1、Michigan State University Arizona State UniversityThe antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership were examined in a study of 894 employees and their 222 immediate supervisors in a major financial institution in the United States. The leader personality traits of agreeableness and conscientio
2、usness were positively related to direct reports ratings of the leaders ethical leadership, whereas neuroticism was unrelated to these ratings. Ethical leadership influenced followers voice behavior as rated by followers immediate supervisors. This relationship was partially mediated by followers pe
3、rceptions of psychological safety. Implications for research on ethical leadership and means to enhance ethical behavior among leaders and nonleaders are discussed.Keywords: ethical leadership, leadership, personality, psychological safety, voiceIn both the mass media and the academic community, the
4、re has been a surge in interest in the ethical and unethical behavior of leaders. Although the high-profile corporate scandals in recent years may explain much of the mass media and popular focus （Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008）, academics interest has been piqued by fresh evi
5、dence that ethical leadership behavior is associated with both positive and negative organizational processes （e.g., Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009） and outcomes （De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008）. In this study, we sought to contribute to this body o
6、f knowledge by examining new antecedents and outcomes of ethical leadership. Brown et al. （2005, p. 120） defined ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers throug
7、h two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” （for a review, see Brown & Trevino, 2006）. Brown et al. argued that ethical leaders not only inform individuals of the benefits of ethical behavior and the cost of inappropriate behavior; such leaders also set clear standards and use rewar
8、ds and fair and balanced punishment to hold followers accountable for their ethical conduct （see also Trevino, Brown, & Hartman, 2003）. Despite the assumed importance and prominence of ethical leadership in organizations, there are still many questions relating to its antecedents and consequences （B
9、rown et al., 2005）. For example, researchers know very little about why some leaders engage in the spectrum of ethical leadership behaviors and others do not. One key question is whether the likelihood of an individual being perceived as an ethical leader among subordinates can be predicted using hi
10、s or her personal characteristics. Identifying trait antecedents will aid in the development of strategies for selecting and developing ethical leaders and determining the best means to reinforce ethical behaviors. Only a few studies have addressed the consequences of ethical leadership behavior （Br
11、own et al., 2005; Detert, Trevino, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007; Mayer et al., 2009）. Whereas some reliable evidence from recent studies supports the idea that ethical leadership has a range of favorable outcomes （e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 2009）, Detert et al. （2007） found no relationship
12、 between ethical leadership and food shrinkage, an index of counterproductive behavior among restaurant employees. Some psychological mechanisms that may explain the more favorable effects of ethical leadership have been discussed （see Brown & Trevino, 2006）, but little empirical attention has been
13、directed toward understanding the psychological processes that may differentiate the behavior of followers of ethical leaders from that of followers of less ethical leaders. A clearer understanding of the mechanisms by which ethical leadership influences outcomes is not only needed for the practical
14、 concerns of selecting for, developing, and motivating ethical leadership; such information would also be valuable for determining whether the construct developed by Brown and Trevino and their colleagues contributes something genuinely new to leadership research and practice. With these limitations
15、 of the extant literature in mind, we had three aims in the present study. First, we identified individual traits that were expected to influence ethical leadership. We chose to focus on how leader personality relates to follower ratings of the leaders ethical behavior for two reasons. Brown et al.
16、（2005） and Brown and Trevino （2006） proposed that three personality traits conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticismare plausible antecedents of ethical leadership. Personality antecedents may be uniquely suited to predicting ethical leadership, because ethical behavior reflects variation in
17、 individuals deep-seated values and beliefs; thus, ethical leadership should be a behavioral pattern that is very constant across situations and over time. Second, the present study contributes to the emerging theoretical and empirical research on ethical leadership by examiningindividual- and group
18、-level outcomes that have been established to have important implications for work unit functioning: work group psychological safety （Edmondson, 1999） and employee voice behavior （LePine & Van Dyne, 1998）. Finally, our study tested whether followers perceptions of psychological safety mediated the r
19、elationship between ethical leadership and voice behavior. We integrated these various factors in a theoretical model that we tested using data from distinct sources. Figure 1 summarizes the conceptual model examined in the present study.Theory and Hypothesis DevelopmentEthical Leadership, Psycholog
20、ical Safety, and Employee Voice Employee voice is defined as “promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize” （Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, p. 109）. It concerns the bottom-up process of rank-and-file employees making innovative su
21、ggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures. Voice behavior is an important component of extrarole behavior （i.e., those positive and discretionary behaviors that are not required by the organization but that are necessary to facilitate effective organizational functio
22、ning; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006）. Mayer et al. （2009） found that ethical leadership was a significant predictor of group-level helping behavior, which is a distinct domain of extrarole behavior. Like helping behavior, constructive voice behavior should be valued by leaders because it can r
23、eveal problems and solutions to problems as well as point to other ideas that may help work unit functioning （Van Dyne & LePine, 1998）. One of the central predictions of ethical leadership theory is that ethical leaders “provide followers with voice” （Brown et al., 2005, p. 120）. Ethical leaders spe
24、ak out publicly against inappropriate organizational actions and behaviors and emphasize doing the right thing. From a social learning perspective （Bandura, 1977）, when leaders proactively create a fair work environment, they become a target of emulation （Brown et al., 2005）. Because ethical leaders
25、 convey high moral standards to employees, they encourage their followers to voice opinions and suggestions, not only about ethical matters but also about other work-related processes and work context. In support of this linkage, Brown et al. found that ethical leadership was significantly related t
26、o members willingnessto report problems to management. This is only one aspect of Van Dyne and LePines （1998） voice behavior construct. In addition, voice behavior includes expressing dissent when employees perceive that certain actions would be inappropriate or unethical, as well as sharing constru
27、ctive ideas for work unit improvements even when problems have not surfaced. On this basis, we predicted that ethical leadership would promote voice behavior in work Units. Hypothesis 1: Ethical leadership is positively related to voiceBehavior. Psychological safety refers to shared beliefs among wo
28、rk unit members that it is safe for them to engage in interpersonal risk taking （Edmondson, 1999）. According to Edmondson, psychological safety goes beyond perceiving and experiencing high levels of interpersonal trust; it also describes a work climate characterized by mutual respect, one in which p
29、eople are comfortable expressing their differences. Leaders are pivotal for removing the constraints that often discourage followers from expressing their concerns and other ideas. In environments characterized by high psychological safety, leaders also actively communicate the importance of such be
30、havior and guarantee that it will not have negative repercussions for the individual or the work unit as a whole. In this respect, ethical leadership may be particularly important, and yet this function is underappreciated in the literature. Highly ethical leaders value honest and truthful relations
31、hips with their followers （Brown et al., 2005）. They are seen to act according to their fundamental values and beliefs, rather than to respond to external pressures or narrow and transitory interests. When leaders interact with followers with openness and truthfulness, interpersonal trust and mutual
32、 respect is promoted both between followers and the leader and among the followers themselves. Providing a psychologically secure environment for employees can be a double-edged sword for leaders, however. Whereas favorable solutions may result, leaders often must acknowledge feedback that is not consistent with their plans and wishes. The leaders must allow dissent despite the pressures and complications it entails and resist the t
copyright@ 2008-2022 冰豆网网站版权所有
经营许可证编号:鄂ICP备2022015515号-1
升级会员 