No abstract

No abstract

Ethical leadership encompasses the personal conduct of leaders and leaders’ expectations that followers behave ethically. The two studies presented here draw on moral identity and social identity theories to investigate whether moral identity and organizational identification had an indirect effect on the relation between ethical leadership and organizational outcomes. Study 1 examined how ethical leadership and moral identity interact to influence self‐reported ethical behavior using a sample of 3,363 defense personnel. Study 2 examined the mediating role of organizational identification in the relation between ethical leadership and organizational outcomes, such as morale, job satisfaction, and career intentions using a sample of 3,390 military personnel. Consistent with moral identity research, personnel who reported stronger moral identity and who perceived their leaders as higher in ethical leadership were less likely to engage in unethical behavior. Consistent with organizational identification research, higher levels of perceived ethical leadership led to greater organizational identification, which then predicted organizational outcomes (i.e., morale, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions). The findings show the importance of ethical leadership and identity for organizational outcomes.

Covert integrity measures are thought to draw from the Big Five dimensions of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Using a construct‐based approach, we had subject matter experts identify items from a Big Five personality measure, the Trait Self‐Descriptive Personality Inventory that reflected an operational definition of integrity. The resulting 10 items exhibited a three‐factor structure that corresponded to the three Big five dimensions associated with integrity. Study 1 used primary (N = 388) and archival (N = 429) data sets collected from Canadian Armed Forces recruits to establish the construct validity of the new test. With respect to convergent and discriminant validity, the Integrity scale was related to the Honesty–Humility scale of the HEXACO‐PI and was unrelated to organizational commitment. Hierarchical regression analyses provided evidence that the integrity scale predicted counterproductive work behavior and job performance over and above the Big Five. Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1 using a civilian sample (N = 200). The Integrity scale was related to the Hogan Reliability Index but not to the General Health Questionnaire. It predicted work engagement over and above the Big Five. We also tested the proposition that integrity is a second‐order factor based on conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Structural equation models in both studies confirmed that proposition. We discuss the implications of our results for both theory and practice.

As discussed in more detail by other authors in this volume, resilience is often defined as the ability to adapt to or bounce back from threatening situations and refrain from engaging in maladaptive behavior. According to van Breda (2011), resilience, "along with assets, strengths, and solutions, has become an increasingly mainstream concept in recent years" (p. 33). if we accept that stressors can have extremely adverse consequences and understand that resilience provides people with the capacity to deal effectively with life and work stress, then it is easy to appreciate why resilience should be so important for military leaders. After all, leaders should always be interested in the well-being of their subordinates. furthermore, leaders cannot exist without followers, and issues associated with mental health can be every bit as devastating as physical health problems. military leaders who fail to let subordinates know that their physical and emotional well-being