Article Critique Assignment Homework
Vol.:(0123456789)1 3
Journal of Business Ethics (2019) 160:765–781 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3908-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical Leadership Relate to Leader Outcomes
John J. Sosik1 · Jae Uk Chun2 · Ziya Ete3 · Fil J. Arenas4 · Joel A. Scherer4
Received: 6 December 2017 / Accepted: 1 May 2018 / Published online: 8 May 2018 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Evidence from a growing number of studies suggests leader character as a means to advance leadership knowledge and practice. Based on this evidence, we propose a process model depicting how leader character manifests in ethical leadership that has positive psychological and performance outcomes for leaders, along with the moderating effect of leaders’ self- control on the character strength–ethical leadership–outcomes relationships. We tested this model using multisource data from 218 U.S. Air Force officers (who rated their honesty/humility, empathy, moral courage, self-control, and psychological flourishing) and their subordinates (who rated their officer’s ethical leadership) and superiors (who rated the officers’ in-role performance). Findings provide initial support for leader character as a mechanism triggering positive outcomes such that only when officers reported a high level of self-control did their honesty/humility, empathy, and moral courage manifest in ethical leadership, associated with higher levels of psychological flourishing and in-role performance. We discuss the implications of these results for future theory development, research, and practice.
Keywords Character strengths · Ethical leadership · In-role performance · Psychological flourishing · Self-control
“Character is an integration of habits of conduct superimposed on temperament. It is the will exercised on disposition, thoughts, emotion and action. Will is character in action.” – Vince Lombardi
The sentiments of Vince Lombardi can be traced to tutelage by his ethics professor Father Ignatius W. Cox at Fordham University and General Douglas MacArthur at West Point, who along with philosophers, theologians, and psycholo- gists have noted the importance of character and ethics for motivating performance excellence and human flourishing (Maraniss 1999). With the advent of the positive psychol- ogy and positive organizational behavior fields (Luthans and Yussef-Morgan 2017; Peterson and Seligman 2004), schol- ars have identified many beneficial outcomes associated with character-based leadership including ethicality and organi- zational citizenship behavior (Wang and Hackett 2016), enhanced managerial performance (Gentry et al. 2013; Sosik et al. 2012), stress management, and wellbeing (Gavin et al. 2003; Krause and Hayward 2015). The topic is important to understand because of its role in interpersonal relationships, high value in business and society, and potential influences
* John J. Sosik jjs20@psu.edu
Jae Uk Chun juchun@korea.ac.kr
Ziya Ete ziya.ete@durham.ac.uk
Fil J. Arenas filomeno.arenas@us.af.mil
Joel A. Scherer joel_scherer@yahoo.com
1 Great Valley School of Graduate and Professional Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, 30 East Swedesford Road, Malvern, PA 19355, USA
2 Korea University Business School, Korea University, Anam-Dong, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-701, Republic of Korea
3 Durham University Business School, Durham University, Millhill Lane, Durham DH1 3LB, UK
4 United State Air Force Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, AL 36112-6426, USA
766 J. J. Sosik et al.
1 3
on leadership processes and outcomes (Sosik 2015; Wang and Hackett 2016).
Several studies have addressed the topic of character as the virtuous habits of conduct directed toward personal and societal good (Wright and Quick 2011) and sug- gest that ethical leadership may provide leaders with a mechanism for the behavioral manifestation of aspects of character, such as honesty/humility, empathy, moral cour- age, and self-control (Gentry et al. 2013; Sosik et al. in press; Wang and Hackett 2016). Ethical leaders are honest, humble and empathetic with subordinates, courageous in taking unpopular but virtuous stands on issues, and self- controlled when facing challenges and temptations (Brown et al. 2005). These character strengths represent individual characteristics or moderating influences on leader ethical behavior according to Brown and Treviño’s (2006) model of ethical leadership.
Despite the burgeoning literatures on character and ethi- cal leadership, several important gaps remain unaddressed. First, theories of social learning (Bandura 1977) and social exchange (Blau 1964) are two overarching theoretical frame- works that explain how ethical leadership promotes subor- dinates’ beneficial organizational behavior through ethical role-modeling and engendering feelings of trust and fairness (Brown and Treviño 2006). However, this conceptualiza- tion of ethical leadership has resulted in an almost exclusive emphasis on subordinates’ outcomes and their evaluation of leader effectiveness, thereby calling for additional research on the effects of ethical leadership on the attitudinal and performance outcomes for ethical leaders (Bedi et al. 2016; Brown and Mitchell 2010). Second, studies of the condi- tions under which ethical leadership may be limited are emerging with topics such as perceived ethical conviction of the leader (Babalola et al. 2017) and supervisor-induced hindrance stress (Quade et al. 2017). However, other top- ics such as leader personal resources for coping with stress by tapping self-control (Baumeister et al. 2007) have been theoretically identified as boundary conditions of ethical leadership (Sosik et al. 2018), but have not yet been tested. Third, there is a lack of research on leader well-being despite several calls for it based on the stressful nature of leadership, especially in contexts involving ethical compliance, change management, and extreme or dangerous missions (Bernerth and Hirschfeld 2016; Krause and Hayward 2015). Fourth, studies on leadership triads that highlight the importance of leaders accommodating the demands of both superiors and subordinates are extending research on leadership dyads, but this stream of research is nascent (Offstein et al. 2006). Finally, the few empirical examinations of character and ethical leadership have been conducted primarily in busi- ness and educational contexts (e.g., Bedi et al. 2016; Wang and Hackett 2016), while largely ignoring military con- texts, where character is valued for sustaining strong ethical
climates and often tested in extreme operational contexts (USAF 2015a).
The primary purpose of this study is to address these gaps in the literature by answering a research question that asks whether stronger ethical leadership is associated with the leader antecedent character strengths and leader outcomes for leaders with high versus low levels of self-control. We also test whether ethical leadership mediates those relation- ships. The findings from this research model explicate the nature of character strengths related to ethical leadership and associated leader outcomes, identify boundary condi- tions under which ethical leadership processes and leader outcomes are limited, contribute to the literatures on leader wellbeing and leadership triads, and extend ethical leader- ship research to a military context. While military contexts are more dangerous and extreme than business contexts, they promote professionalism, ethical conduct, and offer leaders similar functional areas to hone skills sought by businesses wishing to employ military veterans.
Building upon ethical leadership research (Brown and Treviño 2006) and theories of social cognition (Bandura 1991a, b), we present a model demonstrating how theoreti- cally-relevant and context-specific leader character strengths (honesty/humility, empathy, moral courage) manifest in ethi- cal leadership behavior associated with beneficial outcomes for leaders (psychological flourishing, in-role performance), via the moderating role of leader self-control. We test this model using multi-source triadic data collected from U.S. Air Force (USAF) officers, their subordinates, and superiors given the consistency between the focal character strengths and USAF core values of “integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do” in consideration of the USAF’s strong ethical climate and extreme operational context. This study provides evidence for the roles of four character strengths in helping leaders to perform well and flourish. Gaining such understanding is essential because military services are on the vanguard of leadership development, preparing officers and enlisted forces to protect national interests and provide security for citizens (USAF 2015a).
Theoretical Background, Research Model, and Hypotheses
Brown and Treviño’s (2006) model of ethical leadership serves as the conceptual framework for this study. Briefly, this framework proposes that a leader’s situational (e.g., ethical context) and individual characteristics (e.g., char- acter strengths) influence the display of ethical leadership which subsequently influences outcomes. The framework also posits that the relationships between a leader’s situ- ational and individual characteristics and the display of ethical leadership are moderated by other situational and
767Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical…
1 3
individual characteristics (e.g., self-control). Ethical lead- ership research has primarily been grounded in theories of social learning (Bandura 1977) and social exchange (Blau 1964) which explain inter-personal processes between ethi- cal leaders and subordinates. However, the processes exam- ined in this study are intra-personal since they occur within leaders. Accordingly, we use social cognitive theory (SCT) as it applies to moral thought and action (Bandura 1991a) and self-regulation (Bandura 1991b) as a primary base for our hypotheses because it explains intra-personal motiva- tional processes and how they are influenced by situational factors such as experienced stress. Building upon this theo- retical foundation, we propose and test a research model that produces a moderated mediation as shown in Fig. 1.
We selected honesty/humility, empathy, and moral courage as the focal leader character strengths for this study based on SCT of moral thought and action (Bandura 1991a) and prior research identifying them as core aspects of leader character required for high in-role performance (Gentry et al. 2013; Stephano and Wasylyshyn 2005). SCT posits that personal (traits, behavior, cognition, affect) and contextual (environmental) influences serve as interact- ing determinants of each other. Our study was conducted within the context of a strong USAF culture that espouses honesty/humility, empathy, and moral courage as core val- ues through doctrine, policy and training (USAF 2015a). We chose leader self-control as a moderator variable based on SCT of self-regulation and research identifying it as an important self-regulatory mechanism for other character strengths (Baumeister and Exline 1999). SCT suggests that self-control is integral to self-regulation of not only moral behavior (Bandura 1991a), but also performance effective- ness and wellbeing (Bandura 1991b).
We examined psychological flourishing and in-role per- formance as leader outcomes in this study. Psychological flourishing reflects aspects of psychological wellbeing that include having supportive relationships, personal meaning, self-esteem, and optimism (Diener et al. 2010). In-role per- formance represents the quality of task execution required as part of a leader’s formal job description (Williams and Anderson 1991). While in-role performance may differ
from performance as a leader (cf. Bass 2008), the USAF considers both task execution and effectiveness as a leader of subordinates under his or her command as task require- ments of all officers. Both of these leader outcome variables are considered important by USAF commanders for Airmen to achieve their missions while sustaining their wellbeing (USAF 2015b).
Ethical Leadership
Ethical leadership is defined as “the demonstration of nor- matively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such con- duct through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown et al. 2005, p. 120). This defini- tion indicates that ethical leaders act as both moral persons and moral managers as they model appropriate behavior for subordinates who gain greater moral awareness through social learning processes (Bandura 1977). As moral persons, ethical leaders are honest and trustworthy, humble in admit- ting when they are no longer effective, concerned about the development of subordinates, and fair and principled deci- sion-makers. They also behave in accordance with ethical standards. As moral managers, they show keen interest in their subordinates’ adherence to ethical standards. They fre- quently communicate the importance of ethical standards to their subordinates and hold them accountable for moral con- duct by enforcing codes of ethics (Brown and Treviño 2006).
Ethical leadership results in several beneficial outcomes. Leaders report more ethical issues to superiors and garner higher levels of trust, interactional fairness, honesty, leader- member exchange, satisfaction, and effectiveness. Sub- ordinates perceive workplace climates to be more ethical, engage in more frequent ethical behavior, exert extra effort, are more effective in their jobs, and report lower levels of work stress and higher levels of job satisfaction, job engage- ment, psychological wellbeing, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Subordinates also possess less turnover intentions and engage in less counter- productive work behaviors. These subordinate outcomes of
Fig. 1 A research model of leader character strengths, ethi- cal leadership and outcomes
Ethical leadership
Leader character strengths
Moral courage
Empathy
Honesty/humility Leader outcomes
In-role performance
Psychological flourishing
Leader self-control
768 J. J. Sosik et al.
1 3
ethical leadership represent essential fulfillment of leaders’ in-role performance and are influenced by leader character (Bedi et al. 2016; Brown and Mitchell 2010; Brown et al. 2005).
Character Strengths
Over the centuries, scholars have shown great interest in vir- tuous forms of leadership, driven by increasing research on ethical leadership and leader character (Wang and Hackett 2016). Character can be defined as “those interpenetrable and habitual qualities within individuals, and applicable to organizations that both constrain them to desire and pur- sue personal and societal good” (Wright and Quick 2011, p. 976). Both Western and Eastern classic perspectives on character have informed Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) Values in Action (VIA) classification framework, the most prominent and comprehensive contemporary considera- tion of character in the social sciences (Wright and Quick 2011). This framework identifies 24 character strengths theoretically sorted into six virtues: wisdom and knowledge (creativity, curiosity, love of learning, open-mindedness, perspective), courage (bravery, integrity, persistence, vital- ity), humanity (love, kindness, social intelligence), justice (citizenship, fairness, leadership), temperance (self-control, prudence, forgiveness, humility), and transcendence (spiritu- ality, hope, appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, humor). Because the distillation of these character strengths spans many academic fields, Peterson and Seligman (2004) list several labels for each strength. Our goal in choosing labels for the focal character strengths was to select those with psychometrically-sound measures that tap the theoreti- cal essence of the strengths. To this end, we use honesty/ humility, empathy, moral courage, and self-control as labels of the character strengths of integrity, social intelligence, bravery, and self-control, respectively, in Peterson and Selig- man’s VIA classification framework.
Character Strengths, Ethical Leadership, and Outcomes
The research model shown in Fig. 1 positions ethical leader- ship as a mediator of relationships between leader character strengths and leader psychological flourishing and in-role performance. We first discuss the outcome variables because they are common to our six mediation hypotheses presented below. Ethical leadership is expected to be associated with leader psychological flourishing because ethical leaders show concern for subordinates, model ethical practices, and lead an ethical life (Brown and Treviño 2006). SCT suggests that showing concern and modeling ethical practices for oth- ers are socially approvable acts that serve as a source of self- pride and elicit positive affect from leaders (Bandura 1991a).
A meta-analysis of the trait affect literature (Joseph et al. 2015) reported a positive relationship between leader posi- tive affect and transformational leadership, which is highly correlated with ethical leadership (Bedi et al. 2016; Brown et al. 2005). Leading an ethical life alleviates the stress of hiding one’s ethical lapses from being discovered and the shame that comes with it (Owens and Hekman 2012). Con- sistent with these arguments, Gavin et al. (2003) presented case studies linking aspects of good moral character with the wellbeing of executives.
Ethical leadership also is expected to be positively associ- ated with leader in-role performance. Ethical leaders foster high levels of trust and positive relationships with superiors and subordinates, who view ethical leaders as competent performers. Ethical leaders share this perception as they pos- sess high levels of confidence in their leadership and per- formance abilities (Brown and Treviño 2006). In support of these arguments, prior research demonstrates positive rela- tionships between ethical leadership and leader effectiveness (e.g., Bedi et al. 2016; Brown et al. 2005) and managerial performance (Williams and Seaman 2016).
Figure 1 positions this study’s focal character strengths as antecedents of ethical leadership and the aforementioned leader outcomes. From an SCT perspective, these charac- ter strengths reflect moral standards in the self-system that officers compare against their thoughts, beliefs, and behav- iors as a means to guide their ethical leadership behavior (Bandura 1991a).
Honesty/Humility
Being honest requires straightforwardness of conduct, adher- ence to the facts (Ashton and Lee 2009), and an understand- ing of what is morally right or wrong (Six et al. 2007). Hon- esty is associated with word-deed consistency and sincerity, that often require the humility to accept the truth (Six et al. 2007; Sosik 2015). The USAF’s “integrity first” core value requires the honesty of Airmen whose words and reports must be unquestionable and accurate. Given that integrity is related to a preference for being respected (Schlenker 2008), the USAF’s principle of “respect as the lifeblood of our profession” challenges Airmen to a “heightened personal sense of humility” required to “respect the humbling mis- sion placed in our hands by the American people” (USAF 2015a, p. 4).
As suggested by SCT (Bandura 1991a), honesty is an attractive trait for an ethical role model to possess because truth-telling adds to the leader’s credibility and likeability associated with the moral person aspect of ethical leader- ship. As a prototypical leader characteristic, honesty is an expectation by which subordinates judge whether leaders are worthy of emulation (Brown and Treviño 2006), thereby providing a moral standard required for ethical leadership
769Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical…
1 3
behavior (Bandura 1991a). Humility may also be an attrac- tive trait because it allows for nonegocentric and sincere interactions required to support ethical leadership behav- iors such as listening to subordinates’ opinions and keep- ing their best interests in mind (Owens and Hekman 2012). Meta-analytic results linking leader honesty and subordinate perceptions of ethical leadership support these arguments (Bedi et al. 2016).
Leaders whose honesty/humility manifests in their ethical leadership are likely to experience psychological flourish- ing and perform well. SCT (Bandura 1991a) suggests that honesty and humility are sources of self-respect and positive affect that alleviate stress, facilitate supporting and reward- ing relationships, and elicit respect from others (Gavin et al. 2003). Honesty is a highly-valued trait associated with the avoidance of counterproductive workplace behaviors that often result in subsequent experienced stress (Johnson et al. 2011). Humility may enhance in-role performance by pro- viding the ability to acknowledge one’s limitations, and be open to advice (Johnson et al. 2011), which “takes the pres- sure off” and results in psychological wellbeing (Owens and Hekman 2012, p. 795). Prior research has identified honesty/ humility as a predictor of superiors’ ratings of managerial performance (Johnson et al. 2011). Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 1 Ethical leadership mediates the relationships between leader honesty/humility and the leader outcomes, (a) psychological flourishing and (b) in-role performance.
Empathy
Empathy involves being socially intelligent, confident and even-tempered in social settings, and sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of others (Hogan 1969; Johnson et al. 1983). Sensitivity is an implicit leader prototype that sub- ordinates expect in leaders (Bass 2008). The USAF’s core value of “service beyond self” alludes to empathy in its requirement of “treating others with dignity and valuing them as individuals.” Empathy allows for greater under- standing of diverse Airmen and their unique personal char- acteristics gained through more compassionate interactions (USAF 2015a, p. 7).
SCT (Bandura 1991a) suggests that empathy is an attrac- tive trait for an ethical role model to possess because it is a moral standard that reflects concern for the welfare of others. As the self evaluates itself against social and moral standards, positive affect associated with empathy provides feedback to the self that motivates ethical behavior (Bandura 1991a). Empathy enables leaders to commit to the moral development of their subordinates (Wright and Quick 2011). Thus, empathy is likely to manifest in ethical leadership behaviors such as listening to subordinates’ opinions and advocating for them (Brown and Mitchell 2010). Mahsud
et al. (2010) reported a positive association between leader empathy and ethical leadership.
Leaders whose empathy manifests in their ethical lead- ership are likely to experience psychological flourishing and perform well. Empathy may promote ethical leadership behaviors that show interest in subordinates’ concerns and understanding of their needs. SCT suggests that experienc- ing positive affect and having supporting and rewarding relationships with subordinates enable ethical leaders to cope with stressful conditions and perform well (Bandura 1991a). Effective leaders are highly considerate, sensitive to the needs of their subordinates, and perform their complex tasks well (Kellett et al. 2002). Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 2 Ethical leadership mediates the relationships between leader empathy and the leader outcomes, (a) psy- chological flourishing and (b) in-role performance.
Moral Courage
Courage is often considered in its physical, psychological, and moral forms, but more practical forms of courage have been conceptualized in business and military contexts. In the USAF’s profession of arms, a relevant type of courage is professional moral courage, which Sekerka et al. (2009) describe as an attribute that motivates and enables indi- viduals to address moral issues, consider multiple values, endure threats, go beyond compliance, and pursue moral goals. In terms of the USAF’s core value of “integrity first,” such forms of moral courage are required to take “necessary personal or professional risks, make decisions that may be unpopular, and admit our mistakes” (USAF 2015a, p. 6).
Moral courage provides a moral standard that promotes ethical leadership behavior (Bandura 1991a). When leaders possess moral courage, they are inclined towards values- driven achievements (rather than achievements attained through any means), moral ideals, and enforcement of ethics codes (Sekerka et al. 2009). These inclinations parallel the moral person and moral manager aspects of ethical leader- ship such as living an ethical life, defining success by both the ends and means to attain them, discussing ethical values with subordinates, and disciplining them for ethics viola- tions. In support of this argument, Riggio et al.’s (2010) virtue-based measure of ethical leadership contains items tapping fortitude (i.e., courage) that are highly correlated with Brown et al.’s (2005) measure of ethical leadership.
Leaders whose moral courage manifests in their ethical leadership are likely to experience psychological flourish- ing and perform well. SCT (Bandura 1991b) suggests that the integration of personal and professional values and pur- suit of moral goals associated with moral courage may pro- vide aspects of self-motivation such as personal meaning and positive self-regard that are elements of psychological
770 J. J. Sosik et al.
1 3
flourishing (Diener et al. 2010). Regarding in-role perfor- mance, moral courage provides leaders with the volition to actively promote ethics despite pushback from others (Sekerka et al. 2009). Several studies demonstrate that lead- ers who take such brave actions are rated as effective per- formers (Gentry et al. 2013; Palanski et al. 2015; Sosik et al. 2012). Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 3 Ethical leadership mediates the relationships between leader moral courage and the leader outcomes, (a) psychological flourishing and (b) in-role performance.
Leader Self‑control as a Moderator
Often called “willpower” by philosophers and laypeople (Kugelmann 2013), self-control is defined by psychologists as “the capacity to alter or override dominant response ten- dencies and to regulate behavior, thoughts, and emotions” (de Ridder et al. 2012, p. 77). Self-control is a trait underly- ing the self-regulation of cognition and behavior according to the SCT of moral thought and action (Bandura 1991a), and also serves as an important personal resource that “may magnify or diminish resource loss” in stressful contexts according to conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hag- ger 2015, p. 91). COR theory posits that individuals strive to accumulate personal resources, such as character strengths, that enable them to cope with experienced stress and pro- tect their wellbeing (Hobfoll 1989). As such, self-control is essential to the demonstration of all three USAF core values. Putting “integrity first” requires Airmen to control their impulses and act ethically. Modeling “service beyond self” requires Airmen to have the discipline to follow regula- tions and be self-controlled regarding the beliefs, authority and diversity of others. Enacting “excellence in all we do” requires commitment to a disciplined life of restraint and continual growth (USAF 2015a).
The strength model of self-control (Baumeister et al. 2007) proposes that self-regulation requires exertion of energy or willpower that becomes exhausted and results in ego depletion, a state of diminished self-control strength. Both the strength model of self-control and COR theory posit that stress arises and performance diminishes when there is a mismatch between situational demands and the availability of personal resources as individuals use up their reserve of self-control (Hagger 2015). While self-control can be replenished through rest, conservation, good habits, and glucose supplementation, individuals with high trait self- control have a larger pool of willpower resources to draw upon for self-regulation (Hagger et al. 2010). Baumeister et al. (2007) argued that self-control assists in tasks that require the controlling of attention, emotions, impulses, thoughts, choices, and social processing (i.e., establishing successful relationships). Through self-regulation processes
that compare current aspects of the self to social or moral standards, self-control may provide volitional resources to engage in and sustain ethical behavior. Hagger (2015) pointed out that “self-regulatory skills…and personal traits such as trait self-control… have been identified as possible moderators of the effects of the limited resource on behav- ior” (p. 90), such as effects of honesty/humility, empathy, and moral courage on ethical leadership. Thus, we expected leader self-control to moderate relationships between these character strengths and ethical leadership.
The manifestation of honesty/humility in ethical leader- ship behavior requires attention to moral standards and the will to uphold them (Brown et al. 2005). It also requires the resisting of temptations to deviate from the truth or engage in narcissistic rather than humble behaviors that are incon- sistent with moral standards (Bandura 1991a). By focus- ing one’s attention on moral standards of truthfulness and modesty, self-controlled leaders may feel more confident in manifesting their honesty/humility in ethical leadership behaviors. Prior empirical research has shown positive rela- tionships between self-control and self-efficacy (Schlenker 2008). In addition, meta-analytic results (de Ridder et al. 2012; Hagger et al. 2010) indicate that individuals with high self-control engage in more ethical behaviors and less unde- sirable behaviors than those with low self-control. Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 4 The positive relationship between leader hon- esty/humility and ethical leadership is stronger when leader self-control is high than when it is low.
The manifestation of empathy in ethical leadership behav- ior requires attention to emotions, thoughts, and social processing because “feelings inform us when things are not right—they act as ethical alarms” (Brown and Mitch- ell 2010, p. 591). It also requires recognizing when to dis- play supportive behaviors such as detecting any feelings of workplace injustice, listening to subordinates’ concerns, and acting in their best interest (Mahsud et al. 2010). Such empathic awareness provides direction for self-control (Bandura 1991b). In addition, any tendencies for angry out- bursts or aggressive behavior directed at subordinates may be tempered with self-control to more positively influence subordinates’ perceptions of the leader (Brown and Mitch- ell 2010). By focusing one’s attention on moral standards of even-temperedness and sensitivity to others espoused in USAF culture, officers with high self-control may feel more efficacious in manifesting their empathy in ethical leader- ship behaviors because they have the willpower resources to be supportive when subordinates are anxious or lack confidence. Individuals with high self-control regulate their emotions more effectively, have better interpersonal skills,
771Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical…
1 3
and show more concern for others than those with low self- control (de Ridder et al. 2012; Tangney et al. 2004). Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 5 The positive relationship between leader empathy and ethical leadership is stronger when leader self- control is high than when it is low.
The manifestation of moral courage in ethical leadership behavior requires paying attention to the control of fear and the personal choice and volition to take moral action despite personal risks. It also requires resisting the innate tendency to avoid such risks by rationalizing that they are unnecessary, uncomfortable, or psychologically painful (Sekerka et al. 2009). SCT of moral thought and action (Bandura 1991a) suggests that by focusing one’s attention on controlling fear and harnessing the volition required for moral action, leaders with high self-control may be more efficacious in manifest- ing their moral courage in ethical leadership behaviors. In a study of finance managers, Harbour and Kisfalvi (2014) identified ego strength (i.e., high self-control) as providing the volition to take courageous action in risky and difficult situations. Sekerka et al. (2009) argued that self-control is required to harness the courage to take moral action such as displaying ethical leadership. Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 6 The positive relationship between leader moral courage and ethical leadership is stronger when leader self-control is high than when it is low.
It is also likely that leader self-control influences the strength of the indirect effects of the focal leader character strengths on the leader outcomes through ethical leadership, thereby demonstrating conditional indirect effects. COR theory suggests that in stressful situations, larger reserves of self-control serve to buttress other personal resources, such as honesty/humility, empathy, and moral courage, and enhance wellbeing and performance outcomes (Hagger 2015). Similarly, SCT suggests that such self-regulatory control has beneficial effects on emotional states and per- formance (Bandura 1991b). Results of self-control studies and meta-analyses (e.g., de Ridder et al. 2012; Hagger et al. 2010; Tangney et al. 2004) suggest that high self-control provides additional willpower resources that allow for strong volition to take moral action such as displaying ethical lead- ership, and that large pools of such resources are positively associated with psychological wellbeing and in-role per- formance. As leaders more actively display ethical lead- ership, such behaviors showcasing their honesty/humility, empathy, and moral courage are more favorable evaluated by self and superiors, resulting in higher levels of leader outcomes. Thus, we proffer the following moderated media- tion hypotheses:
Hypothesis 7 Leader self-control moderates the indirect relationships between leader honesty/humility and leader outcomes through ethical leadership. Specifically, the indi- rect effects on the leader outcomes, (a) psychological flour- ishing and (b) in-role performance, are greater when leader self-control is high than when it is low.
Hypothesis 8 Leader self-control moderates the indirect relationships between leader empathy and leader outcomes through ethical leadership. Specifically, the indirect effects on the leader outcomes, (a) psychological flourishing and (b) in-role performance, are greater when leader self-control is high than when it is low.
Hypothesis 9 Leader self-control moderates the indirect relationships between leader moral courage and leader out- comes through ethical leadership. Specifically, the indirect effects on the leader outcomes, (a) psychological flourishing and (b) in-role performance, are greater when leader self- control is high than when it is low.
Method
Sample and Procedure
Participants in our all-volunteer sample were U.S. Air Force Captains and their subordinates and superiors. These officers were enrolled in a 5-week leadership train- ing course offered by the Squadron Officer College at Maxwell Air Force Base and represent the focal leaders in this study. Two co-authors in the Squadron Officers College asked the officers if they would be interested in participating in our study and if they could provide a list of names, titles, and email addresses of their subor- dinates and superiors who may be willing to participate as well as their own names and email addresses. With the contact information of potential respondents, we dis- tributed surveys to 1570 officers attending the course, 1269 of their subordinates, and 1525 of their superi- ors. Data were collected via an online surveying plat- form which sent via emails on the first day of class that briefly described the purpose and voluntary nature of the study, time requirement, link to the survey and consent from. Reminder emails were sent to participants 5 weeks after the initial surveys were distributed. A total of 1757 completed surveys were obtained from officers and their subordinates and superiors for a response rate of 40%. Of this total, 743 were officers (who responded about their character strengths and psychological flourishing); 462 were subordinates (who responded about the ethical leadership of their officer); and 552 were superiors (who responded about the officer’s in-role performance). Of
772 J. J. Sosik et al.
1 3
the 743 responding officers, there were a total of 218 unique matched sets of leader and subordinate reports and 115 unique matched sets of leader, subordinate, and superior ratings, both of which were used for hypoth- esis testing. Of the 218 leader-subordinate matched sets, 76.1% of the leaders had only a subordinate’s report and 23.9% of the officers had multiple subordinates’ ratings (29 cases of 2 subordinates, 13 cases of 3 subordinates, 4 cases of 4 subordinates, 5 cases of 5 subordinates, and 1 case of 6 subordinates). For multiple subordinates’ ratings of ethical leadership, the ratings of a leader were aver- aged to represent his or her ethical leadership in the unit (η2 = 0.79, ICC1 = 0.25, F = 1.46, p < 0.01).
Officers ranged in age from 25 to 52, with the average being 31.23 (SD = 4.83). Of these officers, 44.5% had a bachelor’s degree while 55.5% had a master’s degree; 72.9% were male; and 79.8% were white, 5% were black, 6% were Asian, 4.6% were Hispanic, and 4.6% were oth- ers. Forty percent of officers worked in operations, 17% in logistics and support, 9% in acquisitions, 22% in medi- cal and professional services, 2% in special investigations, and 10% in other areas. Subordinates ranged in age from 20 to 68, with the average being 34.52 (SD = 9.67). Of these subordinates, 4.6% graduated from high school only; 30.7% had an associate’s degree; 45.9% had a bach- elor’s degree while 18.8% had a master’s degree; 72% were male; and 67% were white, 13.3% were black, 4.6% were Asian, 8.7% were Hispanic, and 6.4% were others. Superiors age range was 27 to 61, with the average being 39.74 (SD = 7.30). Of these superiors, 15.7% had a bach- elor’s degree while 84.3% had a master’s degree; 85.2% were male; and 71.3% were white, 7.8% were black, 5.2% were Asian, 5.2% were Hispanic, and 10.4% were others.
The USAF requires its officers to demonstrate lead- ership effectiveness in various jobs and tasks, as most corporations require from their managers. In addition to their leadership roles, all officers worked in functional areas such as flight operations, acquisitions, logistics, IT support, financial and legal services, and special inves- tigations. These functional areas are commonly found in business and industry (Bass 2008) and are consistent with the conceptualization of business as systems involved in the exchange of goods and services. The skills required to perform these duties are often sought by businesses wishing to employ military veterans. The USAF consid- ers their officers as practitioners engaged in the “profes- sion of arms” who are entrusted with national security (USAF 2015a). The service these professionals provide is as important as other services provided by business professionals. Further, professionals in both the USAF and businesses commonly value integrity, teamwork, and continuous process/personal improvement in their culture, selection, and training. Thus, we considered the sample
as appropriate for testing the hypotheses and consistent with business contexts.
Measures
Character Strengths
Four self-rated measures of character considered relevant to ethical leadership were obtained from each focal leader. Honesty/humility was measured using seven items of sin- cerity, greed-avoidance, and modesty dimensions from the HEXACO-60 assessment of personality dimensions (Ashton and Lee 2009). According to Johnson et al. (2011), honesty/ humility “is a recently-identified sixth dimension of person- ality beyond factors similar to the Big Five and has better predicted some components of job performance than these five factors” and has been linked to increases in employee ethicality (p. 857). Evidence of the construct validity of this scale is provided in our study as well as prior research (e.g., Ashton and Lee 2009; Johnson et al. 2011). Three items of fairness in the original honesty/humility scale were removed from the survey (e.g., “I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it”) because par- ticipating officers are not only bound by an honor code, but also expected to practice USAF core values, such as integ- rity. Sample items read, “I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for me” (sincerity), “Hav- ing a lot of money is not especially important to me” (greed- avoidance), and “I think that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is (reversed item)” (modesty). Items were measured on a 5-point response scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (α = 0.76).
Empathy was measured as a multidimensional con- struct using 15 items of its 3 subscales developed by Hogan (1969) and validated by Johnson et al. (1983), each of which includes five items of social self-confidence, even-tem- peredness, and sensitivity. Social self-confidence assesses one’s efficacy in social interactions (sample item “I am a good social mixer”). Even-temperedness refers to stability of emotions in social settings (sample item: “I am usually calm and not easily upset”). The sensitivity dimension of empathy represents awareness of one’s own and others’ emo- tions (sample item: “I have seen some things so sad that I almost felt like crying”). Items of the empathy measure were rated on a 5-point response scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test a higher order model of empathy with three subdimensions. This model had a good fit with the data (χ2(87) = 176.39, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.06). Thus, we used a composite measure of empathy using all 15 items (α = 0.75).
Professional moral courage was measured using a 10-item scale developed by Sekerka et al. (2009). This measure taps
773Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical…
1 3
one’s propensity toward moral agency and goal setting, going beyond compliance, and using virtuous principles and values while enduring threats (sample item: “I hold my ground on moral matters, even if there are opposing social pressures”). Leaders rated themselves on a scale of 1 (never true) to 7 (always true) (α = 0.90).
Lastly, self-control was measured using the 13-item Self- Control Scale developed by Tangney et al. (2004) tapping one’s will to self-regulate impulses, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (sample item: “I am good at resisting tempta- tion”). Self-control was rated on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) (α = 0.89).
Ethical Leadership
We adopted a 10-item scale developed by Brown et al. (2005) to assess a subordinate’s perception of the extent to which his or her leader demonstrates and promotes norma- tively appropriate conduct through personal action and in interpersonal relationships (sample item: “This officer sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics”). Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (α = 0.92).
Leader Outcomes
An 8-item scale of psychological flourishing developed by Diener et al. (2010) was adopted to assess officers’ own subjective wellbeing. This measure taps a leader’s self-per- ceived social and psychological wellbeing comprising posi- tive relationships, feelings of competence and self-respect, and having meaning and purpose in life (sample item: “My social relationships are supportive and rewarding”). Survey instructions directed the officers to consider these items in terms of their leadership role over the 30 days prior to survey administration. This measure was rated on a 5-point scale of 1 (never) to 5 (extremely often) (α = 0.87).
USAF captains are evaluated by their commanding offic- ers in terms of their operational task requirements and leadership action requirements specified in USAF doctrine, regulations, training, and job descriptions. By virtue of their rank, they have command over subordinates, which means they have “the authority and responsibility for effectively using available resources and planning the employment of, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling military forces for the accomplishment of assigned missions” (USAF 2015b, p. 9). The meaning of command is consistent with definitions of leadership (cf. Bass 2008). Further, superi- ors’ evaluations of such operational and command require- ments better reflect officers’ operational task fulfillment and leadership fulfillment associated with outcomes of being a moral person and moral manager, respectively, than do sub- ordinates’ evaluations (Brown and Treviño 2006). As such,
in-role performance of focal leaders was assessed by their superiors with a 7-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). This measure focuses on performance in particular tasks, including command requirements, specified in job descriptions and is considered suitable for generally representing task performance of the officers who worked in various areas (sample item: “This officer performs tasks that are expected of him/her”). Ratings were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) α = 0.87.
Control Variables
Because character strengths and their correlates may dif- fer for men and women across the life span and education (Peterson and Seligman 2004), we measured leaders’ age, gender, and education. However, these demographic controls were excluded from hypothesis testing to preserve statistical power, given their nonsignificant relationships with ethical leadership and outcomes.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Measurement Model
Response confidentiality, counterbalanced item order, and improving response scale were ensured during the survey to minimize potential method artifacts (Podsakoff et al. 2012). To further address issues of common method vari- ance and discriminant validity of measures, we conducted CFA for leader-rated variables of the four character strengths and psychological flourishing by taking an item parceling method for two reasons: (1) the subject-to-item ratio (218:53 = 4.11:1) is too low to meet the acceptable lower bound limit of a 5:1 ratio; and (2) the possibility of con- cealing multidimensional structure in each subfactor of a construct (e.g., empathy) is limited (Bandalos 2002). CFA results indicated that a 5-factor model with honesty/humil- ity, empathy, moral courage, self-control, and psychologi- cal flourishing had a better fit with data (χ2(80) = 117.94, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.05) than other alternative models: (a) a 3-factor model where items of honesty/humility, empathy, and moral courage were col- lapsed into a factor (χ2(87) = 321.39, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.11; SRMR = 0.09); (b) a 2-factor model where all items of character strengths were collapsed into a fac- tor (χ2(89) = 728.96, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.58, RMSEA = 0.18; SRMR = 0.15); and (c) a 1-factor model where all items of
774 J. J. Sosik et al.
1 3
5 leader-rating variables were collapsed into a global fac- tor (χ2(90) = 895.00, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.47, RMSEA = 0.20; SRMR = 0.15).
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations of the study variables. A review of the cor- relations indicates that most demographic controls were not significantly associated with ethical leadership and outcome variables. Leaders’ gender was correlated with psychological flourishing (r = .181, p < 0.05); however, this correlation did not make any notable change in study findings. Thus, we did not retain any demographic variables in hypothesis tests to preserve statistical power.
Hypothesis Tests
Study hypotheses were tested in an interlinked, yet stepwise manner by following the procedure developed by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007). We first examined mediation hypotheses (Hypotheses 1–3). After controlling for other covariates, we estimated an indirect effect ab, where a rep- resents the regression coefficient between an independent variable and a mediator while b denotes the mediator to dependent variable association. Because the distribution of ab is not symmetrical and is usually positively skewed, we adopted a bootstrap method to compute 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) with 10,000 bootstrapped sub- samples. Second, after examining moderation hypotheses (Hypotheses 4–6), we incorporated the moderation effects into the mediation models, producing an overall moderated mediation model, also known as conditional indirect effects (Hypotheses 7–9). To test the conditional indirect effects, we examined the indirect effect ab at different levels of the
moderator as one standard deviation above and below the mean of the moderator (Preacher et al. 2007). When the moderation effects were estimated, we mean-centered the variables used as a component of the interaction term to make results more interpretable.
Table 2 presents the regression results for the media- tion hypotheses (Hypotheses 1–3) where ethical leader- ship mediates the relationships between leader character strengths and outcomes. While ethical leadership was asso- ciated with psychological flourishing (in model 5, B = 0.118, p < 0.05) and in-role performance (in model 6, B = 0.226, p < 0.05), honesty/humility was not related to ethical leader- ship in model 1, indicating that both Hypothesis 1a (indi- rect effect ab = 0.022 × 0.118 = 0.003, boot SE = 0.008, 95% CI [‒ 0.010, 0.021]) and Hypothesis 1b (indirect effect ab = 0.021 × 0.226 = 0.005, boot SE = 0.018, 95% CI [‒ 0.024, 0.052]) were not supported.
Empathy was not related to ethical leadership (in model 2, B = 0.020, ns), though ethical leadership was associ- ated with psychological flourishing (in model 5, B = 0.118, p < 0.05), thereby not supporting Hypothesis 2a (indirect effect ab = 0.020 × 0.118 = 0.002, boot SE = 0.012, 95% CI [‒ 0.019, 0.029]). However, Hypothesis 2b was sup- ported, in that empathy was associated with ethical leader- ship (in model 2-1, B = 0.213, p < 0.05), which in turn was also related to in-role performance (in model 6, B = 0.226, p < 0.05, indirect effect ab = 0.213 × 0.226 = 0.048, boot SE = 0.043, 95% CI [0.001, 0.175]).
Moral courage was related to ethical leadership (in model 3, B = 0.116, p < 0.05), which in turn was associ- ated with psychological flourishing (in model 5, B = 0.118, p < 0.05), thereby supporting Hypothesis 3a (indirect effect ab = 0.116 × 0.118 = 0.014, boot SE = 0.010, 95% CI [0.001, 0.047]). However, Hypothesis 3b was not supported, because moral courage was not related to ethical leadership (in model
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations
N = 218 for all variables, except N = 115 for in-role performance. Values in parentheses along the diagonal are Cronbach’s alphas. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age 31.23 4.83 2. Gender 0.27 0.45 0.125 3. Education 3.56 0.50 0.105 0.151* 4. Honesty/humility 3.66 0.63 0.228** 0.169* − 0.076 (0.755) 5. Empathy 3.44 0.44 0.086 0.095 0.030 0.263** (0.749) 6. Moral courage 5.74 0.85 0.064 0.145* − 0.020 0.336** 0.372** (0.901) 7. Self-control 3.58 0.59 − 0.092 − 0.117 − 0.062 0.036 − 0.034 − 0.088 (0.889) 8. Ethical leadership 4.38 0.55 − 0.004 0.037 0.048 0.060 0.035 0.137* 0.052 (0.918) 9. Psychological flourishing 4.14 0.55 0.121 0.181* 0.019 0.347** 0.403** 0.526** − 0.004 0.185** (0.871) 10. In-role performance 4.59 0.52 − 0.119 0.124 0.084 0.150 0.223* 0.135 0.029 0.265** 0.175 (0.866)
775Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical…
1 3
3-1, B = 0.080, ns), while ethical leadership was associated with in-role performance (in model 6, B = 0.226, p < 0.05; indirect effect ab = 0.080 × 0.226 = 0.018, boot SE = 0.019, 95% CI [‒ 0.005, 0.082]).
In Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6, we predicted that the posi- tive relationships between leader character and ethical
leadership would be stronger when leader self-control was higher. As presented in models 1–3 of Table 2, the interac- tion effects of honesty/humility with self-control (B = 0.250, p < 0.01), empathy with self-control (B = 0.360, p < 0.01), and moral courage with self-control (B = 0.118, p < 0.01) on ethical leadership were positive and significant, while
Table 2 Results of leader outcomes
N = 218 for psychological flourishing. N = 115 for in-role performance. Regression coefficients in Models 1, 2, 3, and 5 result from N = 218 for psychological flourishing. Regression coefficients in Models 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 6 result from N = 115 for in-role performance. Unstandardized estimates with standard errors in parentheses are reported. Bootstrap N = 10,000. High and low self-control = mean ± 1 SD *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Predictors Mediator Leader outcomes
Ethical leadership (EL) Psychological flourishing
In-role perfor- mance
Model 1 Model 1-1 Model 2 Model 2-1 Model 3 Model 3-1 Model 5 Model 6
Constant 3.805 (0.346)**
3.183 (0.434)**
3.697 (0.308)**
3.741 (0.397)**
4.332 (0.359)**
3.654 (0.416)**
1.287 (0.363)**
3.012 (0.545)**
Honesty/ humility (HH)
0.022 (0.062)
0.021 (0.073)
0.009 (0.062)
− 0.005 (0.074)
0.020 (0.063)
0.000 (0.073)
0.138 (0.052)**
0.069 (0.079)
Empathy − 0.029 (0.089)
0.186 (0.107)
0.020 (0.090)
0.213 (0.107)*
− 0.005 (0.090)
0.224 (0.106)*
0.272 (0.075)**
0.171 (0.116)
Moral courage 0.117 (0.048)*
0.104 (0.063)
0.114 (0.048)*
0.120 (0.063)
0.116 (0.049)*
0.080 (0.064)
0.244 (0.040)**
− 0.002 (0.067)
Self-control 0.059 (0.062)
− 0.097 (0.085)
0.008 (0.064)
− 0.110 (0.086)
0.084 (0.063)
− 0.066 (0.082)
Honesty/ humil- ity × self- control
0.250 (0.076)**
0.364 (0.132)**
Empa- thy × self- control
0.360 (0.112)**
0.484 (0.181)**
Moral cour- age × self- control
0.118 (0.045)**
0.312 (0.098)**
Ethical lead- ership
0.118 (0.056)*
0.226 (0.099)*
Indirect relationships Conditional indirect effects
Self-control Indirect effects (boot SE) Boot 95% CI
HH−EL−psych. flourishing High 0.020 (0.014) [0.001, 0.057] Low − 0.015 (0.014) [− 0.054, 0.001]
HH−EL−in-role performance High 0.049 (0.034) [0.002, 0.144] Low − 0.039 (0.036) [− 0.142, 0.004]
Empathy−EL−psych. flourishing High 0.027 (0.019) [0.001, 0.086] Low − 0.023 (0.019) [− 0.079, 0.001]
Empathy−EL−in-role performance High 0.106 (0.074) [0.004, 0.306] Low − 0.010 (0.035) [− 0.101, 0.046]
Moral courage−EL−psych. flourishing High 0.022 (0.015) [0.001, 0.058] Low 0.006 (0.013) [− 0.015, 0.033]
Moral courage−EL−in-role performance High 0.056 (0.034) [0.006, 0.144] Low − 0.020 (0.025) [− 0.097, 0.009]
776 J. J. Sosik et al.
1 3
leader self-control per se was not related to ethical leader- ship. These results supported Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6. To probe the interaction patterns, we plotted two simple slopes at 1SD above and below the mean of leader self-control, while setting all covariates to their sample mean (Aiken and West 1991). As shown in Fig. 2, the positive relation- ship between honesty/humility and ethical leadership was significant and stronger when self-control was high (simple slope B = 0.198, SE = 0.077, p < 0.05) than when it was low (simple slope B = ‒.062, SE = 0.070, ns). The positive rela- tionship between empathy and ethical leadership was also significant and stronger when self-control was high (simple slope B = 0.288, SE = 0.118, p < 0.05) than when it was low (simple slope B = ‒.091, SE = 0.095, ns). Likewise, the posi- tive association between moral courage and ethical leader- ship was significant and stronger when self-control was high (simple slope B = 0.190, SE = 0.056, p < 0.01) than when it was low (simple slope B = 0.051, SE = 0.045, ns).
Lastly, we predicted in Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 that indi- rect effects of leader character on leader outcomes through ethical leadership would be greater under high leader self- control. These conditional indirect effects were computed after controlling for all covariates included in the regression analyses. Results indicated that only when self-control was high, there were significant indirect effects of leader hon- esty/humility through ethical leadership on psychological flourishing (Hypothesis 7a: indirect effect ab = 0.020, boot SE = 0.014, 95% CI [0.001, 0.057]) and in-role performance (Hypothesis 7b: indirect effect ab = 0.049, boot SE = 0.034, 95% CI [0.002, 0.144]), supporting Hypothesis 7. Examina- tion of conditional indirect effects of empathy also revealed that only when self-control was high, there were significant indirect effects of leader empathy through ethical leader- ship on psychological flourishing (Hypothesis 8a: indirect
effect ab = 0.027, boot SE = 0.019, 95% CI [0.001, 0.086]) and in-role performance (Hypothesis 8b: indirect effect ab = 0.106, boot SE = 0.074, 95% CI [0.004, 0.306]), sup- porting Hypothesis 8. Lastly, the indirect effects of moral courage on psychological flourishing (Hypothesis 9a: indi- rect effect ab = 0.022, boot SE = 0.015, 95% CI [0.001, 0.058]) and in-role performance (Hypothesis 9b: indirect effect ab = 0.056, boot SE = 0.034, 95% CI [0.006, 0.144]) were significant only when leader self-control was high, sup- porting Hypothesis 9.
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
This study has several theoretical implications for the exam- ination of ethical leadership, character strengths, and the role of self-control in organizations. Our findings indicate that in most cases, leader character strengths per se did not predict ethical leadership as their behavioral manifestation, which failed to support their indirect effects on leader out- comes through ethical leadership. Exceptions were empathy and moral courage which had an indirect positive effect on leader in-role performance and psychological flourishing, respectively, through ethical leadership. These results extend the list of individual characteristics identified in Brown and Treviño’s (2006) model of ethical leadership as antecedents and those examined in meta-analyses of ethical leadership studies (e.g., Bedi et al. 2016). As such, our data support the idea that ethical leaders with high empathy are seen as effec- tive performers by superiors, and contribute to the positive psychology literature by adding leaders’ in-role performance
Fig. 2 Moderating effect of leader self-control on the relationship between leader character strengths and ethical leadership
777Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical…
1 3
and psychological flourishing to known outcomes of empa- thy and moral courage, respectively.
The indirect effects of the character strengths of hon- esty/humility, empathy, and moral courage on all leader outcomes through ethical leadership were produced only when leader self-control was high. These findings add to emergent literature examining when ethical leaders are more or less effective (e.g., Babalola et al. 2017; Quade et al. 2017). Study results are consistent with Baumeister and Exline’s (1999) position that self-control “deserves consideration as the core psychological trait underlying the majority of virtues” (p. 1166) and “is centrally involved in most if not at all virtue” (p. 1178). These authors argue that self-control serves as a “moral muscle” (p. 1170) by bringing attention to moral standards (e.g., honesty/humil- ity), monitoring aspects of the self in relation to others (e.g., empathy), and taking action to alter one’s thoughts and emotions to adhere to moral standards (e.g., conquer- ing fear with moral courage). Our findings suggest that self-control produces the indirect effects of honesty/humil- ity on the leader outcomes through ethical leadership by providing greater awareness of “the right thing to do” and volition to “do things the right way in terms of ethics” (Brown et al. 2005, p. 126). Study results also suggest that self-control produces the indirect effects of moral cour- age on the leader outcomes through ethical leadership by providing the inner directive to alter one’s immediate response to fear and take action to conform with ethical expectations despite fear. Thus, our demonstration of self- control as a moderator of the character strengths–ethical leadership–outcomes relationships provides empirical support for theoretical considerations of self-control by philosophers and psychologists who have described it as a personal resource that puts character into action for the good of self and others (Hagger 2015; Kugelmann 2013).
Study results extend research on moral traits and cogni- tions of ethical leaders examined in the literature. Leader trait sincerity and humble leader behaviors are core compo- nents of humble leadership (Owens and Hekman 2012). Eth- ical leaders display the humble leader behaviors of modeling ethicality and learning, listening to others, and promoting their development (Brown and Treviño 2006). The positive relationship between leader honesty/humility and ethical leadership behavior for leaders with high self-control found in this study are consistent with qualitative work on humble leadership (Owens and Hekman 2012). Study results also extend work on the role of moral identity and moral atten- tiveness as antecedents of ethical leadership (e.g., Zhu et al. 2016). Moral identity represents a self-schema grounded in moral trait associations (Aquino and Reed 2002), whereas moral attentiveness represents the extent that individuals focus more on morality and use a moral lens to process stimuli and make sense of experience (Reynolds 2008). Our
results identify specific aspects of a moral identity (honesty/ humility, empathy, moral courage) and mechanisms of moral attentiveness (self-control) that relate to ethical leadership and enhance the performance and wellbeing of leaders.
Regarding honesty/humility’s indirect effects on leader outcomes through ethical leadership for leaders with high self-control, these findings contribute specifically to the leader integrity literature and more generally to the char- acter and leadership literature. While several leadership theories emphasize the importance of ethical aspects of leader character (see Bass 2008 for reviews), integrity has received the most attention in the literature (Palanski et al. 2015). Given that humble leaders are most sincere (Owens and Hekman 2012, p. 798), this stream of research affirms that leader honesty and humility are essential parts of ethical leadership (Brown and Mitchell 2010). Empirical studies have linked perceived leader effectiveness with perceptions of the leader’s honesty and humility (Brown et al. 2005; Mahsud et al. 2010). Despite this progress, the field still lacks well-specified theoretical bases and empirical tests of aspects of leader integrity (Palanski et al. 2015). The current study contributes to this literature by responding to such calls for research by empirically examining their relation to leader outcomes which have ultimate implica- tions for positive subordinate outcomes. Our demonstration of self-control as a mechanism for enhancing the influence of honesty/humility on ethical leadership and its outcomes clarifies how character is transmitted to subordinates by supporting Baumeister and Exline’s (1999) claim that self- control should be regarded as “the master virtue” (p. 1189) that activates honesty and humility when they are required. In activating honesty/humility in manifestations of ethical leadership, self-control appears to reference moral standards of integrity and temperance required for ethical leaders to do the right thing.
Regarding empathy’s indirect effects on leader outcomes through ethical leadership for leaders with high self-control, these findings provide insight into the role of emotion as a motivational mechanism. Empathy involves sensitivity to the suffering of others that often invokes empathic distress (e.g., sadness) for the observer. Such distress is uncomfort- able but can be alleviated by taking action to help the target of empathy (Bandura 1991a). Expressing concern for oth- ers and providing help enhances the quality of relationships with them (Kellett et al. 2002). Given that ethical leadership involves high quality relationships with subordinates (Bedi et al. 2016), study results suggest that leader self-control enhances the relationship-enhancing benefits of empathy by comparing the self’s current status of empathic distress against the moral standard to do something to help. Such self-monitoring may trigger leaders’ motivation to display ethical leadership behaviors that show concern and assist subordinates.
778 J. J. Sosik et al.
1 3
Regarding moral courage’s indirect effects on leader outcomes through ethical leadership for leaders with high self-control, these findings are consistent with theoreti- cal considerations of the determinants of moral courage in organizations. Harbour and Kisfalvi (2014) presented a conceptual model of managerial courage that identified ego strength as a factor that helps managers learn how to control their negative emotions and exercise moral courage during risky or difficult times. During such times, the pos- session and exercise of moral courage depletes self-control previously exerted in acts of conscious choice, responses to stimuli, and arduous self-regulation (Baumeister and Exline 1999). However, leaders with high trait self-control have larger reserves of willpower to overcome such ego depletion and gain control over fear and volition to display aspects of ethical leadership such as “discipline employees who violate moral standards” (Brown et al. 2005, p. 126). Thus, it is not surprising that study results showed self-control as enhanc- ing the positive relationships between moral courage, ethi- cal leadership, and in-role performance and psychological flourishing.
Practical Managerial Implications
This study also has a number of practical implications. First, the individual character strengths of honesty/humil- ity, empathy, and moral courage per se do not necessarily relate to ethical leadership or the associated leader outcomes examined in this study. However, when combined with high self-control, they manifest in ethical leadership, improved leader in-role performance and psychological flourishing. Given pervasive interest in performance improvement and employee wellbeing in business and industry, it is worth- while for organizations to select members who possess high levels of these character strengths using integrity tests, and assessments of social intelligence and professional moral courage. Providing managers with training on these charac- ter strengths and ethical leadership along with 360-degree feedback may help them better understand how their actions align with organizational values and how others perceive them in their leadership roles (Peterson and Seligman 2004; Sosik 2015). By learning about specific behaviors that reflect ethical leadership, managers may better understand the pro- cesses by which they can perform well while sustaining their psychological wellbeing.
A second implication is the importance of fostering the self-control of individuals in leadership positions. Failures in self-control account for many ethical miscues and scan- dals of business leaders at all management levels (Brown and Mitchell 2010); thus, organizational training efforts to prevent ego depletion and build ego strength seem prudent. To the extent that self-control is a moral muscle (Baumeister and Exline 1999), human resource departments can offer
training modules suggested by Hagger et al. (2010) and others regarding skills and habits to strengthen self-control, or tactics to reduce negative affect and fatigue that deplete self-control. They also can provide dietary recommenda- tions for sustaining adequate blood glucose levels as another means to preserve reserves of self-control for ethical leaders (Baumeister et al. 2007).
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions
This study has several strengths. First, we address a gap in the ethical leadership literature by examining how honesty/ humility, empathy, and moral courage relate to ethical lead- ership and leader outcomes of in-role performance and psy- chological flourishing rather than typical subordinate out- comes. Second, we add to this literature by demonstrating how each of these character strengths interacts with leader self-control to relate with ethical leadership and these leader outcomes. Third, we expand research on leader wellbeing by identifying leader self-control as a personal resource that strengthens the association between ethical leadership and leader psychological flourishing. Fourth, we contribute to an emerging stream of research on leadership triads (Off- stein et al. 2006) by testing our research model using multi- source data from leaders, subordinates, and superiors in the USAF, a context that emphasizes character and ethics, as do some businesses. USAF culture values ethical leadership and aspects of character such as honesty/humility, empathy, moral courage, and self-control, thus making our focus on these constructs indeed appropriate (USAF 2015a).
Despite these strengths, several study limitations that offer future research directions remain. Methodologi- cally, some character strengths (i.e., self-control) are best measured using self-reports because they tap into the inner directives of the self that are often not observable by others (Peterson and Seligman 2004). Nevertheless, future research should consider assessing character strengths from both the leader and subordinate perspectives as a means to assess leaders’ self-awareness of their character strengths. An addi- tional limitation concerns the ratings of ethical leadership being limited in most cases to only one subordinate for each leader. Single subordinate ratings may have resulted in idi- osyncratic results descriptive of only that leader-subordinate dyad, particularly if leaders had provided us with a list of subordinates who would evaluate the leaders’ ethical leader- ship most favorably. This selection bias may yield restricted variance on the leadership variable, which is positively skewed. However, this concern may be alleviated, given the many significant mediation and moderation results that could not have been obtained with a serious range restriction in the ratings. Future research, nonetheless, should exam- ine ratings for several unique leader-subordinate dyads or
779Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical…
1 3
multiple subordinates’ ratings for each leader. Also, although the temporal ordering of the variables in our model were theoretically justified, the data were collected at the same general point in time, thereby precluding any causal claims from being made. Future longitudinal or experimental designs testing the influence of character strengths on ethical leadership and its associated outcomes for leaders varying in self-control should be conducted to address this issue.
The unique nature of our sample provides another set of methodological limitations. The sample was comprised of primarily White male leaders, subordinates, and superiors serving in the USAF which may limit the generalizability of study results. The strong ethical climate in the USAF, while appropriate for the model tested in this study, may be quite different from what is found in businesses that do not have such climates. Yet, a review of the mission and value state- ments of corporations such as Johnson and Johnson, Whole Foods Markets, and Zappos indicates that character devel- opment and ethicality are also valued in business contexts. Thus, a future study examining our research model in two unique settings with distinct ethical climates (e.g., military vs. business) or a research model with ethical climate as a moderator is warranted. Further, the USAF’s integration of both task execution and leader performance into superiors’ evaluations of officers’ in-role performance is another sam- ple-specific limitation because these aspects of performance differ in most other contexts such as corporations. Future empirical research should consider the extent to which these types of leader performance are related.
From the theoretical perspective of SCT of moral thought and action (Bandura 1991a), this study focused on leader character strengths (i.e., traits) as a manifestation of ethical leadership. However, cognition, affect, and behavior also can serve as transmission mechanisms for character (Sosik et al. 2018). Further, other leadership styles or behaviors such as authentic, transformational, servant, and spiritual leader- ship may mediate relations between character strengths and leader outcomes, similar to how ethical leadership did in this study. Future studies can model various traits, cognitions, affect, and/or behaviors as character transmission mecha- nisms and determine their effects on these outcome variables within subordinate–leader–superior triadic relationships.
Conclusions
For moral, legal, and practical reasons, organizations are interested in developing character and ethical leadership and reaping their associated benefits. This study suggests that character strengths play a pivotal role in fostering leader in- role performance and psychological flourishing. Empathic ethical leaders perform well and morally courageous ethi- cal leaders flourish psychologically. More importantly, this
study indicates that not only do leaders have to possess high levels of honesty/humility, empathy, and moral courage, but also high self-control which appears to enhance the effec- tiveness of these character strengths in triggering displays of ethical leadership and its associated leader outcomes. Thus, organizations that can select and/or train leaders to possess these character strengths are more likely to yield performance excellence and psychological wellbeing for those wishing to put character into action.
Acknowledgements We wish to thank Abbey Philip and Kaushik Krishnaswamy Kumar for their assistance with this research. We also thank Section Editor Michael E. Palanski and three anonymous review- ers for their helpful comments and suggestions. An earlier version of this article appears in the Best Papers Proceedings of the 78th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL, USA, August 10–14, 2018.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti- tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aquino, K., & Reed, I. I., A (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345.
Babalola, M. T., Stouten, J., Camps, J., & Euwema, M. (2017). When do ethical leaders become less effective? The moderating role of perceived leader ethical conviction on employee discretionary reactions to ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-017-3472-z.
Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of- fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991a). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1991b). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (4th edn.). New York: Free Press.
780 J. J. Sosik et al.
1 3
Baumeister, R. F., & Exline, J. J. (1999). Virtue, personality and social relations: Self-control as the moral muscle. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 1165–1194.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Sci- ence, 16(6), 351–355.
Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. N., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of Busi- ness Ethics, 139(3), 517–536.
Bernerth, J. B., & Hirschfeld, R. R. (2016). The subjective well-being of group leaders as explained by the quality of leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 697–710.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leader-
ship: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leader- ship: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.
de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stork, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: A meta- analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behav- iors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76–99.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.
Gavin, J. H., Campbell-Quick, J., Cooper, C. L., & Quick, J. D. (2003). A spirit of personal inquiry: The role of character in executive health. Organizational Dynamics, 32(2), 165–179.
Gentry, W. A., Cullen, K., Sosik, J. J., Chun, J. U., Leopold, C., & Tonidandel, S. (2013). Integrity’s place in the character strengths of middle-level managers and top-level executives. The Leader- ship Quarterly, 24(3), 395–404.
Hagger, M. S. (2015). Conservation of resources theory and the ‘strength’ model of self-control: Conceptual overlap and com- monalities. Stress and Health, 31(2), 89–94.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525.
Harbour, M., & Kisfalvi, V. (2014). In the eye of the beholder: An exploration of managerial courage. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(4), 493–515.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 307–316.
Johnson, J. A., Cheek, J. M., & Smither, R. (1983). The structure of empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6), 1299–1312.
Johnson, M. K., Rowan, W. C., & Petrini, L. (2011). A new trait on the market: Honesty-humility as a unique predictor of job performance ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(6), 857–862.
Joseph, D. L., Dhanani, L. Y., Shen, W., McHugh, B. C., & McCord, M. A. (2015). Is a happy leader a good leader? A meta-analytic investigation of leader trait affect and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 558–577.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leader- ship Quarterly, 13(5), 523–544.
Krause, N., & Hayward, R. D. (2015). Virtues, practical wisdom and psychological wellbeing: A Christian perspective. Social Indica- tors Research, 122(3), 735–755.
Kugelmann, R. (2013). Willpower. Theory & Psychology, 23(4), 479–498.
Luthans, F., & Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2017). Psychological capi- tal: An evidenced-based positive approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 339–366.
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethi- cal leadership, and relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Managerial Psychol- ogy, 25(6), 561–577.
Maraniss, D. (1999). When pride still mattered: A life of Vince Lom- bardi. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Offstein, E. H., Madhavan, R., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2006). Pushing the frontier of LMX research: The contribution of triads. In G. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), Sharing network leadership (pp. 95–117). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 787–818.
Palanski, M. E., Cullen, K. L., Gentry, W. A., & Nicholas, C. M. (2015). Virtuous leadership: Exploring the effects of leader cour- age and behavioral integrity on leader performance and image. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 297–310.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod- erated mediation hypothesis: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
Quade, M. Q., Perry, S. J., & Hunter, E. M. (2017). Boundary condi- tions of ethical leadership: Exploring supervisor-induced and job hindrance stress as potential inhibitors. Journal of Business Eth- ics. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-017-3771-4.
Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027–1041.
Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue- based measurement of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtue Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.
Schlenker, B. R. (2008). Integrity and character: Implications of prin- cipled and expedient ethical ideologies. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(10), 1078–1125.
Sekerka, L. E., Bagozzi, R. P., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Facing ethi- cal challenges in the workplace: Conceptualizing and measuring professional moral courage. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 565–579.
Six, F. E., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Huberts, L. W. (2007). Judging a cor- porate leader’s integrity: An illustrative three component model. European Management Journal, 25(3), 185–194.
Sosik, J. J. (2015). Leading with character: Stories of valor and virtue and the principles they teach (2nd edn.). Charlotte, NC: Informa- tion Age Publishing.
Sosik, J. J., Chun, J. U., & Ete, Z. (2018). Character and leadership. In B. J. Carducci (Editor-in-Chief), J. S. Milo & R. E. Riggio (Eds.) Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of personality and individual dif- ferences. Clinical, applied, and cross-cultural research (Vol. IV). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley (in press).
Sosik, J. J., Gentry, W. A., & Chun, J. U. (2012). The value of virtue in the upper echelons: A multisource examination of executive character strengths and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 367–382.
781Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical…
1 3
Stephano, S. F., & Wasylyshyn, K. M. (2005). Integrity, courage, empa- thy (ICE): Three leadership essentials. Human Resource Planning, 28(4), 5–7.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self- control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324.
United States Air Force. (2015a). America’s air force: A profession of arms. “The little blue book.” Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
United States Air Force. (2015b). Catalogue of doctrine topics (Vol- ume 2: Leadership). Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
Wang, G., & Hackett, R. D. (2016). Conceptualization and measure- ment of virtuous leadership: Doing well by doing good. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 321–345.
Williams, J. J., & Seaman, A. E. (2016). The influence of ethical lead- ership on managerial performance: Mediating effects of mind- fulness and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Applied Business Research, 32(3), 815–828.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organi- zational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.
Wright, T. A., & Quick, J. C. (2011). The role of character in ethical leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 975–978.
Zhu, W., Trevino, L., & Zheng, X. (2016). Ethical leaders and their followers: The transmission of moral attentiveness and moral identity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(1), 95–115.
Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights Reserved.
- Self-control Puts Character into Action: Examining How Leader Character Strengths and Ethical Leadership Relate to Leader Outcomes
- Abstract
- Theoretical Background, Research Model, and Hypotheses
- Ethical Leadership
- Character Strengths
- Character Strengths, Ethical Leadership, and Outcomes
- HonestyHumility
- Empathy
- Moral Courage
- Leader Self-control as a Moderator
- Method
- Sample and Procedure
- Measures
- Character Strengths
- Ethical Leadership
- Leader Outcomes
- Control Variables
- Results
- Preliminary Analyses
- Measurement Model
- Descriptive Statistics
- Hypothesis Tests
- Discussion
- Theoretical Implications
- Practical Managerial Implications
- Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions
- Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- References