Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 99, Issue 4, pp 609–622 | Cite as

Ethical Leadership Evaluations After Moral Transgression: Social Distance Makes the Difference

  • Andranik TumasjanEmail author
  • Maria Strobel
  • Isabell Welpe


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.


ethical leadership construal level theory social distance moral reasoning leader–member exchange 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). ‘Cynicism in the workplace: some causes and effects’. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18, 449-469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avolio, B. J., F. O. Walumbwa and T. J. Weber: 2009, ‘Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions’. Annual Review of Psychology 60, 421–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny: 1986, ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bass, B. M. and P. Steidlmeier: 1999, ‘Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior’. The Leadership Quarterly 10, 181 − 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, M. E. and L. K. Treviño: 2006, ‘Ethical leadership: A review and future directions’. The Leadership Quarterly 17, 595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, M. E., L. K. Treviño and D. A. Harrison; 2005, ‘Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, J. M.: 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  12. Chandler, D. J.: 2009, ‘The perfect storm of leaders’ unethical behavior: A conceptual framework’. International Journal of Leadership Studies 5, 69–93.Google Scholar
  13. Conger, J. A. and R. N. Kanungo: 1987, ‘Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings’. The Academy of Management Review 12, 637–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cremer, D. D., & Knippenberg, D. (2004). ‘Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 95, 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Davis, M. H. (1983). ‘Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 113-126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Hoogh, A. H., and D. N. Den Hartog: 2008, ‘Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study’. The Leadership Quarterly 19, 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dienesch, R. M. and R. C. Liden: 1986, ‘Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development’. Academy of Management Review 11, 618–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eyal, T., N. Liberman and Y. Trope: 2008, ‘Judging near and distant virtue and vice’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, 1204–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fry, L. W.: 2003, ‘Toward a theory of spiritual leadership’. The Leadership Quarterly 14, 693–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerstner, C. R. and D. V. Day: 1997, ‘Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues’. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 827–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giessner, S. R. and D. van Knippenberg: 2008, ‘License to fail: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105, 14–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Graen, G. B. and M. Uhl-Bien: 1995, ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective’. The Leadership Quarterly 6, 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haidt, J.: 2001, ‘The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment’. Psychological Review 108, 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). ‘Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs’. Organizational Research Methods 2, 233-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hollander, E. P.: 1995, ‘Ethical challenges in the leader-follower relationship’. Business Ethics Quarterly 5, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ilies, R., J. D. Nahrgang and F. P. Morgeson: 2007, ‘Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, T. M.: 1991, ‘Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model’. Academy of Management Review 16, 366–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, A. Y., P. A. Keller and B. Sternthal: 2010, ‘Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness’. Journal of Consumer Research 36, 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liberman, N. and Y. Trope: 2008 ‘The psychology of transcending the here and now’. Science 322, 1201–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Liberman, N., Y. Trope and C. Wakslak: 2007, ‘Construal level theory and consumer behavior’. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17, 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liden, R. C. and J. M. Maslyn: 1998, ‘Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development’. Journal of Management 24, 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). ‘Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs’. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 114-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Marist Poll: 2009, Business Ethics in a Time of Economic Crisis. Retrieved from
  38. Mencl, J. and D. R. May: 2009, ‘The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-making: An exploratory investigation’. Journal of Business Ethics 85, 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neubert, M. J., D. S. Carlson, K. M. Kacmar, J. A. Roberts and L. B. Chonko: 2009, ‘The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field’. Journal of Business Ethics 90, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Paulus, C.: 2009, The Saarbruecken Personality Questionnaire on Empathy: Psychometric Evaluation of the German Version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Retrieved from
  43. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). ‘Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879-903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  45. Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). ‘A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance’. Organizational Research Methods 12, 762-800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). ‘Leader self-definition and leader self-serving behavior’. The Leadership Quarterly 21, 509-529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Shrout, P. E. and N. Bolger: 2002, ‘Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations’. Psychological Methods 7, 422–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Toor, S. and G. Ofori: 2009, ‘Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture’. Journal of Business Ethics 90, 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Treviño, L. K. (1992). ‘Experimental approaches to studying ethical-unethical behavior in organizations’. Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trope, Y. and N. Liberman: 2003, ‘Temporal construal’. Psychological Review 110, 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trope, Y. and N. Liberman: 2003, ‘Temporal construal’. Psychological Review 110, 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). ‘Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality’. Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Quaquebeke, N., Kerschreiter, R., Buxton, A., & van Dick, R. (2010). ‘Two lighthouses to navigate: Effects of ideal and counter-ideal values on follower identification and satisfaction with their leaders’. Journal of Business Ethics 93, 293-305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andranik Tumasjan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Strobel
    • 1
  • Isabell Welpe
    • 1
  1. 1.TUM School of ManagementTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations