Examining the Link Between Ethical Leadership and Employee Misconduct: The Mediating Role of Ethical Climate

Mayer, David M.; Kuenzi, Maribeth; Greenbaum, Rebecca L.

doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0794-0

Cited by 446 publications

(476 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

443

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This work builds on insights from social learning theory, which emphasizes that people learn how to behave in a given situation by observing others (Bandura, 1977(Bandura, , 1986. Leaders who model bad behavior embolden their subordinates to engage in bad behavior (Brown et al, 2005;Mawritz et al, 2012;Mayer et al, 2010;Mayer et al, 2009). Modeling can also exert an influence up or across the organizational hierarchy as well (e.g., Gino et al, 2009;Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998;Zey-Ferrell & Ferrell, 1982).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blame the shepherd not the sheep: Imitating higher-ranking transgressors mitigates punishment for unethical behavior

Bauman

Tost

Ong

2016

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blame the shepherd not the sheep: Imitating higher-ranking transgressors mitigates punishment for unethical behavior

Bauman

Tost

Ong

2016

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For organizations, it is important to note that strategies aimed at stimulating prosocial employee behavior (e.g., stimulating a clear ethical climate or ensuring that managers behave in ethical ways; Martin & Cullen, 2006;Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, Moral Self-Regulation, Consistency, and Compensation 26 2009;Mayer, Kuenzi, & Greenbaum, 2010) will not necessarily lead to more prosocial behavior. The present results suggest that when employees take a reactive approach to reputational concerns (e.g., while cognitively depleted), feeling moral may not be effective in promoting prosocial behavior.…”

Section: Theoretical and Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feel Good, Do-Good!? On Consistency and Compensation in Moral Self-Regulation

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies in the behavioral ethics and moral psychology traditions have begun to reveal the important roles of self-related processes that underlie moral behavior. Unfortunately, this research has resulted in two distinct and opposing streams of findings that are usually referred to as moral consistency and moral compensation. Moral consistency research shows that a salient self-concept as a moral person promotes moral behavior. Conversely, moral compensation research reveals that a salient self-concept as an immoral person promotes moral behavior. The present study's aim was to integrate these two literatures. We argued that compensation forms a reactive, "damage control" response in social situations, whereas consistency derives from a more proactive approach to reputation building and maintenance.Two experiments supported this prediction in showing that cognitive depletion (i.e., resulting in a reactive approach) results in moral compensation whereas consistency results when cognitive resources are available (i.e., resulting in a proactive approach). Experiment 2 revealed that these processes originate from reputational (rather than moral) considerations by showing that they emerge only under conditions of accountability. It can thus be concluded that reputational concerns are important for both moral compensation and moral consistency processes, and that which of these two prevails depends on the perspective that people take: a reactive or a proactive approach.Keywords: Accountability; Moral compensation; Moral consistency; Moral licensing; Moral self-regulation; Prosocial Behavior Moral Self-Regulation, Consistency, and Compensation 3 Feel Good, Do-Good!? On Consistency and Compensation in Moral Self-Regulation Every day we encounter numerous work situations in which we have to decide between right and wrong. In the morning, when choosing a new supplier, a warehouse manager may decide to choose for the more expensive one that is guaranteed sweatshop free or she may go for the cheapest offer. In the afternoon, she may decide (somewhat more trivially) to put in some overtime to finish an important deadline or to enjoy a drink on a sunny terrace. Recently, researchers who are interested in behavioral ethics and moral psychology have started to study these moment-to-moment balancing acts between prosocial and self-interested behavior 1 . This research has revealed important roles for the self and selfregulation processes in shaping our moral behaviors (Aquino, Freeman, Reed, Lim, & Felps, 2009;Blasi, 1983;Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin, 2009;Zhong, Liljenquist, & Cain, 2009).Regretfully, this research has not yet resulted in an integrated model that informs us how self-related processes influence moral behavior. In fact, two distinct literatures seem to have developed independently. While both literatures rely on similar manipulations and measures of morality, they offer surprisingly opposite findings. On the one hand, a series of studies show that people with a salient self-concept as being a moral person disp...

show abstract

“…When referring to the moral standards of behavior, one may thus speak of an ethical climate (Kuenzi and Schminke 2009). Such climate has been found to be positively related to organizational commitment (Cullen et al 2003), job satisfaction (Deshpande 1996), and wellbeing (Martin and Cullen 2006), and negatively to deviant behaviors (Mayer et al 2010;Peterson 2002;Wimbush et al 1997). Despite these insights, organizational climate theory does not provide an explanation why employees would adhere to ethical standards in the organization; ethical climate may capture moral standards, but this in and of itself may not explain why an individual member of the organization would adhere to these standards.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

When Organizational Identification Elicits Moral Decision-Making: A Matter of the Right Climate

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To advance current knowledge on ethical decision-making in organizations, we integrate two perspectives that have thus far developed independently: the organizational identification perspective and the ethical climate perspective. We illustrate the interaction between these perspectives in two studies (Study 1, N = 144, US sample; and Study 2, N = 356, UK sample), in which we presented participants with moral business dilemmas. Specifically, we found that organizational identification increased moral decision-making only when the organization's climate was perceived to be ethical. In addition, we disentangle this effect in Study 2 from participants' moral identity. We argue that the interactive influence of organizational identification and ethical climate, rather than the independent influence of either of these perspectives, is crucial for understanding moral decision-making in organizations.

show abstract

Examining the Link Between Ethical Leadership and Employee Misconduct: The Mediating Role of Ethical Climate

Cited by 446 publications

References 43 publications

Blame the shepherd not the sheep: Imitating higher-ranking transgressors mitigates punishment for unethical behavior

Blame the shepherd not the sheep: Imitating higher-ranking transgressors mitigates punishment for unethical behavior

Feel Good, Do-Good!? On Consistency and Compensation in Moral Self-Regulation

When Organizational Identification Elicits Moral Decision-Making: A Matter of the Right Climate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About