Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 91, Issue 3, pp 343–358 | Cite as

Defining Respectful Leadership: What It Is, How It Can Be Measured, and Another Glimpse at What It Is Related to

  • Niels van QuaquebekeEmail author
  • Tilman Eckloff


Research on work values shows that respectful leadership is highly desired by employees. On the applied side, however, the extant research does not offer many insights as to which concrete leadership behaviors are perceived by employees as indications of respectful leadership. Thus, to offer such insights, we collected and content analyzed employees’ narrations of encounters with respectful leadership (N 1 = 426). The coding process resulted in 19 categories of respectful leadership spanning 149 leadership behaviors. Furthermore, to also harness this comprehensive repertoire for quantitative organizational research, we undertook two more studies (N 2a = 228; N 2b = 412) to empirically derive a feasible item-based measurement of respectful leadership and assess its psychometric qualities. In these studies, we additionally investigated the relationships between respectful leadership as assessed with this new measurement and employees’ vertical and contextual followership as assessed via subordinates’ identification with their leaders, their appraisal respect for their leaders, their feeling of self-determination, and their job satisfaction.


interpersonal respect followership leadership self-determination work values 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, E. (1993). Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baard, P.P., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E.(2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bettencourt, B.A., & Miller, N. (1996). Sex differences in aggression as a function of provocation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–227. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birch, T.H. (1993). Moral considerability and universal consideration. Environmental Ethics, 15, 313–332.Google Scholar
  6. Boeckmann, R.J., & Tyler, T.R. (2002). Trust, respect and the psychology of political engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2067–2088. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02064.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boezeman, E.J., & Ellemers, N. (2007). Volunteering for charity: Pride, respect, and the commitment of volunteers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 771–785. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boezeman, E.J., & Ellemers, N. (2008a). Pride and respect in volunteers’ organizational commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 159–172. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boezeman, E.J., & Ellemers, N. (2008b). Volunteer recruitment: The role of organizational support and anticipated respect in non-volunteers’ attraction to charitable volunteer organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1013–1026. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Branscombe, N.R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 744–753. doi: 10.1177/0146167202289004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brennan, R.L., & Prediger, D.J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: some uses and misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 687–699. doi: 10.1177/001316448104100307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chemers, M.M. (2003). Leader effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376-399). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publisher.Google Scholar
  13. Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., & House, R.J. (Eds.).(2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, D., Nisbett, R.E., Bowdle, B.F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: an “experimental ethnography”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945–960. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Cremer, D. (2003). Noneconomic motives predicting cooperation in public good dilemmas: The effect of received respect on contributions. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 367–377. doi: 10.1023/A:1026361632114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T.(2005). A matter of intragroup status: The importance of respect for the viablity of groups. In M. Thomas-Hunt (Ed.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 7, pp. 1-21). Greenwich. CT: Elsevier Science Press.Google Scholar
  17. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillon, R.S: 2003, ‹Respect’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2003 Edition. Retrieved October 05, 2004, from
  19. Dillon, R. S. (2007). Respect: A philosophical perspective. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38(2), 201-212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Downie, R.S., & Telfer, E.(1969). Respect for Persons. London: George Allen&Unwin.Google Scholar
  21. Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2007). Paying respect. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(4), 135–149. doi: 10.1257/jep.21.4.135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frankena, W.K. (1986). The ethics of respect for persons. Philosophical Topics, 14, 149–167.Google Scholar
  23. Gagné, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldstein, D.K., & Rockart, J.F. (1984). An examination of work-related correlates of job satisfaction in programmer/analysts. MIS Quarterly, 8(2), 103–115. doi: 10.2307/249347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theorie of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graf, M. M. and N. van Quaquebeke: 2007, Respected Leaders: A Question of Accepted Influence, Personal Power/Legitimacy, and Personal Identification. Paper Presented at the 13th European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, T.E., Jr. (1998). Respect for persons. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hofstede, G.H. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V.(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kant, I.: 1788, Critic der practischen Vernunft. Riga Johann Friedrich HartknochGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60. doi: 10.1177/002200275800200106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kunin, T. (1955). The Construction of a New Type of Attitude Measure. Personal Psychology: A Journal of Applied Research, 8, 65-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R.(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  36. Mael, F.A., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Margalit, A. (1998). The decent society (N. Goldblum, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mason, E.S. (1994). Work values: A gender comparison and implications for practice. Psychological Reports, 74(2), 415–418.Google Scholar
  39. Mayring, P.: 2000, ‹Qualitative Content Analysis’, Forum Qualitative Sozial Forschung 1(2).
  40. Miller, D.T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527–552. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B.(2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Pettit, P. (1989). Consequentialism and respect for persons. Ethics, 100, 116–126. doi: 10.1086/293149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Podsakoff, P.M., Podsakoff, N.P., MacKenzie, S.B., & Lee, J.-Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Raz, J. (2001). Value, respect and attachment (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sennett, R. (2003). Respect in a world of inequality (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  47. Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept-based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594. doi: 10.1287/orsc.4.4.577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simon, B. (2007). Respect, equality, and power: A social psychological perspective. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38(3), 309–326. doi: 10.1007/s11612-007-0027-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon, B., Lücken, M., & Stürmer, S. (2006). The added value of respect: Reaching across inequality. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 535–546. doi: 10.1348/014466605X57637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simon, B., & Stürmer, S. (2003). Respect for group members: Intragroup determinants of collective identification and group-serving behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 183–193. doi: 10.1177/0146167202239043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simon, B., & Stürmer, S. (2005). In search of the active ingredient of respect: A closer look at the role of acceptance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 809–818. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & De Gilder, D. (2007). Explaining the motivational forces of (dis)respect: How self-focused and group-focused concerns can result in the display of group-serving efforts. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38(3), 327–342. doi: 10.1007/s11612-007-0028-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, H.J., Tyler, T.R., Huo, Y.J., Ortiz, D.J., & Lind, E.A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 470–493. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2005). Let me count the ways in which I respect thee: Does competence compensate or compromise lack of liking from the group? European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 263–279. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd edition). Sage: London.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, W.D., & Walter, S.D. (1988). A reappraisal of the kappa coefficient. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 41, 949–958. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90031-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tyler, T.R., & Blader, S.L.(2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology press.Google Scholar
  58. Tyler, T.R., & Blader, S.L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tyler, T.R., Boeckmann, R.J., Smith, H.J., & Huo, Y.J.(1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  60. Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A.(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  61. van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 171–191. doi: 10.1348/096317904774202135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D.(2003). Leadership, identy and influence: Relational concerns in the use of influence tactics. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 123-137). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M.A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Quaquebeke, N. and F. C. Brodbeck: 2008, ‹Entwicklung und erste Validierung zweier Instrumente zur Erfassung von Führungskräfte-Kategorisierung im deutschsprachigen Raum’, Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 52(2), 70–80. Development and first validation of two scales to measure leader categorization in German-speaking countries. doi: 10.1026/0932-4089.52.2.70 Google Scholar
  65. van Quaquebeke, N., Henrich, D.C., & Eckloff, T. (2007). “It’s not tolerance I’m asking for, it’s respect!” A conceptual framework to differentiate between tolerance, acceptance and respect. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38(2), 185–200. doi: 10.1007/s11612-007-0015-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Quaquebeke, N., S. Zenker and T. Eckloff: 2008, ‹Find Out How Much it Means to Me! The Importance of Interpersonal Respect in Work Values Compared to Perceived Organizational Practices’, Journal of Business Ethics (online first). doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-0008-6
  67. Yukl, G.A., & Van Fleet, D.D.(1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 147-198). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotterdam School of ManagementErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Respect Research GroupUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations