Discouraging unethicality versus encouraging ethicality: Unraveling the differential effects of prevention‐ and promotion‐focused ethical leadership

Abstract

Theory on the impact of ethical leadership has traditionally been based on a deontological approach to morality. Underlying this perspective is the assumption that all leader behaviors that encourage “normatively appropriate conduct” will influence followers in a similar fashion. Put differently, the current consensus seems to suggest that actions that focus on preventing unethical behavior—attending to “the wrong”—will have the same impact as actions that focus on promoting ethical behavior—attending to “the right.” Taking a within‐person approach, we draw upon social exchange theory to challenge this consensus and build theory that suggests a follower's felt trust from their leader will be differentially impacted by prevention‐ versus promotion‐focused ethical leadership. We also explore how these different types of ethical leadership may indirectly, through felt trust, impact citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Finally, we consider how the role of the “moral manager” may interact with the “moral person” by identifying leader moral hypocrisy as an important between‐person moderator of these effects. Given the importance of ethical decision‐making in organizations and the calls for increased ethical leadership, our findings have important implications for both theory and practice.

Ethicality neutralization and amplification: a multilevel study of ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior

“…Moreover, our findings expand the category of undesirable consequences of EL research (e.g. counterproductive work behavior, Bush et al, 2021) by including UPB.…”

“…First, by theorizing EL at the individual and group level from the "moral person" and the "moral manager" dimensions, we answer the call to understand how EL influences followers in a multilevel fashion (Bai et al, 2019;Bush et al, 2021;Tu and Lu, 2013). Our multilevel model of EL suggests that individual-and group-level EL serve a unique function in explaining follower UPB willingness and that group-level EL plays an important role in preventing UPB.…”

“…Moreover, EL is defined to consist of a "moral person" and a "moral manager" dimension (Brown et al, 2005;Brown and Treviño, 2006). The former is expected to function at the individual level, while the latter is expected to function at the group level (Bai et al (Bush et al, 2021).…”

Do consumers care about morality? A review and framework for understanding morality's marketplace influence

“…Morality is typically conceived in regard to preventing the violation of important values (Irwin & Baron, 2001;Tetlock et al, 2000), rather than promoting actions consistent with these values. For example, when describing brands that engage in normatively determined ethical practices, consumers freely report greater prevention-based (vs. promotion-based) thoughts about the brand (Bullard & Manchanda, 2013; see also Bush et al, 2021). Accordingly, this match between negativity (vs. positivity) and morality leads consumers to be more likely to moralize their negative attitudes.…”

Ethische und destruktive Führung: Gute Führung – schlechte Führung

“…Palanski et al, 2021) auch zunehmend die ambivalenten Wirkungen ethischer Führung aufgrund verschiedener ergänzender Einflussfaktoren in den Blick zu nehmen (s. u. a. Stouten et al, 2013;Babalola et al, 2019;Bush et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2021). Palanski et al (2021) fordern in diesem Sinne, auch negative Wirkungen einer moralisch-rigiden Vorgehensweise sowie emotionale Kosten für Führungskräfte und ethische Dilemmas und Paradoxien stärker zu beachten.…”