Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 137, Issue 4, pp 743–755 | Cite as

The “Right” and the “Good” in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors’ Performance and Promotability Evaluations

  • Chaim LetwinEmail author
  • David Wo
  • Robert Folger
  • Darryl Rice
  • Regina Taylor
  • Brendan Richard
  • Shannon Taylor
Article

Abstract

Substantial research demonstrates that ethical leaders improve a broad range of outcomes for their employees, but considerably less attention has been devoted to the performance and success of the leaders themselves. The present study explores the extent to which being ethical relates to leaders’ performance and promotability. We address this question by examining ethical leadership from the two ethical perspectives most common in Western traditions—i.e., the “right” and the “good”—and whether one might be more closely associated than the other with performance and promotability evaluations. Results from 117 employee-supervisor-manager triads show that supervisors with a deontological outlook are more likely to be seen as ethical leaders (given current conceptualizations of the construct) and that utilitarian leaders are more likely to earn higher performance evaluations (above these current conceptions). We discuss the implications of these findings for research on ethical leadership.

Keywords

Deontology Ethics Ethical leadership Leadership Performance Promotability Utilitarianism 

References

  1. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership development. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audi, R. (2009). The good in the right: A theory of intuition and intrinsic value. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axinn, C. N., Blair, M. E., Heorhiadi, A., & Thach, S. V. (2004). Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Baron, J. (1993). Morality and rational choice (Vol. 18). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandt, R. (1979). A theory of the right and the good. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatterjee, J., & Price, B. (1977). Regression analysis by example. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 917–945.Google Scholar
  16. Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craig, S. B., & Hannum, K. (2006). Research update: 360-degree performance assessment. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(2), 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 993–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  21. Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., & Dang, C. (2015). Moralized leadership: The construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions. Academy of Management Review. Advance online publication. doi: 10.5465/amr.2013.0358.
  22. Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical decision-making in the U.S. metal-finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 642–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and processes (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (pp. 3–31). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  25. Fritzsche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy—An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 166–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaus, G. F. (2001a). What is deontology? Part 1, orthodox views. Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaus, G. F. (2001b). What is deontology? Part two, reasons to act. Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(2), 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Groves, K., Vance, C., & Paik, Y. (2008). Linking linear/nonlinear thinking style balance and managerial ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). An examination of temporal variables and relationship quality on promotability ratings. Group and Organization Management, 31(6), 677–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hauenstein, N. M. A., & Foti, R. J. (1989). From laboratory to practice: Neglected issues in implementing frame-of-reference rater training. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.Google Scholar
  33. Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kant, I. (1959). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  35. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Premeaux, S. R. (2004). The current link between management behavior and ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(3), 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. (1993). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(5), 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ross, W. D. (2002). The right and the good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010). Do ethical leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martinez, R. (2011). Improving the “leader-follower” relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle-down effect on follower job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail: Perspectives across time and cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 62–72.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions of work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilson, K. S., Sin, H., & Colon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 358–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chaim Letwin
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Wo
    • 2
  • Robert Folger
    • 3
  • Darryl Rice
    • 4
  • Regina Taylor
    • 5
  • Brendan Richard
    • 3
  • Shannon Taylor
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management and EntrepreneurshipSuffolk UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ManagementSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Department of ManagementUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Management, Farmer School of BusinessMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  5. 5.Management & Marketing Department, Heider College of BusinessCreighton UniversityOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations