,000 Monte Carlo replications, we found a positive

indirect relationship between ethical leadership and

employee’s organizational concern via procedural justice

(indirect effect = .08, 95 % bias-corrected bootstrap CI

[.012, .162]). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Hypothesis 4

Procedural justice and employee’s organizational concern

were hypothesized to sequentially mediate the relationship

between ethical leadership and employee’s OCB. The

significant relationships between ethical leadership and

procedural justice, procedural justice, and employee’s

organizational concern have been mentioned above in

testing Hypothesis 3. Again from Fig. 2, we found the

positive relationship between employee’s organizational

concern and OCB (r = .08, p .01). With 20,000 Monte

Carlo replications, the indirect effect for ethical leadership

! procedural justice ! organizational concern ! OCB

was .01, with a 95 % CI of [.001, .016]. Thus, the indirect

effect (Hypothesis 4) was supported.

Discussion

There is increasing recognition of the importance of ethical

leadership in enhancing employee proactive behaviors, such

as organizational citizenship behavior (Neubert and Roberts

2013). However, people have limited understanding about

the psychological mechanisms by which ethical leadership

links to employees’ proactive behavior (Walumbwa et al.

2011; Mayer et al. 2012). In this study, we explicate a

multilevel model including two psychological mechanisms

through which ethical leadership enhances employee OCB.

We now illustrate the theoretical and practical implications

of this study.

Theoretical Contributions

Our study has several theoretical contributions for the

study of ethical leadership, ethical motives, and ethical

Ethical
leadership

Organizational
concern

(Supervisor)

Procedural
justice

Organizational
concern

(Employee)

Organizational
citizenship

behavior (OCB)

Team level

Individual level.32**

.96**

.23**

.33** .08**

-.30

.04

.05

.08**

Fig. 2 Path coefficients from the selected model. Note For the reason

of brevity, we did not present the effects of gender and age on

employee’s organizational concern and OCB, and the effects of team

size on supervisor’s organizational concern and employee’s organi-

zational concern and OCB. **p .01

Linking Ethical Leadership to Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Testing… 157

123

behavior. First, focusing on the impact of individuals’

motives towards the organization, we demonstrated the

psychological mechanisms that link ethical leadership to

employee OCB. In line with Treviño et al. (2000) argument

that ethical leadership has two essential pillars—moral

person and moral manager, two underlying mechanisms

were suggested in the present study. First, the relationship

between ethical leadership and employee OCB was

sequentially mediated by supervisor’s organizational con-

cern and employee’s organizational concern. In a social

learning perspective, these results demonstrated that

employees would learn from their supervisor who is per-

ceived as a moral person. Secondly, supervisor’s ethical

leadership was also positively related to employee OCB via

the mediation of employee’s perceived procedural justice

and organizational concern. These results reflected a social

exchange mechanism that employees tend to reciprocate to

their supervisor (a moral manager) and the focal organi-

zation by voluntarily putting collective goals ahead and

then proactively engaging in citizenship activities. Alto-

gether, the present study not only offers a constructive

replication of prior findings (e.g., Mayer et al. 2009; Zhang

et al. 2013) but contributes to the ethical leadership and

OCB literature by demonstrating the important role of

individuals’ proactive motives toward the organization.

Second, the research of ethical leadership and OCB was

well integrated within a cross-level framework in the current

study. Answering prior calls for understanding the influence of

ethical leadership from a multilevel perspective (Kalshoven

et al. 2011; Schaubroeck et al. 2012), we demonstrated the key

psychological factors that can significantly mediate the posi-

tive effect of ethical leadership on employee OCB across

levels. As we know, previous research was mainly focusing on

either how ethical leadership influences team climate/culture

and collective performance at the team level or how

employees’ perception of ethical leadership leads to individ-

ual OCB at the individual level (Brown and Treviño 2006). In

this study, we demonstrated the cross-level effects of ethical

leadership on employee’s perceived procedural justice, and

supervisor’s organizational concern and employee’s organi-

zational concern. These findings help us to answer the key

research question that why employees proactively engage in

OCB under the supervision of ethical leaders.

Managerial Implications

This study also has a number of practical implications. The

first contribution is in substantiating the value of ethical

leadership in enhancing employee OCB. According to the

results of this study, we advocate that it is critical for

organizations to identify, select, and promote people who

always present ethical values and commitments to become

leaders in the organizations. An ethical leader can direct

employees to engage in proactive activities by answering

questions such as ‘‘what are the appropriate and preferred

values and actions for achieving the goals of the

organization.’’

Second, our research suggests that finding ways to

activate or enhance supervisors’ and employees’ concerns

for the organizations would be one way to enhance

employee OCB. Supervisors should pay more attention to

the role modeling effect in the leader-member interaction

processes. For the companies, it is recommended to invest

ethics training programs for existing leaders to develop

ethical leadership and moral connection with the organi-

zations. Meanwhile, for those leaders, it is also suggested

that they should make an effort to improve their followers’

understanding of organizational goals and values through

appropriate communication and modeling behaviors.

Third, we suggest that creating a fair and just work

environment is another important task for leaders who tend

to manage employees in an ethical way. Employees are

more willing to contribute to focal organizations when

leaders establish and nurture work relationships based on

fairness and justice (Neubert and Roberts 2013). Thus,

organizations should encourage leaders at different levels

to frequently reflect on the nature of decisions and man-

agerial processes, whether fair or not.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

Directions

This research has a number of strengths. First, while past

research has generally focused on either individual level or

team level mechanism of ethical leadership, we examine

the relationship between ethical leadership and employee

OCB with a multilevel design. Second, data were collected

from multiple sources at different time points, which

reduce potential common method biases (Podsakoff et al.

2012). Third, the proposed research model was estimated

following a general path-analytic framework such that all

the hypothesized relationships were examined at the same

time (Preacher et al. 2010). As a result, the problems in

piecemeal and causal step approaches for testing mediation

(Bauer et al. 2006) were significantly alleviated in the

present research.

Despite these strengths, several limitations of this

research remain. One limitation is that although we pri-

marily draw on social learning and social exchange theory

to link ethical leadership to employees’ motives and

behaviors, we did not directly measure variables regarding

role modeling or leader-member exchange (LMX).

Although including such variables may have made our

theoretical model cumbersome, we see the value of taking

them into consideration to learn more about the potential

influence mechanism of ethical leadership. Furthermore, it

158 S. Mo, J. Shi

123

is also valuable to conduct future research to further

explore other underlying mechanisms, such as organiza-

tional commitment that link supervisor’s organizational

concern to employee OCB, in addition to the mediating

role of employee’s organizational concern.

Another weakness of this study is that the employee’s

organizational concern and the dependent variable OCB

were measured from the same source at the same time.

Although we are not allowed to measure these two variables

at different times due to the logistic constraints, we examined

the factor structure of the measures and confirmed the dis-

tinction between these two constructs. Nevertheless, it is

valuable for future research to verify our empirical results

with a more rigorous research design. For example,

employee’s OCB could be evaluated by the supervisor or

coworkers (Piccolo et al. 2010). Moreover, someone’s moral

compass may make it more likely for someone to practice

ethical leadership. Thus, we suggest that longitudinal

research design should be applied in future studies for a

better understanding of the casual relationships in our model.

A third limitation is that in our present research, ethical

leadership was still conceptualized and operationalized as a

unidimensional concept proposed by Brown et al. (2005).

Recent work suggested the usefulness of examining several

distinct dimensions of ethical leadership and their different

effects on individual and organizational outcomes (e.g., De

Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Kalshoven et al. 2011). For

example, integrity and fairness are more likely to induce

employees’ perception of trust and justice, while power

sharing and fairness may lead to individual and collective

OCB behaviors (Kalshoven et al. 2011). Additionally,

ethical leadership was only reported by supervisors them-

selves in this study. It will be valuable to also measure

these leadership behaviors from the viewpoints of

employees. Hence, we encourage future research to adopt a

multisource approach in investigating the extent to which

ethical leadership behaviors explain variance in employ-

ees’ OCBs.

Finally, all the research samples were collected in South

China, which may lead to a limitation that these results

were obtained in a less generalizable context. This is

because in China, the populations may have more of a

collectivist view and thus may be more inclined to do

OCBs (Mo et al. 2012). Besides, leaders may not be

challenged as much, so role modeling could occur more in

the Chinese context. Therefore, for future research, it will

be highly recommended to explore the cross-cultural

implications of the current study.

Conclusion

The current study sheds light on an important domain of

the psychological mechanisms that link ethical leadership

to employee OCB from a multilevel perspective. In line

with two essential pillars of ethical leadership—moral

person and moral manager, results showed that ethical

leadership may enhance employee OCB through two

mechanisms. First, from a social learning perspective,

employees emulate their supervisor’s ethical modeling to

care about their organizations, captured by supervisor’s and

employee’s organizational concern. Second, from a social

exchange perspective, ethical leadership enhances

employee’s citizenship behavior through improvement of

employee’s perceived procedural justice and organizational

concern.

Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by Grant

No. 71302102 awarded to Shenjiang Mo and Grant No. 71425004

awarded to Junqi Shi from the Natural Social Science Foundation of

China, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universi-

ties and Grant No. NCET-13-0611 awarded to Junqi Shi from the

Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University.

Appendix

See Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among studied variables

Variables M Ind. SD Team SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Individual level

1 Gender .71 .46 –

2 Age 31.17 7.14 -.02 –

3 Tenure 9.23 8.21 .02 .90** –

4 Procedural justice 3.61 .65 -.01 .09* .08 (.94)

5 Org. concern (E) 3.79 1.22 -.03 -.01 .03 .16** (.86)

6 Employee OCB 4.26 .53 .07 .06 .08 .12* .27** (.86)

Team level

7 Team size 5.24 1.08 – .13 -.21

8 Ethical leadership 4.35 .39 (.86) .27*

Linking Ethical Leadership to Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Testing… 159

123

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing

and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in

multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations.

Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.

11.2.142.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Boehm, S. A., & Dwertmann, D. G. (2015). Forging a single-edged

sword: Facilitating positive age and disability diversity effects in

the workplace through leadership, positive climates, and HR

practices. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1(1), 41–63. doi:10.

1093/workar/wau008.

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Going the extra mile:

Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior.

Academy of Management Executive, 17, 60–82. doi:10.5465/

AME.2003.10954754.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and

written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),

Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 398–444). Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brown, M. E. (2007). Misconceptions of ethical leadership: How to

avoid potential pitfalls. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 140–155.

doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.03.003.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review

and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical

leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-

ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 97, 117–134. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007).

A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and perfor-

mance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. G., Wesson, M. J., Porter, K. O. L. H., & Ng,

K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of

25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 425–445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and

despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsi-

bility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’

optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19,

297–311. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002.

Folger, R., & Kass, E. E. (2000). Social comparison and fairness: A

counterfactual simulations perspective. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler

(Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research

(pp. 423–441)., The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of leader

ethical values, transformational and transactional leadership, and

follower attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. Journal

of Business Ethics, 103, 511–528. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-

0877-y.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Bowler, W. M., Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W.

H. (2010). Organizational concern, prosocial values, or impres-

sion management? How supervisors attribute motives to orga-

nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 40, 1450–1489. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.

00625.x.

Jordan, J., Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Finkelstein, S. (2013).

Someone to look up to: Executive–follower ethical reasoning

and perceptions of ethical leadership. Journal of Management,

39, 660–684. doi:10.1177/0149206311398136.

Table 2 Unstandardized coefficients of the multilevel model for testing cross-level mediations

Path Estimate SE t p

Procedural justice ? employee’s organizational concern .33 .09 3.47 .01

Employee’s organizational concern ? OCB .08 .03 2.73 .01

Procedural justice ? OCB .05 .03 1.68 [.05

Ethical leadership ? procedural justice .23 .09 2.59 .01

Ethical leadership ? supervisor’s organizational concern .96 .37 2.61 .01

Ethical leadership ? employee’s organizational concern -.30 .17 -1.76 [.05

Ethical leadership ? OCB .04 .09 .46 [.05

Supervisor’s organizational concern ? employee’s organizational concern .32 .06 5.42 .01

Supervisor’s organizational concern ? OCB .08 .03 2.94 .01

N = 486 for individual level variables, and N = 93 for team level variables

Table 1 continued

Variables M Ind. SD Team SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9 Org. concern (S) 3.94 1.27 (.95)

N = 486 for individual level variables, and N = 93 for team level variables. Gender was coded as 0 for male and 1 for female. Internal

consistency coefficients, Cronbach’s alphas are reported in the parentheses on the diagonal. Individual level correlations are below the diagonal,

and team level correlations are above the diagonal. Org. concern (E) = Employee’s organizational concern; Org. concern (S) = Supervisor’s

organizational concern

* p .05; ** p .01

160 S. Mo, J. Shi

123

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).

Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development

and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22, 51–69. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.007.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B.

(2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower

reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-

cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52,

744–764. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669971.

Laczniak, G. R., & Inderrieden, E. J. (1987). The influence of stated

organizational concern upon ethical decision making. Journal of

Business Ethics, 6, 297–307. doi:10.1007/BF00382939.

Lavelle, J. J. (2010). What motivates OCB? Insights from the

volunteerism literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31,

918–923. doi:10.1002/job.644.

Loi, R., Lam, L. W., & Chan, K. W. (2012). Coping with job

insecurity: The role of procedural justice, ethical leadership and

power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 108,

361–372. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1095-3.

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012).

Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An

examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leader-

ship. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151–171. doi:10.

5465/amj.2008.0276.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,

R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a

trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 108, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.

002.

McCann, J., & Holt, R. (2009). Ethical leadership and organizations:

An analysis of leadership in the manufacturing industry based on

the perceived leadership integrity scale. Journal of Business

Ethics, 87, 211–220. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9880-3.

Mo, S. J., Wang, Z. M., Akrivou, K., & Booth, S. (2012). Look up,

look around: Is there anything different about team-level OCB in

China? Journal of Management & Organization, 18, 833–844.

Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D. M., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Me or

we? The role of personality and justice as other-centered

antecedents to innovative citizenship behaviors within organi-

zations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 84–94. doi:10.1037/

0021-9010.93.1.84.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does

perceived organizational support mediate the relationship

between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behav-

ior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357. doi:10.

2307/256913.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.).

Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., &

Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical

leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of

Business Ethics, 90, 157–170. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0037-9.

Neubert, M. J., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical

leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 23, 269–296. doi:10.5840/beq201323217.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational

citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),

Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of

attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizen-

ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. doi:10.1111/

j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x.

Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the

team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership, team

commitment, perceived team support, and team size. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 293–310. doi:10.3200/

SOCP.144.3.293-310.

Perrewe, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of

attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the

organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behav-

ior, 20, 739–752. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379.

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R.

(2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job

characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31,

259–278. doi:10.1002/job.627.

Podsakoff, P., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organiza-

tional citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work

team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and

recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of

Psychology, 65, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-

100452.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on

followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review

of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for

future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. doi:10.

1177/014920630002600307.

Preacher, K. J., & Kelly, K. (2011). Effect size measures for

mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating

indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115. doi:10.

1037/a0022658.

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general

multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation.

Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233. doi:10.1037/a0020141.

Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical

leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace

behavior. Human Relations, 66, 951–972. doi:10.1007/s10551-

013-1869-x.

Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The cause of organizational

citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(6), 1306–1314. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.6.

1306.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts

and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue

behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289–298.

doi:10.1002/job.4030160309.

Sama, L. M., & Shoaf, V. (2008). Ethical leadership for the

professions: Fostering a moral community. Journal of Business

Ethics, 78, 39–46. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9309-9.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. J.,

Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., et al. (2012). Embedding ethical

leadership within and across organizational levels. Academy of

Management Journal, 55, 1053–1078. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.

0064.

Sharif, M. M., & Scandura, T. A. (2014). Do perceptions of ethical

conduct matter during organizational change? Ethical leadership

and employee involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124,

185–196. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1869-x.

Shin, Y. Y. (2012). CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate

strength, and collective organizational citizenship behavior.

Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 299–312. doi:10.1007/s10551-

011-1091-7.

Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior

and social loafing: The role of personality, motives, and

Linking Ethical Leadership to Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Testing… 161

123

contextual factors. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 89–108.

doi:10.3200/JRLP.142.1.89-112.

Toor, S. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the

relationships with full range leadership model, employee

outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business

Ethics, 90, 533–547. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0059-3.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative

investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Percep-

tions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human

Relations, 56, 5–37. doi:10.1177/0018726703056001448.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person

and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for

ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142.

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant

leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee

attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level

investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517–529.

doi:10.1037/a0018867.

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K.,

& Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to

employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange,

self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 204–213. doi:10.

1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002.

Zhang, X. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2013).

Ethical leadership, employee citizenship and work withdrawal

behaviors: Examining mediating and moderating processes. The

Leadership Quarterly., 24, 284–297. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.

11.008.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., & Suarez-Acosta, M. (2013). Employ-

ees’ reactions to peers’ unfair treatment by supervisors: The role

of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/

s10551-013-1778-z.

162 S. Mo, J. Shi

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 1/20

3.3 Individual Differences: Values and Personality

L EA R N I N G O B J EC T I V E S

1. Understand what values are.

2. Describe the link between values and individual behavior.

3. Iden�fy the major personality traits that are relevant to organiza�onal behavior.

4. Explain the link between personality, work behavior, and work a�tudes.

5. Explain the poten�al pi�alls of personality tes�ng.

Values

Values refer to stable life goals that people have, reflecting what is most important to them. Values

are established throughout one’s life as a result of the accumulating life experiences and tend to be

relatively stable.Lusk, E. J., & Oliver, B. L. (1974). Research Notes. American manager’s personal

value systems-revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 17(3), 549–554; Rokeach, M. (1973). The

nature of human values. New York: Free Press. The values that are important to people tend to affect

the types of decisions they make, how they perceive their environment, and their actual behaviors.

Moreover, people are more likely to accept job offers when the company possesses the values people

care about.Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 77, 261–271; Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on

perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 72, 666–673. Value attainment is one reason why people stay in a company, and when an

organization does not help them attain their values, they are more likely to decide to leave if they are

dissatisfied with the job itself.George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and

turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 318–325.

What are the values people care about? There are many typologies of values. One of the most

established surveys to assess individual values is the Rokeach Value Survey.Rokeach, M. (1973). The

nature of human values. New York: The Free Press. This survey lists 18 terminal and 18 instrumental

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 2/20

values in alphabetical order. Terminal values refer to end states people desire in life, such as

leading a prosperous life and a world at peace. Instrumental values deal with views on acceptable

modes of conduct, such as being honest and ethical, and being ambitious.

According to Rokeach, values are arranged in hierarchical fashion. In other words, an accurate way of

assessing someone’s values is to ask them to rank the 36 values in order of importance. By comparing

these values, people develop a sense of which value can be sacrificed to achieve the other, and the

individual priority of each value emerges.

Figure 3.2 Sample Items From Rokeach (1973) Value Survey

Where do values come from? Research indicates that they are shaped early in life and show stability

over the course of a lifetime. Early family experiences are important influences over the dominant

values. People who were raised in families with low socioeconomic status and those who experienced

restrictive parenting often display conformity values when they are adults, while those who were

raised by parents who were cold toward their children would likely value and desire security.Kasser,

T., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2002). Early family experiences and adult values: A 26-year prospective

longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 826–835.

Values of a generation also change and evolve in response to the historical context that the generation

grows up in. Research comparing the values of different generations resulted in interesting findings.

For example, Generation Xers (those born between the mid-1960s and 1980s) are more

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 3/20

individualistic and are interested in working toward organizational goals so long as they coincide with

their personal goals. This group, compared to the baby boomers (born between the 1940s and 1960s),

is also less likely to see work as central to their life and more likely to desire a quick promotion.Smola,

K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the

new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.

The values a person holds will affect his or her employment. For example, someone who has an

orientation toward strong stimulation may pursue extreme sports and select an occupation that

involves fast action and high risk, such as fire fighter, police officer, or emergency medical doctor.

Someone who has a drive for achievement may more readily act as an entrepreneur. Moreover,

whether individuals will be satisfied at a given job may depend on whether the job provides a way to

satisfy their dominant values. Therefore, understanding employees at work requires understanding

the value orientations of employees.

Personality

Personality encompasses the relatively stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns a person

has. Our personality differentiates us from other people, and understanding someone’s personality

gives us clues about how that person is likely to act and feel in a variety of situations. In order to

effectively manage organizational behavior, an understanding of different employees’ personalities is

helpful. Having this knowledge is also useful for placing people in jobs and organizations.

If personality is stable, does this mean that it does not change? You probably remember how you have

changed and evolved as a result of your own life experiences, attention you received in early

childhood, the style of parenting you were exposed to, successes and failures you had in high school,

and other life events. In fact, our personality changes over long periods of time. For example, we tend

to become more socially dominant, more conscientious (organized and dependable), and more

emotionally stable between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas openness to new experiences may begin to

decline during this same time.Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of

mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.

Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. In other words, even though we treat personality as relatively

stable, changes occur. Moreover, even in childhood, our personality shapes who we are and has

lasting consequences for us. For example, studies show that part of our career success and job

satisfaction later in life can be explained by our childhood personality.Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A.

(1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span.

Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652; Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 4/20

dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 31, 56–77.

Is our behavior in organizations dependent on our personality? To some extent, yes, and to some

extent, no. While we will discuss the effects of personality for employee behavior, you must remember

that the relationships we describe are modest correlations. For example, having a sociable and

outgoing personality may encourage people to seek friends and prefer social situations. This does not

mean that their personality will immediately affect their work behavior. At work, we have a job to do

and a role to perform. Therefore, our behavior may be more strongly affected by what is expected of

us, as opposed to how we want to behave. When people have a lot of freedom at work, their

personality will become a stronger influence over their behavior.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K.

(1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions

and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.

Big Five Personality Traits

How many personality traits are there? How do we even know? In every language, there are many

words describing a person’s personality. In fact, in the English language, more than 15,000 words

describing personality have been identified. When researchers analyzed the terms describing

personality characteristics, they realized that there were many words that were pointing to each

dimension of personality. When these words were grouped, five dimensions seemed to emerge that

explain a lot of the variation in our personalities.Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of

personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1216–

1229. Keep in mind that these five are not necessarily the only traits out there. There are other,

specific traits that represent dimensions not captured by the Big Five. Still, understanding the main

five traits gives us a good start for describing personality. A summary of the Big Five traits is

presented in Figure 3.4 “Big Five Personality Traits”.

Figure 3.4 Big Five Personality Traits

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 5/20

Openness is the degree to which a person is curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new

ideas. People high in openness seem to thrive in situations that require being flexible and learning

new things. They are highly motivated to learn new skills, and they do well in training

settings.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26; Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer,

E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting cross-cultural training performance: The validity of personality,

cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description

interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 476–489. They also have an advantage when they

enter into a new organization. Their open-mindedness leads them to seek a lot of information and

feedback about how they are doing and to build relationships, which leads to quicker adjustment to

the new job.Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of

proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373–385. When

supported, they tend to be creative.Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation

between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to

experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963–970. Open people are

highly adaptable to change, and teams that experience unforeseen changes in their tasks do well if

they are populated with people high in openness.LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and

postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and

personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27–39. Compared to people low in openness, they

are also more likely to start their own business.Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 6/20

personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 259–271.

Conscientiousness refers to the degree to which a person is organized, systematic, punctual,

achievement oriented, and dependable. Conscientiousness is the one personality trait that uniformly

predicts how high a person’s performance will be, across a variety of occupations and jobs.Barrick, M.

R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. In fact, conscientiousness is the trait most desired by

recruiters and results in the most success in interviews.Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., &

Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’

judgments of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 500–509; Tay, C., Ang, S.,

& Van Dyne, L. (2006). Personality, biographical characteristics, and job interview success: A

longitudinal study of the mediating effects of interviewing self-efficacy and the moderating effects of

internal locus of control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 446–454. This is not a surprise, because

in addition to their high performance, conscientious people have higher levels of motivation to

perform, lower levels of turnover, lower levels of absenteeism, and higher levels of safety performance

at work.Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807; Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., &

Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82, 745–755; Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality,

climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 529–557; Zimmerman, R. D.

(2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-

analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348. One’s conscientiousness is related to career

success and being satisfied with one’s career over time.Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). The Big

Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel

Psychology, 52, 621–652. Finally, it seems that conscientiousness is a good trait to have for

entrepreneurs. Highly conscientious people are more likely to start their own business compared to

those who are not conscientious, and their firms have longer survival rates.Certo, S. T., & Certo, S. C.

(2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 48, 271–274; Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E.

(2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259–271.

Extraversion is the degree to which a person is outgoing, talkative, and sociable, and enjoys being in

social situations. One of the established findings is that they tend to be effective in jobs involving

sales.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 7/20

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26; Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S.,

Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for

salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586–597. Moreover, they tend to be effective as

managers and they demonstrate inspirational leadership behaviors.Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden,

R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-

member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 298–310; Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910. Extraverts

do well in social situations, and as a result they tend to be effective in job interviews. Part of their

success comes from how they prepare for the job interview, as they are likely to use their social

network.Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and

success in screening interviews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 119–136; Tay, C., Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L.

(2006). Personality, biographical characteristics, and job interview success: A longitudinal study of

the mediating effects of interviewing self-efficacy and the moderating effects of internal locus of

control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 446–454. Extraverts have an easier time than introverts

when adjusting to a new job. They actively seek information and feedback, and build effective

relationships, which helps with their adjustment.Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000).

Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology,

85, 373–385. Interestingly, extraverts are also found to be happier at work, which may be because of

the relationships they build with the people around them and their relative ease in adjusting to a new

job.Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job

satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541. However, they do not

necessarily perform well in all jobs, and jobs depriving them of social interaction may be a poor fit.

Moreover, they are not necessarily model employees. For example, they tend to have higher levels of

absenteeism at work, potentially because they may miss work to hang out with or attend to the needs

of their friends.Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of

personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745–755.

Agreeableness is the degree to which a person is nice, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind, and warm.

In other words, people who are high in agreeableness are likeable people who get along with others.

Not surprisingly, agreeable people help others at work consistently, and this helping behavior is not

dependent on being in a good mood.Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive

effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior.

Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561–575. They are also less likely to retaliate when other

people treat them unfairly.Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 8/20

in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108.

This may reflect their ability to show empathy and give people the benefit of the doubt. Agreeable

people may be a valuable addition to their teams and may be effective leaders because they create a

fair environment when they are in leadership positions.Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., &

Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and

employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929–963. At the other end of the

spectrum, people low in agreeableness are less likely to show these positive behaviors. Moreover,

people who are not agreeable are shown to quit their jobs unexpectedly, perhaps in response to a

conflict they engage with a boss or a peer.Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of

personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel

Psychology, 61, 309–348. If agreeable people are so nice, does this mean that we should only look for

agreeable people when hiring? Some jobs may actually be a better fit for someone with a low level of

agreeableness. Think about it: When hiring a lawyer, would you prefer a kind and gentle person, or a

pit bull? Also, high agreeableness has a downside: Agreeable people are less likely to engage in

constructive and change-oriented communication.LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and

cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential

relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 326–336. Disagreeing with the status quo may create conflict and agreeable people

will likely avoid creating such conflict, missing an opportunity for constructive change.

How Accurately Can You Describe Your Big Five Personality Factors?

Go to http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/ to see how you score on these factors.

Neuroticism refers to the degree to which a person is anxious, irritable, aggressive, temperamental,

and moody. These people have a tendency to have emotional adjustment problems and experience

stress and depression on a habitual basis. People very high in neuroticism experience a number of

problems at work. For example, they are less likely to be someone people go to for advice and

friendship.Klein, K. J., Beng-Chong, L., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An

examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47,

952–963. In other words, they may experience relationship difficulties. They tend to be habitually

unhappy in their jobs and report high intentions to leave, but they do not necessarily actually leave

their jobs.Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 9/20

satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541; Zimmerman, R. D.

(2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-

analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348. Being high in neuroticism seems to be

harmful to one’s career, as they have lower levels of career success (measured with income and

occupational status achieved in one’s career). Finally, if they achieve managerial jobs, they tend to

create an unfair climate at work.Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The

precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal

consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929–963.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Aside from the Big Five personality traits, perhaps the most well-known and most often used

personality assessment is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Unlike the Big Five, which

assesses traits, MBTI measures types. Assessments of the Big Five do not classify people as neurotic

or extravert: It is all a matter of degrees. MBTI on the other hand, classifies people as one of 16

types.Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 41, 461–473; Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press. In MBTI, people are grouped using four dimensions. Based on how a

person is classified on these four dimensions, it is possible to talk about 16 unique personality types,

such as ESTJ and ISTP.

MBTI was developed in 1943 by a mother–daughter team, Isabel Myers and Katherine Cook Briggs.

Its objective at the time was to aid World War II veterans in identifying the occupation that would suit

their personalities. Since that time, MBTI has become immensely popular, and according to one

estimate, around 2.5 million people take the test annually. The survey is criticized because it relies on

types as opposed to traits, but organizations who use the survey find it very useful for training and

team-building purposes. More than 80 of the Fortune 100 companies used Myers-Briggs tests in

some form. One distinguishing characteristic of this test is that it is explicitly designed for learning,

not for employee selection purposes. In fact, the Myers & Briggs Foundation has strict guidelines

against the use of the test for employee selection. Instead, the test is used to provide mutual

understanding within the team and to gain a better understanding of the working styles of team

members.Leonard, D., & Straus, S. (1997). Identifying how we think: The Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator and the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 114–115;

Shuit, D. P. (2003). At 60, Myers-Briggs is still sorting out and identifying people’s types. Workforce

Management, 82(13), 72–74.

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 10/20

Figure 3.6 Summary of MBTI Types

Posi�ve and Nega�ve Affec�vity

You may have noticed that behavior is also a function of moods. When people are in a good mood,

they may be more cooperative, smile more, and act friendly. When these same people are in a bad

mood, they may have a tendency to be picky, irritable, and less tolerant of different opinions. Yet,

some people seem to be in a good mood most of the time, and others seem to be in a bad mood most

of the time regardless of what is actually going on in their lives. This distinction is manifested by

positive and negative affectivity traits. Positive affective people experience positive moods more

frequently, whereas negative affective people experience negative moods with greater frequency.

Negative affective people focus on the “glass half empty” and experience more anxiety and

nervousness.Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience

aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490. Positive affective people tend to be

happier at work,Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating

role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 750–759. and their happiness spreads to the

rest of the work environment. As may be expected, this personality trait sets the tone in the work

atmosphere. When a team comprises mostly negative affective people, there tend to be fewer

instances of helping and cooperation. Teams dominated by positive affective people experience lower

levels of absenteeism.George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,

317–324. When people with a lot of power are also high in positive affectivity, the work environment

is affected in a positive manner and can lead to greater levels of cooperation and finding mutually

agreeable solutions to problems.Anderson, C., & Thompson, L. L. (2004). Affect from the top down:

How powerful individuals’ positive affect shapes negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 95, 125–139.

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 11/20

OB Toolbox: Help, I work with a nega�ve person!

Employees who have high levels of neuroticism or high levels of negative affectivity may act

overly negative at work, criticize others, complain about trivial things, or create an overall

negative work environment. Here are some tips for how to work with them effectively.

Understand that you are unlikely to change someone else’s personality. Personality is

relatively stable and criticizing someone’s personality will not bring about change. If the

behavior is truly disruptive, focus on behavior, not personality.

Keep an open mind. Just because a person is constantly negative does not mean that they are

not sometimes right. Listen to the feedback they are giving you.

Set a time limit. If you are dealing with someone who constantly complains about things, you

may want to limit these conversations to prevent them from consuming your time at work.

You may also empower them to act on the negatives they mention. The next time an overly

negative individual complains about something, ask that person to think of ways to change

the situation and get back to you.

Ask for specifics. If someone has a negative tone in general, you may want to ask for specific

examples for what the problem is.

Sources: Adapted from ideas in Ferguson, J. (2006, October 31). Expert’s view…on managing

office moaners. Personnel Today, 29; Karcher, C. (2003, September), Working with difficult

people. National Public Accountant, 39–40; Mudore, C. F. (2001, February/March). Working

with difficult people. Career World, 29(5), 16–18; How to manage difficult people. (2000, May).

Leadership for the Front Lines, 3–4.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring refers to the extent to which a person is capable of monitoring his or her actions

and appearance in social situations. In other words, people who are social monitors are social

chameleons who understand what the situation demands and act accordingly, while low social

monitors tend to act the way they feel.Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537; Snyder, M. (1987). Public

appearances/public realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman. High social

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 12/20

monitors are sensitive to the types of behaviors the social environment expects from them. Their

greater ability to modify their behavior according to the demands of the situation and to manage their

impressions effectively is a great advantage for them.Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001).

Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in

impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 351–360. In general, they tend to be

more successful in their careers. They are more likely to get cross-company promotions, and even

when they stay with one company, they are more likely to advance.Day, D. V., & Schleicher, D. J. Self-

monitoring at work: A motive-based perspective. Journal of Personality, 74, 685-714; Kilduff, M., &

Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers.

Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047–1060. Social monitors also become the “go to” person in

their company and they enjoy central positions in their social networks.Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., &

Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace

performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121–146. They are rated as higher performers,

and emerge as leaders.Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-

monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 390–401. While they are effective in influencing other people and get things

done by managing their impressions, this personality trait has some challenges that need to be

addressed. First, when evaluating the performance of other employees, they tend to be less accurate.

It seems that while trying to manage their impressions, they may avoid giving accurate feedback to

their subordinates to avoid confrontations.Jawahar, I. M. (2001). Attitudes, self-monitoring, and

appraisal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 875–883. This tendency may create

problems for them if they are managers. Second, high social monitors tend to experience higher levels

of stress, probably caused by behaving in ways that conflict with their true feelings. In situations that

demand positive emotions, they may act happy although they are not feeling happy, which puts an

emotional burden on them. Finally, high social monitors tend to be less committed to their

companies. They may see their jobs as a stepping-stone for greater things, which may prevent them

from forming strong attachments and loyalty to their current employer.Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J.,

Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic

investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 390–401.

Proac�ve Personality

Proactive personality refers to a person’s inclination to fix what is perceived as wrong, change the

status quo, and use initiative to solve problems. Instead of waiting to be told what to do, proactive

people take action to initiate meaningful change and remove the obstacles they face along the way. In

general, having a proactive personality has a number of advantages for these people. For example,

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 13/20

they tend to be more successful in their job searches.Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E.,

& Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with

college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 717–726. They are also more successful over the

course of their careers, because they use initiative and acquire greater understanding of the politics

within the organization.Seibert, S. E. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427; Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, M. J. (2001). What do

proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel

Psychology, 54, 845–874. Proactive people are valuable assets to their companies because they may

have higher levels of performance.Crant, M. J. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective

job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537. They adjust

to their new jobs quickly because they understand the political environment better and often make

friends more quickly.Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the

organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779–794; Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job

performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011–1017. Proactive

people are eager to learn and engage in many developmental activities to improve their skills.Major,

D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to

motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 927–935. Despite

all their potential, under some circumstances a proactive personality may be a liability for an

individual or an organization. Imagine a person who is proactive but is perceived as being too pushy,

trying to change things other people are not willing to let go, or using their initiative to make

decisions that do not serve a company’s best interests. Research shows that the success of proactive

people depends on their understanding of a company’s core values, their ability and skills to perform

their jobs, and their ability to assess situational demands correctly.Chan, D. (2006). Interactive

effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work

outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 475–481; Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005).

Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and

organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859–891.

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem is the degree to which a person has overall positive feelings about his or herself. People

with high self-esteem view themselves in a positive light, are confident, and respect themselves. On

the other hand, people with low self-esteem experience high levels of self-doubt and question their

self-worth. High self-esteem is related to higher levels of satisfaction with one’s job and higher levels

of performance on the job.Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 14/20

traits—self esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job

satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. People

with low self-esteem are attracted to situations in which they will be relatively invisible, such as large

companies.Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist

perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184–193. Managing employees with low self-esteem

may be challenging at times, because negative feedback given with the intention to improve

performance may be viewed as a judgment on their worth as an employee. Therefore, effectively

managing employees with relatively low self-esteem requires tact and providing lots of positive

feedback when discussing performance incidents.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a belief that one can perform a specific task successfully. Research shows that the

belief that we can do something is a good predictor of whether we can actually do it. Self-efficacy is

different from other personality traits in that it is job specific. You may have high self-efficacy in being

successful academically, but low self-efficacy in relation to your ability to fix your car. At the same

time, people have a certain level of generalized self-efficacy and they have the belief that whatever

task or hobby they tackle, they are likely to be successful in it.

Research shows that self-efficacy at work is related to job performance.Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T.,

Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational

socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 707–721; Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007).

Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 107–127; Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-

related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261. This relationship is

probably a result of people with high self-efficacy setting higher goals for themselves and being more

committed to these goals, whereas people with low self-efficacy tend to procrastinate.Phillips, J. M., &

Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the

self-efficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792–802; Steel, P. (2007).

The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory

failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94; Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Premack, S. (1992).

Meta-analysis of the antecedents of personal goal level and of the antecedents and consequences of

goal commitment. Journal of Management, 18, 595–615. Academic self-efficacy is a good predictor of

your GPA, whether you persist in your studies, or drop out of college.Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le,

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents

11/23/22, 2:01 PM Individual Differences: Values and Personality

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s07-03-individual-differences-values-.html 15/20

H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict

college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.

Is there a way of increasing employees’ self-efficacy? Hiring people who are capable of performing

their tasks and training people to increase their self-efficacy may be effective. Some people may also

respond well to verbal encouragement. By showing that you believe they can be successful and

effectively playing the role of a cheerleader, you may be able to increase self-efficacy. Giving people

opportunities to test their skills so that they can see what they are capable of doing (or empowering

them) is also a good way of increasing self-efficacy.Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To

empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership

empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

90, 945–955.

OB Toolbox: Ways to Build Your Self-Confidence

Having high self-efficacy and self-esteem are boons to your career. People who have an overall

positive view of themselves and those who have positive attitudes toward their abilities project an

aura of confidence. How do you achieve higher self-confidence?

Take a self-inventory. What are the areas in which you lack confidence? Then consciously

tackle these areas. Take part in training programs; seek opportunities to practice these skills.

Confront your fears head-on.

Set manageable goals. Success in challenging goals will breed self-confidence, but do not

make your goals impossible to reach. If a task seems daunting, break it apart and set mini

goals.

Find a mentor. A mentor can point out areas in need of improvement, provide accurate

feedback, and point to ways of improving yourself.

Don’t judge yourself by your failures. Everyone fails, and the most successful people have

more failures in life. Instead of assessing your self-worth by your failures, learn from mistakes

and move on.

Until you can feel confident, be sure to act confident. Acting confident will influence how

others treat you, which will boost your confidence level. Pay attention to how you talk and

behave, and act like someone who has high confidence.

Previous Sec�on Next Sec�on Table of Contents