Ethical Leadership Evaluations After Moral Transgression: Social Distance Makes the Difference
- 1.4k Downloads
In light of continuing corporate scandals, the study of ethical leadership remains an important area of research which helps to understand the antecedents and consequences of ethical behavior in organizations. The present study investigates how social distance influences ethical leadership evaluations, and how in turn ethical leadership evaluations affect leader–member exchange (LMX) after a leader’s moral transgression. Based on construal level theory, we propose that higher social distance will lead to more severe evaluations of immoral behavior and therefore entail lower ethical leadership ratings. More- over, we hypothesize that ethical leadership will positively affect LMX. Participants read a scenario describing a moral situation in which a leader, who was presented in either high or low social distance, behaves unethically toward an employee. We tested our predictions using a structural equation modeling approach. As expected, participants in the high social distance condition judged leaders more harshly (i.e., they gave lower ethical leadership ratings) than in the low social distance condition. Thus, social distance moderated the extent to which leaders are perceived as ethical leaders after moral transgression. Moreover, in accordance with our proposition, ethical leadership ratings had a positive influence on LMX.
Keywordsethical leadership construal level theory social distance moral reasoning leader–member exchange
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Agerström, J. and F. Björklund: 2009a, ‘Moral Concerns are Greater for Temporally Distant Events and are Moderated by Value Strength’, Social Cognition 27, 261–282.Google Scholar
- Agerström, J. and F. Björklund: 2009b, ‘Temporal Distance and Moral Concerns: Future Morally Questionable Behavior is Perceived as More Wrong and Evokes Stronger Prosocial Intentions’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 31, 49–59.Google Scholar
- Agerström, J., F. Björklund and C. M. Allwood: 2009, ‘The Influence of Temporal Distance on Justice and Care Morality’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00724.x.
- Ballinger, G. A., D. W. Lehman and F. D. Schoorman: 2010, ‘Leader–Member Exchange and Turnover Before and After Succession Events’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.003.
- Burns, J. M.: 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Chandler, D. J.: 2009, ‘The perfect storm of leaders’ unethical behavior: A conceptual framework’. International Journal of Leadership Studies 5, 69–93.Google Scholar
- Dadhich, A. and K. T. Bhal: 2008, ‘Ethical leader behaviour and leader-member exchange as predictors of subordinate behaviours’. Vikalpa 33, 15–25.Google Scholar
- Graen, G. B.: 2003, ‘Role making onto the starting work team using LMX leadership: Diversity as an asset’. In G. B. Graen (ed.), Dealing with diversity: 1–28. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Liberman, N., Y. Trope and E. Stephan: 2007, ‘Psychological distance’. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles: 353–383. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Luthans, F. and B. Avolio: 2003, ‘Authentic leadership: A positive development approach’. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: 241–261. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
- Marist Poll: 2009, Business Ethics in a Time of Economic Crisis. Retrieved from http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/us090309/Business%20Ethics%20Survey/Business%20Ethics%202009.pdf.
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Paul, T. and B. Schyns: 2008, ‘Mehrdimensionale Skala zur Erfassung des Leader–Member Exchange (LMX-MDM nach Liden & Maslyn, 1998) – Übersetzung [Multidimensional Scale for the Assessment of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX-MDM after Liden & Maslyn, 1998) – Translation]’, in A. Glöckner-Rist (ed.), Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen [Compilation of Social Science Items and Scales]. ZIS Version 12.00. Bonn: GESIS.Google Scholar
- Paulus, C.: 2009, The Saarbruecken Personality Questionnaire on Empathy: Psychometric Evaluation of the German Version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Retrieved from http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2009/2363/.
- Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Rowold, J., L. Borgmann and K. Heinitz: 2009, ‘Ethische Führung – Gütekriterien einer deutschen Adaptation der Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS-D) von Brown et al. (2005) [Ethical Leadership – Measurement Properties of a German Adaptation oft the Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS-D) by Brown et al. (2005)]’, Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 53, 57–69.Google Scholar
- Shacklock, A. and M. Lewis: 2007, ‘Leading with integrity: Ethical leadership – a fundamental principle of integrity and good’. GovNet eJournal 1, 22–44.Google Scholar
- Williams, L. J., N. Hartman and F. Cavazotte: 2010, ‘Method Variance and Marker Variables: A Review and Comprehensive CFA Marker Technique’, Organizational Research Methods. doi: 10.1177/1094428110366036.