Ethical Leadership Brown

Ethical and Unethical Leadership:
Exploring New Avenues for Euture Research

Michael E. Brown and Marie S. Mitchell
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to review literature that is relevant to the social
scientific study of ethics and leadership, as well as outline areas for future study. We first
discuss ethical leadership and then draw from emerging research on "dark side" organizational behavior to widen the boundaries of the review to include ethical leadership.
Next, three emerging trends within the organizational behavior literature are proposed for
a leadership and ethics research agenda: 1 ) emotions, 2) fit/congruence, and 3) identity/
identification. We believe each shows promise in extending current thinking. The review
closes with discussion of important issues that are relevant to the advancement of research
on leadership and ethics.
HE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP in promoting ethical conduct in organizations has long been understood. Within a work environment, leaders set
the tone for organizational goals and behavior. Indeed, leaders are often in a position to control many outcomes that affect employees (e.g., strategies, goal-setting,
promotions, appraisals, resources). What leaders incentivize communicates what
they value and motivates employees to act in ways to achieve such rewards. It is not
surprising, then, that employees rely on their leaders for guidance when faced with
ethical questions or problems (Trevio, 1986). Research supports this contention,
and shows that employees conform to the ethical values of their leaders (Schminke,
Wells, Peyrefitte, & Sabora, 2002). Furthermore, leaders who are perceived as
ethically positive influence productive employee work behavior (Mayer, Kuenzi,
Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009) and negatively influence counterproductive
work behavior (Brown & Trevio, 2006b; Mayer et al., 2009).
Recently, there has been a surge of empirical research seeking to understand the
influence of leaders on building ethical work practices and employee behaviors (see
Brown & Trevio, 2006a for a review). Initial theory and research (Bass & Steidlemeier, 1999; Brown, Trevio, & Harrison, 2005; Ciulla, 2004; Trevio, Brown,
& Hartman, 2003; Trevio, Hartman, & Brown, 2000) sought to define ethical
leadership from both normative and social scientific (descriptive) approaches to
business ethics. The normative perspective is rooted in philosophy and is concerned
with prescribing how individuals "ought" or "should" behave in the workplace.
For example, normative scholarship on ethical leadership (Bass & Steidlemeier,
1999; Ciulla, 2004) examines ethical decision making from particular philosophical
frameworks, evaluates the ethicality of particular leaders, and considers the degree
to which certain styles of leadership or influence tactics are ethical.
2010 Business Ethics Quarterly 20:4 (October 2010); ISSN 1052-150X
pp. 583-616
584
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
In contrast, our article emphasizes a social scientific approach to ethical leadership

(e.g.. Brown et al., 2005; Trevio et al., 2000; Trevio et al, 2003). This approach
is rooted in disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and organization science, and
it attempts to understand how people perceive ethical leadership and investigates
the antecedents, outcomes, and potential boundary conditions of those perceptions.
This research has focused on investigating research questions such as: What is ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005; Trevio et al., 2003)? What traits are associated
with perceived ethical leadership (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009)? How does
ethical leadership flow through various levels of management within organizations
(Mayer et al., 2009)? And, does ethical leadership help or hurt a leader's promotability within organizations (Rubin, Dierdorff, & Brown, 2010)?
The purpose of our article is to review literature that is relevant to the descriptive
study of ethics and leadership, as well as outhne areas for future empirical study. We
first discuss ethical leadership and then draw from emerging research on what often
is called "dark" (destructive) organizational behavior, so as to widen the boundaries
of our review to also include ethical leadership. Next, we discuss three emerging
trends within the organizational behavior literature1) emotions, 2) fit/congruence,
and 3) identity/identificationthat we believe show promise in extending current
thinking on the influence of leadership (both positive and negative) on organizational
ethics. We conclude with a discussion of important issues that are relevant to the
advancement of research in this domain.
A REVIEW OF SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC ETHICAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH
The Concept of Ethical Leadership
Although the topic of ethical leadership has long been considered by scholars, descriptive research on ethical leadership is relatively new. Some of the first formal
investigations focused on defining ethical leadership from a descriptive perspective
and were conducted by Trevio and colleagues (Trevio et al., 2000, 2003). Their
qualitative research revealed that ethical leaders were best described along two
related dimensions: moral person and moral manager.
The moral person dimension refers to the qualities of the ethical leader as a person. Strong moral persons are honest and trustworthy. They demonstrate a concern
for other people and are also seen as approachable. Employees can come to these
individuals with problems and concerns, knowing that they will be heard. Moral
persons have a reputation for being fair and principled. Lastly, riioral persons are
seen as consistently moral in both their personal and professional lives.
The moral manager dimension refers to how the leader uses the tools of the position of leadership to promote ethical conduct at work. Strong moral managers see
themselves as role models in the workplace. They make ethics salient by modeling
ethical conduct to their employees. Moral managers set and communicate ethical
standards and use rewards and punishments to ensure those standards are followed.
In sum, leaders who are moral managers "walk the talk" and "talk the walk," patterning their behavior and organizational processes to meet moral standards.
ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP
585
Trevio and colleagues (Trevio et al., 2000, 2003) argued that individuals in
power must be both strong moral persons and moral managers in order to be seen as
ethical leaders by those around them. Strong moral managers who are weak moral
persons are likely to be seen as hypocrites, failing to practice what they preach.
Hypocritical leaders talk about the importance of ethics, but their actions show them
to be dishonest and unprincipled. Conversely, a strong moral person who is a weak
moral manager runs the risk of being seen as an ethically "neutral" leader. That is,
the leader is perceived as being silent on ethical issues, suggesting to employees
that the leader does not really care about ethics.
Subsequent research by Brown, Trevio, and Harrison (2005:120) further clarified
the construct and provided a formal definition of ethical leadership as "the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal
relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way
communication, reinforcement, and decision-making." They noted that "the term
normatively appropriate is 'deliberately vague'" (Brown et al., 2005: 120) because
norms vary across organizations, industries, and cultures.
Brown et al. (2005) ground their conceptualization of ethical leadership in social
learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986). This theory suggests individuals can learn
standards of appropriate behavior by observing how role models (like teachers,
parents, and leaders) behave. Accordingly, ethical leaders "teach" ethical conduct
to employees through their own behavior. Ethical leaders are relevant role models
because they occupy powerful and visible positions in organizational hierarchies
that allow them to capture their follower's attention. They communicate ethical expectations through formal processes (e.g., rewards, policies) and personal example
(e.g., interpersonal treatment of others).
Effective "ethical" modeling, however, requires more than power and visibility.
For social learning of ethical behavior to take place, role models must be credible
in terms of moral behavior. By treating others fairly, honestly, and considerately,
leaders become worthy of emulation by others. Otherwise, followers might ignore
a leader whose behavior is inconsistent with his/her ethical pronouncements or who
fails to interact with followers in a caring, nurturing style (Yussen & Levy, 1975).
Outcomes of Ethical Leadership
Researchers have used both social learning theory (Bandura, 1977,1986) and social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to explain the effects of ethical leadership on important outcomes (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Trevio, 2006b; Mayer et al, 2009;
Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). According to principles of reciprocity in social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), individuals feel obligated to return
beneficial behaviors when they believe another has been good and fair to them. In
line with this reasoning, researchers argue and find that employees feel indebted
to ethical leaders because of their trustworthy and fair nature; consequently, they
reciprocate with beneficial work behavior (e.g., higher levels of ethical behavior
and citizenship behaviors) and refrain from engaging in destructive behavior (e.g.,
lower levels of workplace deviance).
586
Emerging research has found that ethical leadership is related to important follower outcomes, such as employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
willingness to report problems to supervisors, willingness to put in extra effort on
the job, voice behavior (i.e., expression of constructive suggestions intended to
improve standard procedures), and perceptions of organizational culture and ethical climate (Brown et al., 2005; Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts, & Chonko,
2009; Toor & Ofori, 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). At the group level,
supervisory ethical leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship
behavior and psychological safety, and negatively related to workplace deviance
(Mayer et al., 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Ethical leadership enhances
followers' perceptions of important job characteristics such as autonomy and task
significance (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010), the later mediating
the relationship between ethical leadership and follower effort. At the highest levels
of management, executive ethical leadership is positively related to perceived top
management team (TMT) effectiveness as well as optimism among TMT members
(De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008).
Ethical leaders are seen as having greater potential for promotion to senior management positions, especially in contexts in which there is a high pressure to perform
(Rubin et al., 2010). Previous research has shown that high pressure contexts are
related to unethical behavior (Robertson & Rymon, 2001). According to Rubin et
al. (2010), ethical leadership sends a strong signal that an individual is potentially
suitable for the pressures of senior management because of his or her ability to
maintain strong ethical performance in the face of such pressure.
In addition, scholars have investigated the ethical dimensions of various styles
of leadership. Most notably, transformational (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993)
and charismatic leaders (Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1998) are thought
to be ethical leaders who model ethical conduct (Avolio, 1999), engage in ethically positive modes of influence (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996), operate at higher
levels of moral reasoning (Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002),
and transform their followers into moral leaders (Bums, 1978). Transformational
and charismatic leadership have been studied extensively (see Avolio, Walumbwa,
& Weber, 2009; Judge & Piccolo, 2004 for reviews), and the cumulative findings
suggest that transformational and charismatic leadership are positively associated
with important ethics-related outcomes such as follower's perceptions of trust in
fairness of their leader (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999) and organizational
citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). These
styles of leadership are also negatively related to outcomes such as employee aggression (Hepworth & Towler, 2004) and workplace deviance (Brown & Trevio,
2006b). A new construct, authentic leadership, also is related to transformational
leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wemsing, &
Peterson, 2008) and shares its strong emphasis on the ethical dimension of leadership. With the recent development of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ;
Walumbwa et al., 2008), future research linking authentic leadership to important
ethics-related outcomes is promising.
587
Antecedents of Ethical Leadership

Researchers very recently have begun to explore the influences on ethical leadership. Both situational (e.g., role modeling) and individual (e.g., personality traits)
predictors of ethical leadership have been proposed (Brown & Trevio, 2006a) but
there is little published research testing these and other potential antecedents. In
one of the few empirical studies, Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) found that
the personality dimensions of agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively
related to ethical leadership. Obviously, there are many opportunities for investigating the influences on ethical leadership in future research.
Summary
Although research on ethical leadership is growing, clearly there is much still to
learn about ethical leadership, its antecedents and outcomes. We will discuss some
of the unanswered questions and suggest new directions for future research throughout the remainder of this article. Some of the most important questions concern
the relationship between and relative influence of ethical and unethical leadership,
Detert, Trevio, Burris, and Andiappan (2007) theorized that both ethical and unethical leadership (via abusive supervision perceptions) would influence employees'
counterproductive work behavior (for better and for worse, respectively). However,
they found that only abusive supervision, not ethical leadership, was related to
counterproductive work behavior. These results emphasize the need to understand
negative aspects of leadership and their influence on employee behavior, Detert et
al, (2007) speculated that perhaps the context in the types of jobs studied in their
research influenced the importance of abusive supervision over ethical leadership
on employees' deviant behaviors. Fundamentally then, there is a need to understand when and why unethical aspects of leadership influence employees more so
than ethical leadership. We believe more research that explores the "dark side" of
organizational behavior (and more specifically destructive leader behavior), which
we turn to next, is necessary,
UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP:
INTEGRATION FROM "DARK" ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR RESEARCH
"Dark side" research has attempted to understand why organizational members
engage in destructive or "deviant" work behavior. Workplace deviance is defined
as behavior that violates significant organizational norms and harms organizations
and its members (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). A number of deviance constructs
have emerged in the literature, such as workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998; O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew,
1996), counterproductive work behavior (Fox & Spector, 1999), social undermining
(Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), and retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). While
the majority of this research focuses on employees' behavior, more recent research
draws attention to supervisors and leaders as perpetrators of deviant acts (see Tep-
588
per, 2007 for a review). Our review considers theory and research on destructive
leader behavior.
The Concept of Unethical Leadership
The standing literature has not described destructive leader behavior as "unethical";
however, the implication is clear. Unethical behavior involves acts that are illegal
and/or are morally inappropriate to larger society (Jones 1991).' Dark side research
has uncovered a variety of unethical leader acts. Various terms have evolved in
the literature, such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), supervisor undermining (Duffy et al., 2002), toxic leadership (Frost, 2004), and tyrannical leadership
(Ashforth, 1994). Research shows these leaders are oppressive, abusive, manipulative, and calculatingly undermining (Tepper, 2007). Their actions are perceived as
intentional and harmful, and may be the source of legal action against employers
(Tepper, 2007). Therefore, destructive leader behavior is unethical.
Unethical leadership, however, transcends beyond the leaders' own behavior.
In seeking to accomplish organizational goals, leaders can encourage corrupt and
unethical acts within their organizations. For instance, Clement's (2006) review of
corporate scandals in Fortune 100 corporations concluded that actions perpetrated
by executives, boards of directors, and government officials were the primary cause
of such transgressions. Leaders foster unethical behavior among followers without
engaging in the behavior themselves and do so by way of rewards, condoning nonconformers, and ignoring unethical acts (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Brief, Buttram,
& Dukerich, 2001). For instance, qualitative research shows leaders who reward
short-term results, model aggressive and Machiavellian behavior, do not punish
followers' wrongdoing, and promote like-minded individuals heighten unethical
behavior within organizations (Sims & Brinkmann, 2002). Indeed, research shows
employees engage in unethical acts to boost organizational performance or help the
organization in some other way (Finney & Lesieur, 1982; Umphress, Bingham, &
Mitchell, 2010; Yeager, 1986). Such embedded practices can insulate leaders from
primary blame, essentially providing them "plausible deniability" (Baker & Faulkner,
1993; Braithwaite, 1989). Leaders who engage in, enable, or foster unethical acts
within their organizations do not display ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005).
Instead, leaders who harness and embed unethical behavior of their followers display unethical leadership (Pinto, Leana, & Pil, 2008). In sum, we define unethical
leadership as behaviors conducted and decisions made by organizational leaders
that are illegal and/or violate moral standards, and those that impose processes
and structures that promote unethical conduct by followers. We now review the
consequences and influences of unethical leadership.
Outcomes of Unethical Leadership
A review of the literature suggests unethical leadership impedes the effective functioning and viability of organizations. For example, scholars estimate unethical
leader behavior costs U.S. corporations billions of dollars a year due to increased
absenteeism, health care costs, lost productivity, and expended costs associated with
589
defending actionable claims (Detert et al., 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert,
2006). To be sure, some examples of unethical leadership within the popular press
have resulted in the end of the organization altogether (e.g., Enron, WorldCom).
The effects of unethical leadership on employees are also considerable. Research
shows unethical leadership negatively influences employees' attitudes (e.g.. Pelletier
& Bligh, 2008; Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008),
task and extra-role performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Zellers, Tepper,
& Duffy, 2002), resistance behaviors (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001), psychological
well-being (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007), and personal
lives (Ferguson, Carlson, & Whitten, 2009; Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Moreover, unethical leadership positively influences deviant and unethical work behavior among
employees (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2008; Tepper, Carr,
Breaux, Geider, Hu, & Hua, 2009; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009).
Like research on ethical leadership, theorists draw from learning theories to explain
how unethical leadership promotes unethical employee conduct (e.g., social learning theory, Bandura, 1977, 1986; social information processing theory, Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978; script theory, Gioia, 1992). Accordingly, employees learn accepted
behavior (even if it is unethical) by watching relevant social role models. Leaders
are particularly influential because they authorize unethical behavior through their
own acts, sanctioning abilities, and legitimate power (Brief et al., 2001; Kelman,
1973). Research supports these arguments and shows unethical leadership provides a
baseline of behaviors that influence followers' decisions (Baumhart, 1961; Brenner
& Molander, 1977) and actions (Detert et al., 2007; Mitchell, 2008).
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960) has also been used to explain consequences of unethical leadership. Like research on ethical leadership, this
research focuses on quid pro quo reciprocity patterns between leaders and followers
(see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 for a review). When leaders treat employees
abusively (or unethically), employees see the exchange relationship as imbalanced
or exploited, which affects their work attitudes (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al.,
2008) and enhances retaliatory behavior (e.g., deviance, Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007;
Tepper et al., 2006; Tepper et al., 2008; Tepper et al., 2009; Thau et al., 2009; reduced
work effort, Harris et al., 2007; Tepper et al., 2001; Zellers et al., 2002).
Lastly, researchers have used principles about self-resources to explain consequences of unethical leadership. In particular, theorists contend unethical leadership
drains employees of self-resources (e.g., attention, will-power, esteem) that are
needed to maintain appropriate behavior (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2009; Thau &
Mitchell, in press). Indeed, ethical decision making theorists often refer to this
phenomenon as ego strength and/or depletion (see Trevio, Weaver, & Reynolds,
2006 for a review). Some researchers have drawn from self-regulation principles
to explain the effects. Accordingly, the act of being victimized or threatened by
an unethical leader impairs or marginalizes employees' self-resources (Bandura,
1991; Baumeister, 2001; Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007; Thau & Mitchell, in
press). When self-regulatory resources are impaired, victims are unable to maintain
appropriate behavior and instead engage in deviant behavior. Moreover, unethical
leadership combined with inconsistent information about employees' organiza-
590
tional value (e.g., abused by the leader but being paid fairly) more strongly affects
self-resources and makes unethical employee behavior even more likely (Thau &
Mitchell, in press).
Similarly, conservation of resources theory (HobfoU, 1989) suggests individuals
strive to obtain and maintain resources that help them accomplish goals. Experienced
stress (via unethical leader treatment) drains these resources and causes a spill-over
effect (e.g., frustration-aggression predictions by DoUard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer,
& Sears, 1939) to employees' work and family lives. They are less able to maintain
positive work attitudes (Ferguson et al., 2009; Hoobler & Brass, 2006) and engage in
productive work behavior (e.g., deviance, Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), and engage
in more work-family conflict (Ferguson et al., 2009; Hoobler & Brass, 2006).
Antecedents of Unethical Leadership
Some research suggests unethical leader behavior is a reaction to organizational
mistreatment (cf. social exchange theory, Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960) (Aryee,
Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Tepper et al., 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert
(2006) found this exchange effect also heightens strain reactions, which increase
leaders' feelings of powerlessness and depression and causes leaders to behave more
aggressively toward employees.
Self-regulation principles have also been used to explain why unethical leadership occurs. In particular, this approach draws from the social cognitive theory
of moral thought and action (Bandura, 1991), which suggests that leaders may
behave unethically because they disconnect themselves from moral standards and
rationalize unethical treatment toward their employees (cf. Bandura, 1991). For
example, Mitchell, Vogel, Tepper, and Palmer (2010) found leaders engaged in
abusive behaviors and thought doing so was justified against employees who were
poor performers. However, these effects were mitigated if leaders also held a strong
need for achievement orientation. They surmised need for achievement assists in
maintaining self-regulatory abilities and appropriate behavior.
Last, research has focused on individual qualities of leaders and subordinates
to explain unethical leadership. For example. Hing, Bobocel, Zanna, and McBride
(2007) found leaders with a strong social dominance orientation were more likely to
engage in unethical behavior, particularly when followers were more agreeable and/
or high in right wing authoritarianism. Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (in press) explain
unethical leadership can result from moral exclusion (Opotow, 1990); when leaders do not believe a subordinate is one for whom moral rules apply. Leaders who
are dissimilar from subordinates believe abusive treatment is appropriate. Tepper
et al. found that deep-level similarity (likeness in values, attitudes, and personality)
influenced leader-subordinate relational conflict and associated leader abuse.
Summary
Much of behavioral ethics' descriptive empirical research focuses on ethical aspects
of leadership, with less focus on unethical aspects. Our review included organizational behavior research conducted on unethical leader behavior. This review
591
highlights the need to consider unethical leadership as well as ethical leadership.

To be sure, much has been learned about the positive aspects of ethical leadership;
however, much more understanding is to be gained by also considering the "dark"
or unethical side of leadership. To gain a good grasp of the leadership and ethics
phenomenon, more research is needed to understand implications of both ethical
and unethical leadership, particularly in terms of uncovering when one is more
influential to employees and organizations.
For example, decision research suggests that individuals have a proclivity to focus
on negatives as opposed to positives (Jordan, 1965; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979;
Kanouse & Hanson, 1972; Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991).
An age-old Russian adage highlights this: "A spoonful of tar can spoil a barrel of
honey, but a spoonful of honey does nothing for a barrel of tar" (restated from Rozin
& Royzman, 2001: 296). The results from Detert et al. (2007) show abusive supervision and not ethical leadership influenced employees' behavior. These results may
suggest a negative bias; however, other factors may be at play (e.g., hierarchical
and physical distance from ethical leaders to employees who engaged in unethical
acts; subcultural influences within departments and divisions that proved to be more
influential than the overall organization's culture).
We believe much more research is needed to uncover the dynamics of leadership
and ethicsfrom both a positive and negative angle. To this end, we now turn to
three trends in the organizational behavior literature that we believe hold promise
for advancing research on ethical and unethical leadership.
INTEGRATIVE IDEAS FROM THE
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR LITERATURE
There are many emerging topics in the organizational behavior and management
literatures. We selected three such topics that have great potential to take research
on ethical and unethical leadership into new and exciting directions. Specifically,
we discuss emerging research on: I) emotions, 2) fit/congruence, and 3) identity/
identification, and make suggestions for incorporating them into the research agenda
on ethical and unethical leadership.
Emotions, Leadership, and Business Ethics
The important influence of emotions on ethical judgments can be traced as far
back as Aristotle. Feelings inform us when things are not rightthey act as ethical
alarms. Salvador and Folger (2009) highlight this point and discuss the role of emotions on ethical judgments with the human brain. Their review suggests emotions
consciously and unconsciously influence ethical decision making and behavior.
Understanding the role of emotions then is essential for furthering research on
leadership and business ethics.
Leaders are in a unique position to influence employees' emotions at work (Bass,
1985; House, 1977; Weber, 1920) and do so through their communications and
behavior (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Bass, 1985; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). They
can harness an "emotional contagion" that filters throughout organizations (Frijda,
592
1986; Hatfleld, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Emotional contagion is defined as an

unconscious transfer of emotion, which fosters mimicry of another's emotional
state (e.g,, facial expressions, vocalizations, postures; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).
Research shows individuals who perceive their leaders displaying more positive than
negative emotions experience more positive and less negative moods themselves.
Groups with leaders who display positive emotions exhibit more coordination
and expend less effort than groups with negatively affective leaders (Sy, Ct, &
Saavedra, 2005), Additionally, positive emotional displays from leaders influence
followers' perceptions of their leader (e,g,, effectiveness, motivational ability) and
important outcomes, such as citizenship behavior and performance (Bono & Hies,
2006; Johnson, 2008, 2009; Lewis, 2000; Madera & Smith, 2009),
Leaders are also capable of inciting negative emotions among their followers
and when they do these negative emotions are more vivid than positive emotions
(Dasborough, 2006), In particular, employees recall more negative than positive
events of their leaders, and the feelings associated with the negative memories are
more intense than those experienced with positive memories (Dasborough, 2006),
Negative emotional reactions to leaders can spread throughout an organization as
emotional contagion, ultimately hurting the group's climate and heightening cynicism about the leader (e,g,, Dasborough, Ashkansy, Tee, & Tse, 2009),
Emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions to leaders' emotions have been
generally explained by affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and
emotional transference principles (Hatfleld et al,, 1994), Leaders shape affective
events within organizations and these events "transfer" the emotional state of followers. Events trigger emotional as well as impulsive behavioral reactions among
employees. Over time, long-term attitudes can be affected. The influence of negative emotions can be even more impactful because negative emotions are felt with
greater intensity compared to positive emotions (Peters, 2002),
New Avenues for Future Research
Research on leadership and business ethics has not fully considered the role that
emotions play in employees' perceptions of and reactions to ethical and unethical
leadership. There are, however, many potential avenues for integration. For example,
Madera and Smith (2009) found that leaders who display certain negative emotions
differentially influenced employees' assessments about their leader's effectiveness.
Leaders who displayed anger as opposed to sadness during a crisis were seen as
less effective. This finding suggests specific leader-displayed emotions may influence whether leaders are seen as ethical or unethical, and poses interesting potential
research questions. For example, are there emotions that can enhance a leader's
salience and effectiveness as a model of (un)ethical conduct? Which emotions might
enhance employee intemalization of organizational ethical principles and codes of
conduct? Conversely, which emotions evoked by leaders influence unethical conduct
and impede the effective functioning of organizations?
Another promising area for future research involves moral emotions (or affective
responses linked to the interests or welfare of society as a whole; Haidt, 2003), Three
categories of moral emotions have been emphasized in the literature: (1) other-
593
condemning emotions such as anger and disgust; (2) self-focused emotions such as
shame and guilt, and (3) other-suffering or -praising emotions, such as compassion,
empathy, and gratitude. Research shows moral emotions differentially influence
behavior (see Haidt, 2003; Tangney, 1991, for reviews). For example, empathy is
related positively to prosocial behavior and negatively to destructive and unethical
behavior. Anger motivates behavior to attack, humiliate, or otherwise get back at
an offender. Disgust motivates avoidance behavior. Shame elicits self-condoning
appraisals and, as such, motivates withdrawal behavior. Guilt, a related cousin to
shame, also emphasizes self-condemnation but focuses on the harm or suffering
others experience as a consequence of the actor's immoral act and, consequently,
invokes reconciliatory behavior.
Organizational behavior researchers have recently integrated these ideas. Barclay,
Skarlicki, and Pugh (2005) examined negative inward-emotions (affective reactions
associated with an individual's self-attributions, such as shame or guilt; Fisher &
Tangney, 1995) and negative outward-emotions (affective evaluations of others, such
as anger and hostility; Tangney & Dearing, 2002), and found employees experienced
less negative inward- and more negative outward-emotions when they were treated
unfairly. In contrast, employees experienced more negative inward- and less negative outward-emotions when they were treated fairly. Further, employee retaliatory
behaviors were greater with experienced negative outward-emotions.
Summary
We believe there is merit to adding moral emotions into the leadership and ethics
research agenda. Leaders' expressed moral emotions may not only influence how
followers react, but also how the leader behaves. Uncovering these dynamics may
shed light on why some leaders are perceived as ethical versus unethical, and how
leaders influence (un)ethical in organizations. Our review suggests (1) leaders display a range of emotions in their organizations; (2) leaders' affective experiences
influence their own behavior; (3) the emotions leaders display arouse employees'
emotions and create an emotional contagion effect among followers (whether positive or negative), and (4) followers' emotions, evoked by leaders, influence their
(un)ethical conduct.
Additionally, research on emotions may build an understanding of the consequences of ethical and unethical leadership. For instance, we expect ethical leadership
will trigger more positive follower emotions (e.g., gratitude, awe, enthusiasm, empathy), whereas unethical leadership should affect more negative emotions (e.g.,
anger, disgust, shame). We also surmise that the relationship between (un)ethical
leadership and follower (un)ethical behavior, would be moderated by the level of
emotional contagion experienced and harnessed by the leader. Further, our review
suggests the type and strength of the emotions evoked by followers will differentially influence their behavior. For instance, experienced anger or disgust (likely
reactions to unethical leadership) may lead to employee unethical acts (e.g., retaliation, deviance), whereas experienced compassion or gratitude (likely reactions to
ethical leadership) may influence employees to engage in ethical behavior (e.g.,
volunteerism, prosocial behavior).
594
Examining emotions may also explain why some leaders are considered ethical and
others unethical. For instance, certain situations may invoke followers' emotions that
are seemingly out of the leader's control. To this end, future research should investigate how leaders yield or manage followers' emotions and whether the techniques
used influence how they are perceived by others. This may be particularly relevant
in the current economic climate, the consequence of which may force leaders to
make tough decisions that affect employees' livelihoods (e.g., layoffs, pay freezes
and cuts). Leaders might also have to manage employees' emotional reactions to
uncertainty (e.g., declining sales, unfavorable media attention, increased industry
competition, inhospitable macro-economic conditions). These ideas also suggest
that the way leaders interact with their employees (ethically versus unethically) may
invoke emotions that might adversely affect their reactions to "good news" (e.g.,
promotions, pay raises, successful financial performance). We leave these ideas for
future research to consider.
Organizational Fit, Leadership, and Business Ethics
Research on fit within the organizational behavior literature focuses on the compatibility, similarity, or congruence between two entities (Kristof, 1996). Researchers
have predominately studied congruence between persons and jobs, persons and
organizations, persons and groups, and persons and supervisors (see Edwards, 2008;
Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005, for reviews). Despite
the growing literature, there has been little published fit research explicitly related
to ethics and even less so related to ethics and leadership (see Schminke, Ambrose,
& Neubaum, 2005, for an exception).
Fit researchers study how fit between an individual and another entity (job, organization, group or supervisor) affects outcomes. Some research examples include
assessing fit between individual and organizational values (Cable & Judge, 1997;
Chatman, 1991), group goal congruence (Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley, & Barrick, 2008), and leader and employee personality (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002).
Research suggests that employees who fit well with their organization, leader, and
job experience more positive attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), are less likely to leave the organization, experience less work-related
stress, and engage in positive task and citizenship behaviors (see Kristof, 1996;
Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, for reviews). We believe that there are many opportunities to integrate fit ideas into a leadership and business ethics research agenda, and
explore some possibilities below.
We believe three areas of fit research can inform a leadership and ethics research
agenda: understanding the role fit with moral values, with moral reasoning, and in
self-other ratings of leadership. Research within the behavioral ethics literature suggests the importance of ethical/moral values on ethical decision making and conduct
in organizations (see Trevio et al., 2006 for a review). For example, corporate ethics
programs that are aspirational in nature (i.e., appealing to employees' ethical aspirations) are seen as more effective compared to programs that are oriented toward
595
legal compliance (Weaver, Trevio, & Cochran, 1999). Therefore, the implications
of ethical value congruence of leaders and their followers should be considered.
Values congruence is thought to play an important role in explaining why fit between two entities is related to outcomes (see Edwards & Cable, 2009 for a review).
Values congruence has explained the relationship between leader-follower cognitive moral development and follower attitudes (Schminke et al., 2005). And, values
congruence was found to mediate the relationship between charismatic leadership
and workplace deviance (Brown & Trevio, 2006b). Work group values diversity
(incongruence) is associated with decreased member satisfaction, intention to remain,
and commitment to the work group (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999).
Leaders' values have been shown to uniquely shape the organization's environment
(Giberson, Resick, & Dickson, 2005). Based on Schneider's (1987) and Schein's
(1992) contentions about leader-follower value congruence and organizational
homogeneity, Giberson et al. (2005) found that leaders embed their values into the
framework of organizations by surrounding themselves with individuals who are
similar to them. Indeed, research suggests the more followers align with their leaders,
the more career success they experience (Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2004).
There are many ways in which future research can explore the congruence of
ethical values among leaders and followers. In particular, research might consider
which factors bring leaders and followers together on shared values. Previous
theory and research suggests that a transformational/charismatic style of leadership plays with values congruence (Bass, 1985; House, 1996). However, there is
some evidence that congruence effects are likely to vary depending on the content
of the values in question (Brown & Trevio, 2009). So what brings about congruence in leader-follower moral values? Does leadership play a role because leaders
communicate, model, and reinforce (un)ethical standards and values? Theory and
research suggest that leaders and followers should come to develop similar values
and norms through organizational attraction-selection-attrition (Schneider, 1987)
and socialization (Chatman, 1991) processes, but these and other antecedents of
(un)ethical values fit will require empirical testing. Unfortunately, one of the impediments to research in this area is the lack of an established measure of ethical
values that has been rigorously developed and thoroughly tested. And, a measure
of what constitutes nethical values has yet to be developed.
Future research should also consider values misfit. It is likely that incongruence
will promote turnover among employees who do not "fit" the leader's ethical values, but whether or not this is a good thing has yet to be determined. For instance,
employees who align with unethical leaders might promote very destructive and
unbeneficial work practices, which can transfer to the larger community via costs
associated with government oversight and regulation (Thomas, Schermerhorn, &
Dienhart, 2004). Fit researchers have grappled with the issue of homogeneity in
terms of organizational performance for some time (Kristof, 1996). The downside
to fit is that homogeneity within organizations can breed complacency and stifle
creativity which would hurt the organization's competitive advantage. We wonder
if the same arguments hold for ethical values fit.
596
On the other hand, diversity in moral values is different than other kinds of diversity in that individuals are less tolerant of moral diversity compared to demographic
diversity (Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom, 2003). Heterogeneity in ethical values within
an organization could work against attempts to foster an effective ethics and compliance program based on shared values (Weaver et al., 1999). However, more research
is needed to determine the relationship between ethical values fit/mist, leadership,
and important ethical outcomes in organizations.
Moral reasoning is another construct that should be considered from afitperspective. In one of the few ethics-related fit studies, Schminke et al. (2005) hypothesized
and found that leader and follower moral reasoning congruence was positively
related to follower satisfaction and commitment and negatively related to follower
turnover. Individuals who share similar ethical thought processes and values are
likely to enjoy higher levels of mutual trust and communication (Edwards & Cable,
2009; Schmitike et al., 2005). Thus, it is likely that cognitive moral development
fit will be positively related to many other important outcomes as well as follower
perceptions of ethical leadership (Jordan, Brown, & Trevio, 2010).
However, could there be a dark side to such congruence? For example, consider
the case of a leader who reasons at a preconventional level of moral development.
At the preconventional level, obedience to authority and self-interest (i.e., "what's
right is what provides me with benefit and avoids causing me harm") drive the moral
reasoning process (Kohlberg, 1969). Generally speaking, research has found that
higher levels of moral reasoning are associated with positive ethical behavior and
decision making (Trevio, 1986). Thus, we might ask whether convergence at the
preconventional level would be associated with positive outcomes.
Future research might also consider the consequences of leader-follower moral
reasoning misfit. Does a lack of congruence bring about conflict and distrust? If
so, how does this influence behavior and the organizational environment? Theory
(Chatman, 1991; Schneider, 1987) and research (see Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown
et al., 2005) suggest that employees who do not fit leave their organizations. Misfit
might cause leaders to build stronger infrastructures for the purpose of bringing
followers into alignment, even when the misfit is driven by unethical leadership
(Ashforth & Anand, 2003). If employees chose to stay in a misfit situation, how do
they cope? If their leader operates at comparatively lower levels of moral reasoning
might they endeavor to raise their leader's moral reasoning? Conversely, do employees who operate at lower levels of moral reasoning undergo moral growth when
paired with a leader who operates at a higher level of reasoning? Or would these
employees remain stuck at a lower level and perhaps seek out ways to undermine
their leader's authority?
Finally, there are also opportunities beyond the conventional Kohlbergian approach to moral reasoning to consider the impact of leader-follower fit/misfit.
Recent theory and research suggest moral reasoning does not always involve careful
reflection, as assumed by Kohlberg and others. Rather, moral judgments are often
the result of intuitive processes (Haidt, 2001). Deliberate moral reasoning in this
case is likely to represent post hoc justifications that support moral intuitions. From
this perspective, a leader and follower might operate at the same level of principled
597
moral reasoning, but they might use the same principled reasoning to justify a very
different set of moral intuitions. For example, two very principled individuals could
make strongly diverging arguments about the fairness of a particular corporate action
(e,g,, slashing corporate philanthropy during an economic downturn) to employees
(e,g,, we ought to be loyal to our employees by saving as much money as we can
so as to minimize layoffs) versus the recipients of such charity (e,g,, we ought to
maintain such spending because to do otherwise would cause great harm to those
charities that need our support). Thus, congruence in moral reasoning (especially
at the postconventional or principled level), might actually cause more friction and
problems between individuals if diverging moral intuitions are involved.
Future research might examine how leader-follower moral intuitions fit/misfit is
related to ethical and unethical leadership and related workplace outcomes. In order
to do this, scholars will need to move beyond the traditional ways of defining ethics
in terms of harm and fairness to consider other types of moral intuitions that people
have, such as those based on purity/sanctity, obedience to authority, and loyalty to
one's in-group (see Haidt & Graham 2007; Weaver & Brown, in press),
A final way to incorporate fit into leadership research is to examine self-other
agreement between leader and follower ratings of ethical or unethical leadership.
Self-enhancement bias (Greenwald, 1980) might cause a leader to see him/her as
more moral than they are actually seen by others. Leaders who suffer from such
bias see themselves as strong moral persons and presume that those around them
easily recognize their goodness. These leaders might suffer from moral complacency,
which would result in less active moral management (Brown, 2007; Mayer et al,,
2009), In such cases, leader self-ratings of (un)ethical leadership can be divorced
from follower-ratings of (un)ethical leadership. This discrepancy is but one type
of the broader phenomenon of self-other disagreement that has been observed in
leadership and management research (Ashford, 1989;Atwater&Yammarino, 1992;
Harris & Shaubroeck, 1988), Previous research suggests that over-estimators (i,e,,
leaders who rate themselves more favorably compared to follower ratings) are seen
as less effective by their superiors (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998),
We expect divergence between leader and follower ratings of (un)ethical leadership
will be associated with key ethics-related outcomes.
Summary
Overall, there is much to learn about the antecedents and consequences of
leader-follower agreement and its relationship to ethical and unethical leadership.
Examining thefitbetween leaders and followers on key aspects such as moral values,
moral reasoning, and ratings of leadership are just some of the potential avenues for
future research. Researchers might also consider convergence/divergence on other
relevant dimensions, such as ethical frameworks (e,g,, consequentalism and formalism) and moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002), which we will discuss next.
Identity and Identification, Leadership, and Business Ethics
Research on the concepts of identity and identification has proliferated within the
organizational behavior literature (see Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008 for a
598
review). Broadly speaking, individuals have both personal and social identities. Personal identity refers to an individual's sense of self (Postmes & Jetten, 2006), while
social identity derives from the value and emotional significance of membership
associated with a specific social group (Tajfel, 1978, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979,
1986). Within the organizational behavior literature, much of the research on social
identity focuses on an employees' organizational identity. We believe both personal
and organizational identity research has relevance to understanding leadership and
business ethics and elaborate on these ideas below.
Theory and empirical evidence in behavioral ethics highlights the importance of
individuals' personal identity based on their ethical values, called moral identity (see
Shao, Aquino, & Freeman, 2008, for a review). Moral identity research investigates
individuals' sense of self in relation to their personal moral beliefs. Most empirical
research integrates Aquino and Reed's (2002) conceptualization, which considers
the degree to which moral traits are embedded in one's self-concept and behavior.
Their research highlights two dimensions of moral identity: intemalization (the
degree moral traits are central to the self-concept) and symbolization (the degree
moral traits are expressed publicly). Aquino and Reed contend these dimensions
serve as an individual's benchmark and guide of moral behavior. Research supports
these arguments and shows that moral identity neutralizes moral disengagement
tendencies and associated unethical decision making (Detert, Trevio, & Sweitzer,
2008). Further, moral identity positively influences volunteerism (Aquino & Reed,
2002) and moral conduct (Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007), and negatively influences
inappropriate, hostile, and destructive behavior (Reed & Aquino, 2003; Verona,
Reed, & Aquino, 2003).
Recent research suggests, however, behavioral differences occur depending on
the strength one holds in the different dimensions of moral identity. Specifically,
Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, and Walker (2008) found a three-way interaction among
customer mistreatment (a form of injustice) and the two moral identity dimensions
(symbolization and intemalization) on sabotage such that the relationship between
injustice and sabotage was strengthened for employees with high (rather than low)
symbolization. However, the effect was weaker for employees with high (rather
than low) intemalization. They argued that the effects demonstrate intemalization
as more of an intemal qualifier of moral standards; those who held high intemalization resisted sabotage most likely because they felt such behavior was unethical. In
contrast, symbolization was predicted (and found) to strengthen destructive reactions
to injustice because such an orientation reflects a reactive, active behavioral state in
ethically significant situations. Because customer mistreatment (injustice) threatened
individuals' moral self-standards, those high in symbolization felt sabotage an appropriate, behavioral reaction.
Moral identity is relevant to the study of leadership and particularly business ethics.
Yet, research has not explored whether moral identity influences whether leaders are
perceived as more or less ethical. Given the tendency for symbolization to invoke
strong reactive behaviors, it would be interesting to see whether such tendencies
599
negatively influence employees' perceptions of their leaders' ethicality. For example,

is it possible for leaders to consider themselves to hold a strong moral identity, but
still be considered unethical by their followers? Skariicki et al.'s (2008) findings
suggest this might be possible because high symbolization individuals can react
unethically to "unethical" situations. If leaders display unethical behaviorseven
if reacting to an unethical situationemployees might perceive them as unethical
rather than ethical. Worse, employees might believe that such reactions are appropriate and then engage in these behaviors as well in a kind of "monkey see, monkey
do" effect (cf. Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998).
Furthermore, research is needed to see if moral identity, particularly the intemalization dimension, can serve to benefit ethics in organizations generally. Research
suggests intemalization mitigates leaming effects of unethical leaders. For example,
Mitchell (2008) theorized and found the relationship between perceived unethical
leader behavior (employees' perceptions of their organizational leaders in general)
and employee deviance was weakened when followers were high in intemalization.
Her research did not examine the effects of symbolization, but based on the findings
of Skariicki et al. (2008), it is possible that followers who hold strong symbolization identities might react quite destmctively to unethical leaders, making deviant
reactions more likely. We suspect that moral identity will impact follower reactions
to their leaders, as well as the leader's engaged behavior.
Part of an individual's self-concept derives from their membership with salient and
meaningful social groups (Tajfel, 1982). Organizational identification is one type
of identity from which individuals derive meaning. It is their sense of connection
with the membership of their employing organization. Individuals who hold a strong
organizational identification intemalize their organization's successes and failures
(Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The more employees identify with their organization, the
more they adapt their behavior to the organization's norms and values (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989). Individuals who hold a strong organizational identification want to help
the viability of their organization. Social identity theory suggests people generally
want to be associated with positive and prestigious identities and do what they can to
maintain that prestige (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Research supports these arguments
and shows organizational identification promotes beneficial work attitudes (e.g., job
satisfaction, work adjustment; Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007; Efraty & Wolfe,
1988) and behaviors (e.g., in-role and extra-role performance, Riketta, 2005).
There are "dark" side implications to organizational identification. In particular,
researchers have found that employees who hold a strong organizational identity may
fall prey to over-escalation of commitment to failed projects (Haslam, Ryan, Postmes,
Spears, Jetten, & Webley, 2006) and resist change (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003).
Over-identification with the organization may also promote questionable behavior
from employees, such as tolerating the unethical acts from others and losing the
ability to challenge the ethicality of organizational decisions and practices (Ashforth
&Anand, 2003; Brief, Dukerich,& Doran, 1991; Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998;
Vardi & Weitz, 2005). Recent research supports these ideas. Umphress et al. (2010)
theorized and found that employees who held a strong organizational identification
and positive reciprocity beliefs were more likely to engage in unethical behavior
600
that is intended to benefit the organization in some way (which they term unethical
pro-organizational behavior, e.g., misrepresenting the truth to make the organization look good, lying to customers about company information or its products, or
concealing damaging information about the company from the public).
As much as too much identification can be problematic, too little or
under-identification is likely related to negative outcomes as well (Elsbach, 1999;
Dukerich et al., 1998). Under-identification occurs when employees do not align in
any way with the organization's values or see their self-concept as being defined by
the organization's membership. Dukerich et al. (1998) argue there are psychological
and behavioral ramifications of individuals who are disconnected from organizational values and goals. Hewlin (2003: 634) argues that employees who do not
embrace organizational values put on a facade of conformity, which involves "false
representations created by employees to appear as if they embrace organizational
values." These facades contribute to emotional exhaustion and increased tumover
(Hewlin, 2009). Hewlin's research implies employees who dis- or under-identify
with their leaders and organizations may engage in behaviors that are potentially
detrimental to their organizations.
Overall, our review suggests the relationship between ethical and unethical leadership, organizational identification, and employee conduct is likely to be strong.
However, the nature of these relationships (positive or negative) is less certain. We
believe investigating the role of ethical and unethical leadership is critical to organizational identification research. Leaders communicate what is valued and provide
the connection that builds followers' identification with their organizations (Lord &
Brown, 2004; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Employees who strongly identify
with their organizations want to do what they can to make them succeed. Strong
organizational identification increases employees' desires to emulate their leaders' behavior. Employees who engage in prototypical behaviors are more likely to
emerge and be effective as leaders (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Thus, strong
organizational identification might facilitate the effectiveness of an ethical leader in
promoting ethical conduct to employees. On the other hand, strong organizational
identification might influence employees to engage in behaviors that attempt to protect the organization at whatever the cost (Umphress et al., 2010). Weak identification
might be positive, especially for employees with strong moral identities who work
with unethical leaders. Such under-identification might serve as a buffer against
pressure to perform in ways that are unethical. Conversely, under-identification
might encourage unethical employees to disengage from organizations with strong
ethical leadership and work climates, causing them to behave in non-prototypical
and perhaps unethical ways.
Summary
Overall, there are ample opportunities to integrate identity and identification into
research on ethical and unethical leadership. Such work should examine identity
at the individual (e.g., moral identity), group (e.g., group identification), and organizational levels (e.g., organizational identification). Research suggests moral
identity can inform us on a potential individual orientation that influences leaders'
601
behavior, which then influences whether leaders are perceived as ethical or unethical.
Furthermore, research suggests leaders play an intricate role in building followers'
identificationwhether within a group or with the organization as a whole. Identification with the leader and organization can present beneficial and detrimental
outcomes to organizations. More research is needed to determine how exactly
ethical versus unethical leaders yield influence to build employees' identification
and how their identification influences outcomes. The relationships between ethical leadership, unethical leadership, identity/identification as well as their impact
on organizational decisions, structures, and employee behaviors represent fertile
ground for future research.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We believe (un)ethical leadership research can be furthered by addressing various
issues that have arisen in other areas of the leadership and organizational behavior
literatures. In particular, we believe scholars should consider issues involving the
variability of leadership ratings, multi-source and longitudinal data, levels of management, and cross-cultural sampling. Doing so will strengthen inferences made
and advance the field further in understanding of the dynamics of leadership and
business ethics.
How Much Do Eollowers Agree?
Researchers have studied the variability in the quality of relationships between a
leader and his/her followers. Some have observed that followers' ratings of leadership
are likely to vary greatly across individual followers (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga,
1975). According to this perspective, leaders have favorites. They form high quality relationships with a select group of their subordinates that are characterized by
mutual trust, liking, and respect (see Erdogan, & Liden, 2002; Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995 for reviews). Other subordinates do not enjoy similar high quality relationships with their leaders. As a result, follower perceptions of their leaders' qualities,
behaviors, and performance are likely to vary depending on whether they are in the
leader's in-group or out group. However, much leadership research is based on an
assumption of average leadership effects across followers. From this perspective,
as long as there is some level of similarity in follower perceptions (which is usually assessed by statistical measures of consistency or agreement; Bliese, 2000),
variations can safely be ignored and the leader's style of leadership is measured as
the average of all follower ratings.
There is nothing problematic with taking an average approach when measuring
styles of leadership (such as charisma). Some employees might consider a leader
to be charismatic, while others might not. We contend, however, that researchers
need to think more carefully when interpreting variance in ratings of ethical and
unethical leadership. For example, what does it mean if some followers perceive
their leader to be abusive or otherwise unethical while others do not? What does it
mean if some followers perceive leaders to be highly ethical while others do not?
Can a leader abuse one or more of their followers (even if the majority of the group
602
is treated positively) and still be considered an ethical leader? Or, do leaders need
to be seen as consistently ethical by all their employees to be considered ethical?
Furthermore, what causes variability in follower perceptions? Are these variations
due to follower characteristics such as moral identity or different standards of what
constitutes normatively appropriate behavior? Can it be explained by personality
or other individual differences? Does follower variability in ratings contribute to
negative outcomes? These questions suggest that researchers might want to consider
variability in follower ratings of (un)ethical leadership as focus for future research.
It is important to note that these issues reflect more than methodological concerns.
Rather they raise important questions about the very nature of what it means to be
an ethical (or unethical) leader, which is the very basis of the descriptive social
scientific approach.
Whom Should We Be Asking?
As we mentioned earlier, we believe that empirical research on ethical and unethical leadership could benefit from including multiple types of rating sources. Within
organizations, multiple sources are often used in 360-degree performance assessments which solicit feedback from leaders, peers, subordinates, customers, and the
individual being rated to assess the focal individual's performance. At higher organizational levels, researchers could consider collecting data from multiple external
sources (e,g,, stockholders, media, other stakeholders) to evaluate an organization's
executive leadership. Research suggests that different raters might employ different evaluative criteria for assessing leader performance (Harris & Schaubroeck,
1988; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994), so including other rating sources in future
research might provide insight on missing antecedents, processes, and consequences
of (un)ethical leadership from the current literature.
Leaders versus Managers?
According to upper echelons theory, executives think and act differently compared
to lower level leaders (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978), Do those
differences extend to ethical leadership as well? How does level in the organization
affect a leader's values, perceptions, and beliefs regarding organizational ethics?
For example Trevio, Weaver, & Brown (2008) found that executives have more
positive assessments of the ethical well-being of their organizations compared to
lower-level employees. Do executives and lower level leaders experience different
ethical realities in other ways as well? If so, what are the consequences of these
differing perceptions?
Levels of management also raise questions about the impact of distance (physical distance, social distance and frequency of interaction; Antonakis & Atwater,
2002) on the leader-follower relationship and outcomes. Compared to lower level
managers for whom most if not all of their followers are direct reports, senior
managers are also responsible for leading more distant employees who fall within
their chain of command. How does distance affect ethical leadership? If ethical and
unethical leadership is, in part, based on learning processes, how does such learn-
603
ing take place when followers have few opportunities to observe senior managers
in action? Similarly, how does distance affect the relationship between (un)ethical
leadership and outcomes? Overall, there is much to be gained by studying ethical
and unethical leadership at different levels of management and varying degrees of
leader-follower distance.
Researchers should also look for similarities and differences in as well as interrelationships between multiple levels of management (e.g., supervisory, middle
management, executive-level leadership) in ethical and unethical leadership. An
example of this type of research was published by Mayer et al. (2009) who found
that the influence of top management ethical leadership on group-level deviance and
citizenship behaviors was mediated by supervisory ethical leadership. Future research
should investigate to see if this mediation effect holds for other outcomes.
How Much Time Does It Take?
One of the greatest challenges for future research is to consider the temporal nature
of ethical and unethical leadership. There are many unanswered questions that can
only be answered with longitudinal research designs. How does (un)ethical leadership develop over time? Although research points to the importance of personality
(Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), how does upbringing, education, and work
experience shape the ethicality of leaders? Can ethical leadership be developed and
if so, how? Can unethical leaders be trained to be ethical and if so, how? Indeed,
scholars suggest both are a possibility. Specifically, Mitchell and Palmer (2010)
argue that sustained ethical behavior and confidence to engage in ethical behavior
can be strengthened, similar to a "muscle" in the body. Based on self-regulation
theory and research (e.g., Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006; Muraven
& Baumeister, 2000), they contend ethical exercise can strengthen leaders' moral
core, which then can ensure behavior holds integrity to moral values. The key,
however, is time and practice.
Much more research is needed, based on pattemed events over time to fully understand the dynamics of how followers' perceptions of leaders' ethics are formed.
For example, in terms of followers, how long does it take perceptions of a leader's
ethics to form? Do (un)ethical leadership perceptions form quickly? Or does it require repeated interactions for followers to see their leader as an (un)ethical leader?
Can one salient event (negative or positive) change how the leader is perceived in
terms of ethics? How long do the effects of (un)ethical leadership last? Can leaders
recover from ethical lapses and if so, how long does it take to regain the confidence
of followers?
Are Ethical and Unethical Leadership Universal?
Cultural differences play an important role in organizational behavior research
(Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Therefore, national
cultures and subcultures are likely to impact how people think about and react to
(un)ethical leadership. Research suggests the general content of ethical leadership is
universal, but specific facets of ethical leadership are emphasized differently across
604
cultures (Resick, Hanges, Dickson, & Mitchelson, 2006). However, there is much
that we do not know about the relationship between culture and leadership. Previous
research has investigated how definitions of effective leadership vary across national
cultures (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dormn, & Gupta, 2004; Javidan, Dorfman,
Sully de Luque, & House, 2006). However, research has not adequately explored
how cultural differences between leaders and followers might impact employees'
perceptions of leaders. For example, if a leader and follower come from different
cultures, how might this influence the leader's effectiveness as an ethical leader?
This seems highly relevant for global organizations. Further, would such differences
hinder a leader's ability to set a strong ethical tone or can they be overcome? What
about unethical leadershipmuch like ethical leadership (Resick et al., 2006), are
there similarities in how cultures perceive unethical leadership? Are the antecedents,
correlates, and outcomes of (un)ethical leadership universal as well? Or, are there
likely to be important cultural differences?
We also expect culture affects the influence of (un)ethical leadership on outcomes.
For instance, differences in cultural values such as power distance (Hofstede, 1980)
may influence the impact that (un)ethical leadership has on important follower outcomes. For example, reporting problems to a manager is likely to be easier in low
compared to high power distance cultures. Furthermore, followers in high power
distance cultures might be more willing to tolerate abusive and other unethical styles
of leadership compared to those in low power distance cultures. Future research is
needed to investigate these questions further.
CONCLUSION
The social scientific study of ethical and unethical leadership has grown tremendously. Although researchers have made many discoveries, we suggest that there
are many opportunities for future research. Integrating three emerging trends in the
organizational behavior literatureemotions,fit/misfit,and identity/identification
into a leadership and ethics research agenda will provide countless opportunities
to expand what we know about the domain. Additionally, we outlined additional
considerations (variability of ratings, multi-source and longitudinal data, levels of
management, and cross-cultural sampling) that we believe have merit in extending
the literature. We concede to have only scratched the surface of identifying research
questions and proposing new directions. There are, of course, many other possibilities that we have not set forth in this review. We hope our review inspires others to
build on the foundation we have presented here and extend the advances that have
already been made in these areas.
NOTE
1. Consistent with previous descriptive behavioral ethics theorizing (e.g., Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007;
Trevio et al., 2006), we adopt this general definition as it captures both lay expectations of what is unethical
(such as lying, cheating, stealing) and social scientific precedent (e.g., Jones, 1991).
605
REFERENCES
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. 2002. Leader distance: A review and proposed theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 13: 673-704.
Aquino, K. F., & Reed, A., II. 2002. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 1423^0.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92: 191-201.
Ashford, S. 1989. Self-assessments in organizations: A literature review and integrative
model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11: 133-74.
Ashforth, B. E. 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47: 755-79.
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. 2003. The normalization of corruption in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-52.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An
examination of four fundatnental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-74.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14: 20-39.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. 2000. Transformational leadership as management of emotion:
A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.),
Emotions in the workplace: Theory, research and practice: 221-35. Westport, CT:
Quorum.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C , Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. 1998. Self-other agreement:
Does it really matter! Personnel Psychology, 51: 577-98.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. 1992. Does self-other agreement on leadership
perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?
Personnel Psychology, 45: 141-64.
Avolio, B. J. 1999. Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research,
and future dnections. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421-49.
Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. 1993. The social organization of conspiracy: Illegal
networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. American Sociological
Review, 58: 837-60.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efftcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84: 191-215.
1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
1991. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines
& J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development. Hillsdale,
NJ: LEA.
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. 2005. Exploring the role of emotions in
injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 629-43.
606
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 181-218.
Baumeister, R. F. 2001. Ego-depletion, the executive function, and self-control: An energy
model of the self in personality. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality
psychology in the workplace: Decade of behavior: 299-316. Washington, DC:
APA.
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. 2006. Self-regulation and
personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion
moderates the effects on traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74: 17731801.
Baumhart, R. C. 1961. How ethical are businessmen? Harvard Business Review, 39: 6-8.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bliese, P. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications
for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.),
Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: 349-81. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J. E., & Hies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership
Quarterly, 17: 317-34.
Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. R. 2003. Escaping the identity trap. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 44: 20-26.
Braithwaite, J. 1989. Criminological theory and organizational crime. Justice Quarterly,
6: 333-58.
Brenner, S. N., & Molander, E. A. 1977. Is the ethics of business changing? Harvard
Business Review, 55: 57-71.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. 2001. Collective corruption in the corporate
world: Toward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and
research: 471-99. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brief, A. P., Dukerich, J. M., & Doran, L. J. 1991. Resolving ethical dilemmas in
management: Experimental investigations of values, accountability, and choice.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21: 380-96.
Brown, M. E. 2007. Misconceptions of ethical leadership: How to avoid potential pitfalls.
Organizational Dynamics, 36: 140-55.
Brown, M. E., & Trevio, L. K. 2006a. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.
2006b. Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in
work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 95462.
2009. Leader-follower value congruence: Are socialized charismatic leaders
better able to achieve it? Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94: 478-90.
607
Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 97: 117-34.
Bums, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1997. Interviewers' perceptions of person-organization fit and
organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 546-61.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. 2007. The role of perceived organizational
performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance.
Journal of Management Studies, 44: 972-92.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perceptionbehavior link
in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 893-910.
Chatman, J. 1991. Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459-84.
Ciulla, J, B. (Ed.) 2004. Ethics, the heart of leadership (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Clement, R. 2006. Just how unethical is American business? Business Horizons, 49: 31327.
Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. 2008. CEO
transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top
management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 81-96.
Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An
insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly,
10: 145-79.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage,
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.
Dansereau, E., Graen, G,, & Haga, W. J. 1975, A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role
making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78.
Dasborough, M. T. 2006, Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to
leadership behaviors. Lea</crs/ii/> OMflrter/y, 17: 163-78.
Dasborough, M, T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E, Y J., & Tse, H. H. M. 2009. What goes
around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately
determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 57185.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2008. Ethical and despotic leadership,
relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness
and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19:
297-311.
Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. 2007. Managerial modes of
influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unitlevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 993-1005,
608
Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical decision
making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:
374-91.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. 1939. Frustration
and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C , & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace.
Academy of Management Journal, 45: 331-51.
Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R., & Parks, J. M. 1998. The dark side of organizational
identification. In D. A. Whetten & P C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations:
Building theory through conversations: 245-56. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Edwards, J. R. 2008. Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical
progress. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 167-230.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. 2009. The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94: 654-77.
Efraty, D., & Wolfe, D. M. 1988. The effect of organizational identification on employee
affective and performance responses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3:
105-12.
Elsbach, K. D. 1999. An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 21: 163-200.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2004. Work value congruence and intrinsic
career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived
organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57: 305-32.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. 2002. Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent
developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory.
In L. Neider, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership, 65-114. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Press.
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., & Whitten, D. 2009. The fallout from abusive supervision
through work-family conflict: An examination of job incumbents and their
parents. Paper presented at the meeting of Southem Management Association,
Asheville, NC. Unpublished manuscript.
Finney, H. C , & Lesieur, H. R. 1982. A contingency theory of organizational crime.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1: 255-99.
Fisher, K. W, & Tangney, J. P. 1995. Self-conscious emotions and the affect revolution:
Framework and overview. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fisher (Eds.), Self-conscious
emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride: 3-22. New
York: Guilford Press.
Fox, S., & Speetor, P. E. 1999. A model of work frustrationaggression. Journal of
Frijda, N. H. 1986. The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frost, P. J. 2004. New challenges for leaders and their organization. Organization
Dynamics, 33: 111-27.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. 1998. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical
perspective. Acade/Mj' of Management Review, 23: 32-58.
609
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. 2005. Embedding leader characteristics:
An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90: 1002-10.
Gioia, D. A. 1992. Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities.
Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 379-89.
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25: 161-78.
Graen, G.B.,&Uhl-Bien,M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development
of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a
multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-47.
Greenwald, A. G. 1980. The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history.
American Psychologist, 35: 603-18.
Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to
moral judgment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108: 814-34.
2003. The moral emotions. In R. J. Davison, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith
(Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences: 852-70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. 2007. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral
intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20: 98-116.
Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. 2003. Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not
like other kinds. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 33, 1-36.
Hambrick, D. C , & Mason, P. A., 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection
of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. 2007. An investigation of abusive supervision
as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the
relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 252-63.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. 1988. A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and
peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41: 43-62.
Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T, Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P 2006. Sticking
to our guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to faltering
organizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 607-28.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. 1994. Emotional contagion. New York: Bantam
Books.
Hepworth, W, & Towler, A. 2004. The effects of individual differences and charismatic
leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
9: 176-85.
Hewlin, P. E. 2003. And the award for the best actor goes to . . . : Facades of conformity in
organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 28: 63342.
2009. Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating facades
of conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 72741.

Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., & McBride, M. V. 2007. Authoritarian dynamics
and unethical decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders and
high right-wing authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and Social
610
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44: 513-24.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. 1994. What we know about leadership: Effectiveness
and personality. American Psychologist, 49: 493-504.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as
displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91:1125-33.
House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge: 189-207. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated
theory. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 323-52.
House, R. J., Hanges, P J., Javidan, M., Dormn, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. 2006. In the eyes of the
beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 20: 67-90.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference:
A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44: 741-63.
Johnson, S. K. 2008. I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect at
work on leader and follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 1-19.
2009. Do you feel what I feel? Mood contagion and leadership outcomes.
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An xs&ue.contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16: 366-95.
Jordan, J., Brown, M. E., & Trevio, L. K., 2010. The executive as ethical leader: The
relationship between leader-follower ethical reasoning and perceived ethical
leadership. University of Groningen. Unpublished manuscript.
Jordan, N. 1965. The asymmetry of liking and disliking. A phenomenon meriting further
reflection and research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29: 315-22.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalysis of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 755-68.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk.
Econometrica, 47: 263-91.
Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson, L. 1972. Negativity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse,
S. Valins, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving
the causes of behavior: 47-62. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kanungo, R., & Mendonca, M. 1996. Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The Social psychology of organizations. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
611
Kelman, H. C. 1973. Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization

of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29: 25-61.
Kohlberg, L. 1969. State and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to
socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research:
347^80. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C , 2005. Consequences of
individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, persongroup, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342.
Lewis, K. M. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative
emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,21:221-34.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. 2004. Leadership processes and follower self-identity.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. 2003. Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach.
In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new disciple: 241-58. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Madera, J. M., & Smith, D. B. 2009. The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations
of leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. Leadership
Quarterly, 20: 103-14.
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13: 103-23.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. 2009. How low does
ethical leadership now? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 108: 1-13.
Mitchell, M. S. 2008. Unethical leader behavior and employee workplace deviance and
the moderating effects of need for affiliation and moral identity. Paper presented
at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual conference, San
Francisco, CA. Unpublished manuscript.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92: 1159-68.
Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. 2010. Understanding the managerial relevance of ethical
efficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of
morality (vol. 2): 89-108. New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., Tepper, B. J., & Palmer, N. F 2010. Justifying supervisor
abuse: Subordinate performance, moral disengagement, and need for
achievement. Presentation at the meeting of Academy of Management, Montral,
CA. Unpublished manuscript.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. Self-regulatory and depletion of limited resources:
Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126: 247-59.
612
Neubert, M. J,, Carlson, D, S,, Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. 2009, The
virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal
of Business Ethics, 90: 157-70.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. 1998. Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal
of Management, 24: 391^19.
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. 1996. Organization-motivated
aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21: 22553,
Opotow, S. 1990. Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues,
46: 1-20.
Pelletier, K. L., & Bligh, M. C. 2008, The aftermath of organizational corruption: Employee
attributions and emotional reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80: 823-44.
Peters, G, 2002. From good and bad to can and must: Subjective necessity of acts
associated with positively and negatively valued stimuli. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 32: 125-36.
Piccolo, R, F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R., 2010. The relationship
between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31: 259-78.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S, 1999, Fairness percepfions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study.
Journal of Management, 25: 897-933.
Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. 2008. Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt
individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management
Review, 33: 685-709.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformafional
leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Laders/ii/; uarter/y, 1: 107-42.
Postmes, T., & Jetten, J, 2006, Reconciling individuality and the group. In T. Postmes &
J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity: 258-69.
London: Sage.
Reed, A,, II, & Aquino, K. F. 2003. Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard
toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 1270-86.
Resick, C , Hanges, P., Dickson, M., & Mitchelson, J. 2006. A cross-cultural examination
of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63: 345-59.
Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. 2007. The effects of moral judgment and moral identity
on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92: 1610-24.
Riketta, M. 2005, Organizafional idenfificafion: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66: 358-84.
Robertson, D. C , & Rymon, T. 2001. Purchasing agents' deceptive behavior: A randomized
response technique study. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11: 455-79.
613
Robinson, S., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work
groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal,
41: 658-72.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling siuy. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555-72.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. 2001. Negafivity bias, negafivity dominance, and contagion.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5: 296-320.
Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C , & Brown, M. E., 2010. Do ethical leaders get ahead?
Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20:
215-36.
Salancik, G. J., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-53.
Salvador, R., & Folger, R. 2009. Business ethics and the brain. Business Ethics Quarterly,
19: 1-31.
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. 2002. How similarity to peers and supervisor influences
organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management
Journal, 45: 1120-36.
Schein, E. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Neubaum, D. O. 2005. The effect of leader moral
development on ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 97: 135-51.
Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyreffite, J., & Sebora, T. C. 2002. Leadership and ethics in
work groups: A longitudinal assessment. Group and Organization Management,
27: 272-93.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-53.
Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. 2008. Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral
identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly,
18:513^0.
Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. 2002. Leaders as moral role models: The case of John
Gutfreund at Salomon Brothers. Journal of Business Ethics, 35: 327-39.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and inteTactiona] justice. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82: 43443.
Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D., & Walker, D. 2008. Getting even for customer
mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer
interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93:
1335^7.
Sy, T., Ct, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood
on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90: 295-305.
Tajfel, H. 1978. Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel
(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations: 61-76. London: Academic Press.
614
1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual

Review of
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.

Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of group relations: 33-47.
Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.
G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7-24. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Tangney, J. P. 1991. Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61: 598-607.
Tangney, J. R, & Dearing, R. L. 2002. Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford Press.
Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43: 178-90.
2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 33: 261-89.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C , Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C , & Hua, W. 2009. Abusive
supervision, intentions to quit, and employees' workplace deviance: A power/
dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
109: 156-67.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. 2006. Procedural injustice,
victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59: 101-23.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. 2001. Personality moderators of the relationship
between abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. Journal of Applied
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. 2008.
Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational deviance. Journal of Applied
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. In press. Predictors of abusive supervision:
Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and
subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. 2007. Abusive supervision, upward
maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy
of Management Journal, 50: 1169-80.
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. 2007. Self-defeating behaviors in organizations:
The relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92: 840-47.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. 2009. How management style
moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance:
An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 108: 79-92.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. In press. Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Examining
two explanations of the supervisor abuse-employee deviance relationship through
distributive justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology.
615
Thomas, T., Schermerhorn, J. R., & Dienhart, J. W. 2004. Strategic leadership of ethical
behavior in business. Academy of Management Executive, 18: 56-66.
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. 2009. Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range
leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90: 533-47.
Trevio, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation
interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11: 601-17.
Trevio, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. 2003. A qualitative investigation of perceived
executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive
suite. Human Relations, 55: 5-37.
Trevio, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. 2000. Moral person and moral manager:
How executive develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management
Review, 42: 128^2.

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

Ethical Leadership Brown

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Leadership Brown

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical and Unethical Leadership:

Exploring New Avenues for Euture Research

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

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

In contrast, our article emphasizes a social scientific approach to ethical leadership

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Antecedents of Ethical Leadership

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

highlights the need to consider unethical leadership as well as ethical leadership.

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

1986; Hatfleld, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Emotional contagion is defined as an

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

negatively influence employees' perceptions of their leaders' ethicality. For example,

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

of conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 72741.

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Kelman, H. C. 1973. Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.

ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Review, 42: 128^2.

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

You might also like