MBA 6301 Business Ethics Unit 1 Using the CSU Online Library, locate an article that discusses the topic of business ethics. Topic ideas might include the role of ethics in the workplace, breach of ethics, the effect of internal and external forces on eth
Michelle_Michy
20200405191307accountability_and_moral_compe.pdf
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
136
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Accountability and Moral Competence Promote
Ethical Leadership
Abstract Accountability and moral competence are two factors that may have a positive effect on ethical leadership in organizations. This study utilized a survey methodology to investigate the relationship among accountability, moral competence, and ethical leadership in a sample of 103 leaders from a variety of industries and different countries. Accountability was found to be a significant positive predictor of ethical leadership. Moral competence was also found to moderate this relationship such that increases in moral competence enhanced the positive effects of accountability on ethical leadership. The results of the study suggest that organizations can increase ethical leadership throughout the company via accountability (especially self-accountability) and moral competence by training their leaders to use self- monitoring behaviors and increasing moral education.
Introduction In today’s rapidly changing business environment, leaders must make ethical decisions
on a regular basis (Hsieh, 2017; Khokhar & Zia-ur-Rehman, 2017) and function as
ethical leaders to promote, sustain, and maintain ethical behavior in followers (Jeewon,
Jung Hyun, Yoonjung, Pillai, & Se Hyung, 2018; Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh,
2011; Northouse, 2013). Continual scandals in business and public sectors over the last
decades have increased interest in ethical leadership (Khokhar & Zia-ur-Rehman, 2017;
Marquardt, Brown, & Casper, 2018). The increase in the importance of ethics in
business and management has led many scholars to focus on ethical leadership
behavior (Ardelean, 2015; Eubanks, Brown, & Ybema, 2012; Javed, Rawwas, Khandai,
Shahid, & Tayyeb, 2018; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009;
Northouse, 2013; Resick et al., 2011; Trevino, den Nieuwenboer, & Kish-Gephart,
2014). Moreover, it has provided opportunities for researchers to investigate methods
that produce increased knowledge of ethical behavior in organizations that can result in
facilitating and sustaining the development of ethical leadership behavior. Volatility in
KASSEM A. GHANEM
WINDSOR, ONTARIO, CANADA
PATRICIA A. CASTELLI,
SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN, U.S.A.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
137
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
today’s global economy confronts organizational leaders with numerous complex ethical
dilemmas, and makes ethical decision-making an important component of leadership
behavior. To sustain ethical leadership behavior in business and management,
organizations need to decrease the likelihood that the leader will engage in
inappropriate conduct (Beu & Buckley, 2001; Newman, Round, Bhattacharya, & Roy,
2017) by adopting mechanisms for enhancing ethical leadership behavior.
One mechanism for enhancing ethical leadership behavior addressed in the literature is
accountability (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Petrick & Quinn, 2001; Sikka, 2017).
Accountability involves assessing individual’s beliefs and feelings, and observing and
evaluating the performance and behavior of self and others (Dhiman, Sen, & Bhardwaj,
2018; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Accountability is an important construct for supporting
ethical leadership behavior in today’s global economy, and is one of the central
constructs to promote business ethics (Nunn & Avella, 2017; Petrick & Quinn; 2001).
Accountability requires leaders to develop ethical perspectives compatible with the social
order (Steinbauer, Renn, Taylor, & Njoroge, 2014). One of the important roles that
ethical leaders have in an organization is to promote, support, and maintain ethical
behavior. An ethical leader, in this study, is a leader who effectively promotes ethical
behaviors such as ethical guidance, fairness, integrity, people orientation, power sharing,
role clarification, and concern for sustainability through ethical climate (Kalshoven et al.,
2011). The intra-organizational scope of accountability involves accountability of a
leader by self and others (Bergsteiner, 2011). In self-accountability, the leader is
accountable to him/herself, and is able to develop a sense of self-accountability for
his/her behavior to increase self-awareness (e.g., Lerner & Tetlock, 1999) with no
presence of others in the decision context (Peloza, White, & Shang, 2013). In other-
accountability, the leader perceives anyone other than self as evaluating his/her
behavior (Royle, 2006). Accordingly, accountability is a construct that involves an
assessment of an individual’s beliefs and feelings and an assessment of the behavior of
others. Moreover, accountability involves monitoring and evaluating the performance
and behavior of self (e.g., Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).
A second mechanism for enhancing ethical leadership addressed in the literature is
moral competence. Oftentimes, ethics and morals are used interchangeably; however,
they are clearly different. Ethics refer to behaviors or decisions made by individuals
within external values that are compatible with the social order system, whereas morals refer to internal principles that help individuals recognize what is right or wrong (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). Moral competence involves making moral decisions and judgments
(Kohlberg, 1964), and solving problems and conflicts using universal moral principles
(Lind, 2015) regardless of culture or country of origin. The theory of moral competence
was inspired by the moral development theory developed by Kohlberg (1958, 1969) to
explain how an individual reasons when making moral judgments, and where moral
judgment illustrates the process by which an individual decides that his/her course of
action is morally right or wrong (Loviscky, Trevino, & Jacobs, 2007). Kohlberg (1964)
defined moral competence as “the capacity to make decisions and judgments which are
moral (i.e., based on internal principles) and to act in accordance with such judgments”
(p. 425). Kohlberg goes on to differentiate among the various levels of moral reasoning
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
138
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
whereas lower levels are associated with social consequences (fear of getting caught), to
higher principles (universal values). Lind (2015) extends Kohlberg’s definition of moral
competence emphasizing the link between moral competence and ethical behavior.
Specifically, Lind defined moral competence “as the ability to solve problems and
conflicts on the basis of universal moral principles through thinking and discussion, but
not through violence, deceit, and power” (p. 4).
Purpose of the Study To help sustain ethical leadership behavior, organizations and leaders may want to
consider utilizing accountability as an instrument to promote ethical behavior. The level
of moral competence in a leader may play a critical role in moderating relationships
among ethical leadership behavior, self-accountability, and other-accountability. Within
this context, the purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate (1) whether
accountability of self and others affects ethical leadership behavior, (2) whether the
relationship between accountability and ethical leadership is moderated by the leader’s
moral competence, and (3) whether the relationship between accountability and ethical
leadership is moderated by the leader’s, gender, age, education, leadership experience,
or leadership role in the organization.
To address the need to increase ethical behavior in business, this study investigated the
relationships among accountability, moral competence, and ethical leadership. A sample
of organizational leaders completed an online survey that measured ethical leadership,
accountability and moral competence. Inferential statistics were used to investigate (1)
accountability as a predictor of ethical leadership, (2) moral competence as a moderator
of the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership, and (3) leader
demographic characteristics such as gender, age, educational level, leadership
experience, and leadership role as moderators of the relationship between accountability
and ethical leadership. Results from this study contribute to the existing literature on
ethical leadership and ethical behavior by helping business owners and organizational
executives increase ethical leadership by addressing accountability and moral
competence in their organizations. Study results may also help organizations develop
strategies for selecting ethical leaders, developing ethical leaders, and identifying the
most effective strategies to reinforce ethical behaviors in organizations (Walumbwa &
Schaubroeck, 2009).
Methods, Conceptual Framework, and Hypotheses The research methodology was a quantitative cross-sectional survey design with
moderating variables. The analysis utilized hypothesis testing in the form of multiple
linear regression in which the dependent variable, ethical leadership, was regressed on
the independent variable, accountability. An interaction term of accountability x the
moderator variable (moral competence, and either gender, age, education, leadership
experience, and leadership role) were also included in the regression analysis. LinkedIn
Group members with self-reported levels of management experience were invited to
participate in the survey. Study participants completed a web-based survey that
measured accountability, ethical leadership, and moral competence.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
139
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Research Variables This study investigated the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership in
a sample of senior, middle and lower level managers, and the moderating effects of the
leader’s moral competence and demographic variables on the relationship between
accountability and ethical leadership. Accountability is an independent variable (IV)
comprised of two factors, self-accountability and other-accountability. The IV affects the
dependent variable (DV), ethical leadership, which is comprised of seven factors: ethical
guidance, fairness, integrity, people orientation, power sharing, role clarification, and
sustainability. To explore the impact of variables that could moderate the effect of
accountability on ethical leadership, moral competence is included in the model as a
moderator (MOD). Furthermore, the demographic variables gender, age, education,
leadership experience and leadership role are included in the model as moderators
(MOD). The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.
Accountability and Ethical Leadership Accountability is very important for supporting ethical leadership in today’s global
economy (Beu 2000; Lagan & Moran, 2006; Sikka, 2017) and is one of the central
constructs to protect business and organizational ethics. Leaders with accountability
provide attention to the development of ethical perspectives within organizational
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of the Study
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
140
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
components. Leaders need to make ethically accountable decisions in rapidly changing
business environments (Steinbauer et al., 2014; Sims & Felton, 2006) and within these
spheres, they face decisions and implement actions to create an ethical environment
and promote a community’s interests. Accountability has the potential to sustain ethical
and personal development. Lerner and Tetlock (1999) concluded that when an
individual becomes aware of the accountability condition, the specific coping strategy
relevant to the condition is embraced. An individual who is held accountable is likely to
be aware of the accountability requirements in order to be compatible with the
expectations of the accountable. Thus, the individuals are likely to behave in an
acceptable manner. Lerner and Tetlock also added that self-criticism and effortful
thinking (i.e., self-accountability) will be selected most often when individuals are aware
of the accountability conditions. The individuals are likely to engage in a wide
assessment of their behaviors and judgments. Paolini, Crisp, and McLntyre (2009) found
that when individuals were notified that they would be held accountable for their
decisions regarding stereotype change and generalizations, both information processing
and judgment vigilance increased.
Accountability helps organizations to implement ethical behavior in order to cope with
the increasing demand for transparency and ethical performance measurement (Gilbert
& Rasche, 2007). Accountability holds organizational leaders directly responsible to
their public in order to enable those leaders to be in line with the social and
organizational requirements (Schatz, 2013). Cox (2010) considered that accountability
for the management of healthcare strengthens the opportunities of accepting
responsibility for a patient’s care by encouraging nurses and other medical professionals
to acquire knowledge, skills and experience that allow them to perform the task or role
required of them while respecting the requisite legal and social standards. For example,
medical professionals are accountable for their professional actions and accountability
acts as an external control that judges their actions. However, in their qualitative study,
Mansouri and Rowney (2014) found that accountability for professionals goes beyond
fear of external control and material incentives; it refers to the sense of self-
accountability, and concern for the public interest and ethical behavior. Therefore,
accountability encourages ethical leadership behavior within organizations where the
leaders need to be fair and principled decision-makers and also behave ethically in their
personal and professional lives (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006).
Self-accountability and ethical leadership. The concept of self-accountability is seen as internal motivators such as personal qualities and ethics. These motivators provide inner
principles and goals set by individuals (Dhima et al., 2018; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989).
From the perspective of ethical leadership, self-accountability occurs when an ethical
leader is accountable to himself/herself when there is no one else to observe, monitor,
or hold him/her responsible. When a leader has a well-developed sense of self-
accountability, the leader has the ability to hold himself/herself accountable for his/her
behavior in order to increase self-observing of their behavior (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).
Frink and Klimoski (1998) suggest a possible relationship between self-accountability
and ethical guidance since self-accountability includes personal (i.e., leader’s) ethics and
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
141
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
values, goals, and obligations. This aligns with values-based leadership since shared
values helps promote goal obtainment. With respect to social exchange theory, leaders
influence others based on the reciprocal relationship of obligation.
Accordingly, the subordinates feel obligated to return beneficial behaviors when they
believe that their leaders have been good and fair to them. Therefore, when self-
accountability of leaders is high, the subordinates will be more likely to practice ethical
behaviors (e.g., Peloza, White, & Shang, 2013; Wachter, 2013). Self-accountability can
also serve as the driver for ensuring justice and fairness within the organizational
boundaries (Hunt, 2007) and through self-awareness, helps leaders better understand
what their behaviors may elicit (e.g., Hollander, 2013; Musah, 2011). Self-accountability
comprises aspects of integrity and honesty (Artley, 2001) that help regulate ethical
behavior. There is a possible relationship between self-accountability and people
orientation. People orientation is based on how leaders affect organizational processes
through caring for others, empowering others, and developing others (Page & Wong,
2000). Caring for subordinates is one of the outcomes of accountability (Kalshoven et
al., 2011; Lagan & Moran, 2006).
Self-accountability might also enhance a power-sharing approach between leaders and
their subordinates since the nature of self-accountability strengthens a bond of trust and
cooperation between leadership and subordinates. According to Mordhah (2012), self-
accountability helps leaders avoid oppression and empower their subordinates by
allowing them to participate in decision-making. As a leader is accountable to
himself/herself, the leader is able to develop a sense of self-observation for their
behavior (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). This sense enables the leader to be transparent and
to engage in open communication with subordinates in order to explain what is expected
of them and clarify role expectations. According to Neubert, Wu, and Roberts (2013),
ethical leadership inspires ethical conduct in its true sense by practicing and managing
ethics, and holding every one of subordinates accountable for their own behavior. Self-
accountability has also a positive influence on sustainability (Cotte & Trudel, 2009).
Peloza et al. (2013) stated that self-accountable people set their decisions and choices
according to ethical and sustainability criteria.
Other–Accountability and Ethical Leadership. Other-accountability represents an accountability relationship with others within a work setting. Other-accountability involves
an obligation to explain and justify one’s past conduct to another person(s) and can be a
way to adhere to the ethical guidance of organizational leaders. Accountability stimulates
leaders to adhere to ethical behavior, practice self-accountability and commit to the
general interests (Mkandawire, 2010). The pressure of accountability may motivate
leaders to develop an effective decision-making process that helps to reduce the
potential unpopular or questionable decisions (McLaughlin, 1995). Thus, the leaders will
be able to clarify the likely consequences of possible unethical behavior by subordinates.
Accountability helps organizational leaders to implement ethical behavior in order to
cope with the increasing demand for transparency and ethical performance
measurement (e.g., Gilbert & Rasche, 2007; Kimura & Nishikawa, 2018). Other-
accountability can be a way to achieve fairness and justice within organizations; whereas
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
142
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
accountability links justice perceptions to organizational and leadership performance
(Park, 2017). For example, accountability for the management of healthcare strengthens
the opportunities of accepting responsibility and achieving fairness for a patient’s care
by encouraging nurses and other medical professionals to acquire knowledge, skills, and
experience that allow them to perform the task or role required of them while respecting
the requisite legal standard (e.g., Cox, 2010).
Leadership accountability is the expectation that leaders are accountable for a quality of
tasks’ performance, increasing productivity, mitigating adverse aspects of organizational
operations, and promising that performance is managed with integrity (Artley, 2001).
Other-accountability also increases a power-sharing approach between leaders and their
subordinates and may improve ethical behavior, encourage a culture of open
communication and lay the foundation for trust with subordinates (e.g., Bane, 2004).
Where the nature of accountability strengthens a bond of trust and cooperation within
organizational components (Schillemans, 2008). Caring for subordinates is one of the
outcomes of accountability (Lagan & Moran, 2006). Caring for subordinates’ feelings is
an important behavior of ethical leaders. In this regard, as self-accountable leaders,
other-accountable ethical leaders are able to show extra role of people-orientation
through their behavior. Lagan and Moran (2006) considered that the organizational
framework of leadership ethical accountability includes displaying ethical principles,
promoting a culture of equality of wages compared with performance, managing the
development of ethical strategies to reduce the negative consequences on production
and performance, and advancing the employee’s well-being.
Other-accountability might also enhance role clarification of leaders to their
subordinates. Being accountable of others implies that leaders must accept
responsibility for their conduct and actions in a transparent manner. Consequently,
ethical leaders are able to inspire ethical conduct of their subordinates by holding every
one accountable for their own behaviors (Neubert et al., 2013). Finally, other-
accountability affects sustainability since it holds organizational leaders directly
accountable to the public and this enables those leaders to be in line with public
requirements (e.g., Schatz, 2013). The concept of accountability underscores both the
right and the corresponding responsibility of employees and community to expect and
ensure that organizations act in the best interests of the society (e.g., Malena, Forster, &
Singh, 2004). Other-accountability also encourages organizational leaders to make
decisions within the framework of firm-level governance mechanisms (Filatotchev,
2012), which forms a fundamental base of leadership responsibility and accountability
to community and environment. This study hypothesized that self- and other-
accountability would be a positive predictor of ethical leadership.
Hypothesis 1: Accountability as measured by self- and other-accountability is a significant positive predictor of ethical leadership.
Moral Competence as an Antecedent to Ethical Leadership Moral competence is critical for supporting ethical leadership in today’s global economy.
A leader’s character should be based on a strong foundation of high ethical standards.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
143
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
This is vital in today’s global economy where leaders must embrace ethics, as well as
leadership effectiveness (e.g., expertise, techniques, knowledge), to be successful
(Sankar, 2003). Moral competence is a cornerstone of the moral developmental
cognitive family. Moral cognition of a leader is depicted as an antecedent of effective
leadership. When leaders are able to demonstrate a high moral judgment in their
decisions, they will have greater opportunities to exhibit ethical leadership behaviors to
their employees (e.g., Mulla & Krishnan, 2014). Mendonca (2001) states that leaders
are responsible for identifying the levels of organizations’ moral environment where
these levels are reflected by the moral development of the leader. Therefore, leaders’
moral development has an important impression on an organization’s ethical climate.
Schminke, Ambrose, & Neubaum (2005) argued that enhancing the ethical climate
within organizations would be effective with leaders who fully utilize their moral
development through translating their capability for moral competence into moral
actions.
Interaction between moral competence and accountability. Accountability has the potential to sustain ethical and moral development. Lerner and Tetlock (1999)
concluded that self-criticism and effortful thinking will be selected most often when
individuals are aware of the accountability conditions. The individuals are likely to
engage in a wide assessment of their behaviors and judgments. Paolini et al. (2009)
found that when individuals were notified that they would be held accountable for their
decisions regarding stereotype change and generalizations, both information processing
and judgment vigilance increased. In this regard, Lerner and Tetlock (1999) proposed
that self-critical and effortful thinking is most likely to be activated when decision-makers
learn prior to forming any opinions that they will be accountable to an audience (a)
whose views are unknown, (b) who are interested in accuracy, (c) who are interested in
processes rather than specific outcomes, (d) who are reasonably well informed, and (e)
who have a legitimate reason for inquiring into the reasons behind participants’
judgments.
Beu (2000) found that decision-makers with higher levels of moral cognitive will behave
more ethically than those with lower levels. Beu also found that the correlation between
moral cognitive and ethical behavior, in the context of accountability, was significant. The
relationship between moral cognitive (i.e., moral competence) and ethical leadership
appeared to be particularly strong for individuals who are high in moral utilization. The
idea behind moral utilization is that individuals differ not only in their moral cognitive
capacity, but also in the degree to which they actually utilize their capacity in ethical
decision-making. Consequently, this paper suggests the levels of moral competence
change the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership behavior.
This study proposes that the accountability of ethical leaders who have low moral
competence may differ from the accountability of leaders who have high moral
competence. The behavior of ethical leaders with low moral competence requires
observing and evaluating by others in order to reduce the likelihood that the leader will
engage in inappropriate performance. Leaders’ behavior at this lower level of moral
competence should be subject to evaluation by others and subject to the objective
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
144
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
conditions based on this evaluation (e.g., rewards and punishments, laws, rules, etc.)
(Beu & Buckley, 2001). In contrast, when leaders possess a high moral competence
their ethical leadership may be accountable by self. Therefore, it was hypothesized that
at low levels of moral competence there is a strong relationship between other-
accountability and ethical leadership, whereas at high level of moral competence there is
a strong relationship between self-accountability and ethical leadership (e.g., Brown &
Trevino, 2006).
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between accountability and ethical leadership is moderated by moral competence.
Demographic Variables The impact of demographic variables on the ethical decision-making process is a widely
researched issue in the ethical leadership literature (Pierce & Sweeney, 2010). The
literature involves some studies with empirical examination that discuss the effect of
demographic variables such as gender, age, education, leadership experience,
leadership roles on ethical behavior, and decision-making (e.g., Barbuto Jr., Fritz, Matkin,
& Marx, 2007; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001, Fiedler,1994; Pierce & Sweeney,
2010). However, the literature lacks studies with empirical examination regarding the
effect these demographic variables on accountability and thus on the relationship
between accountability and ethical leadership behavior. This study proposed that the
relationship between accountability and ethical leadership may be different for leaders
with varying demographic characteristics. Therefore, accountability may predict ethical
leadership based on a leader’s demographic characteristics.
Variables such as leader’s gender, age, educational level, experience and the role of the
leader may play a significant role in affecting accountability when predicts ethical
leadership behavior. These demographic variables were selected for this study given
literature support of their potential to have an impact on the relationship between
accountability and ethical leadership. For example, Barbuto Jr. et al. (2007) considered
that demographic variables such as gender, age and educational level could be used to
predict some leadership behaviors. Although Fiedler (1994) found that leadership
experience does not appear to predict leadership performance, Eagly and Johannesen-
Schmidt (2001) discussed the leadership role of leaders in organizations defined by their
specific position in a hierarchy (e.g., senior management, middle management, and
lower management) as potentially impacting leadership behavior. To investigate the role
of demographic variables in the accountability-ethical leadership behavior relationship,
the moderating effect of leader’s gender, age, educational level, experience, and the role
of the leader was tested.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between accountability and ethical leadership is moderated by gender, age, education, leadership experience, or leadership role.
Study Sample The study sample consisted of 103 participants from Asia, Canada, Europe, the Middle
East, and the United States who were senior, middle and lower level managers in their
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
145
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
organizations. The sample for this study was recruited from among the population of
global professionals actively working in leadership positions or those who had
experience working in leadership positions (i.e., a professional who has/had
subordinates who reported to them). Professionals in current or prior leadership
positions were recruited based on Saari and Judge (2004) who found that professionals
have a strong effect on an organization’s performance and have superior latitude in how
they perform assigned tasks. Leaders were recruited via LinkedIn groups
(www.linkedin.com) and email referrals. Castelli, Egleston, and Marx (2013) described
LinkedIn as an effective social media network for collecting survey data, Castelli et al.
also provided steps for how to join LinkedIn professional groups, post research surveys
in LinkedIn groups, engage people to participate, and improve participation rate. Eligible
participants were those who provided their voluntarily consent to participate in the study,
and those who self-identified themselves as a professional actively working in leadership
positions or those who had experience working in leadership positions. The sample was
comprised of a wide range of international senior, middle and lower leaders working in
organizations from a variety of industries including manufacturing, education,
government, health, information technology, and energy.
Measures The survey instrument comprised of 81 questions divided into five sections: (1) ethical
leadership (24 items), (2) self-accountability (10 items), (3) other-accountability (12
items), (4) moral competence (26 items), and (5) demographics (9 items). The web-
based survey was administered via SurveyMonkey. The survey instrument contained
copyrighted scales for which the researcher obtained written permission. Ethical
leadership was measured using 24 items from Ethical Leadership at Work (ELW)
questionnaire. The ELW asked respondents about seven specific ethical leadership
behaviors: ethical guidance (3 items), fairness (4 items), integrity (3 items), people
orientation (5 items), power sharing (4 items), role clarification (2 items), and
sustainability (3 items). All ethical leadership items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Accountability was measured
using Horsfall’s (1996) 10-item measure of self-accountability and Umphress’s (2003)
12-item measure of other-accountability.
The 10 items of self-accountability asked about a leader’s ability to achieve personal and
organizational success through self-empowerment and improvement. The 12 items of
other-accountability asked about a leader’s ability to provide satisfactory justifications
for his/her actions and behaviors on the job to their superior(s). All accountability items
were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly
agree). Moral competence was measured in this study using Lind’s (2016a) 26-item
Moral Competence Test (MCT) measure of moral competence. The MCT measures a
leader’s moral ability to judge two ethical dilemma stories: a worker’s story (13 items)
and a doctor’s story (13 items). Each story asks participants if they agree or disagree
with the worker’s or doctor’s action from each respective story (1 item), followed by 6 pro
items and 6 contra items scored along a 9-point Likert scale ranging from -4 (I strongly
reject) to 4 (I strong accept). The MCT is scored in accordance with each participant’s
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
146
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
own pattern of responses on the 12 pro and contra worker’s story items and the 12 pro
and contra doctor’s story items. The scoring formula generates a moral competence
score (the C-score) in the range of 0-100, where 0 reflects low moral competence and
100 reflects high moral competence.
Data Analysis Data analysis began with exporting the raw survey data from SurveyMonkey into
Microsoft Excel for cleaning by deleting rows with missing data. Cleaned data were
analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics via Minitab 18. Psychometric
properties of the survey were evaluated using structural equation modeling via Mplus 8.
Inferential statistics were based on general linear modeling (GLM) procedures (e.g.,
ANOVA, multiple linear regression); structural equation modeling was used for
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For each statistical procedure, all available data were
used. For all inferential statistics, significance was calculated at the 90% confidence
level (i.e., alpha was set at p < 0.10 level, two-tail tests of statistical significance). Study
participants in this study provided data for both the IV (accountability) and the DV
(ethical leadership).
Results Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Tables 1 and 2 present the demographic characteristics of the sample in terms of gender, age, education, leader role, leader experience, country, and industry. As shown
in Table 1, the sample (N = 103) included more males than females (64.1% males to 33% females with 2.9% with no response). The age of the respondents was distributed to
six categories: 18-29 years (8.7%), 30-39 years (22.3%), 40-49 years (33%), 50-59 years
(28.2%), 60 years and up (4.9%), and 2.9% did not respond. These results showed that a
large percentage of participants was in the 40-59 years of age class (61.2%) compared
with the 18-39 years of age class (31% of the participants). Similarly, 64% of the
participants earned a Master’s degree or higher. The largest distribution of the
leadership role of leaders were in the middle level (35%) compared to the senior level
(32%) and the lower level (14.6%). The experience of the leaders was almost the most in
the categories of 1-4 and 5-9 years of experience. As shown in Table 2, the largest percentage of participants was from the United States (48.5%), with 23.3% from the
Middle East, 22.3% from Canada, and the remainder were from Europe and Asia.
Although the majority of participants came from the U.S., accountability was and still is a
human need across all places and times both geographically and throughout history. In
general, most cultures and countries share the importance of accountability as a social
system that is needed to create predictability, order, and control. However, the nature of
accountability systems can vary in some countries according to the norms of political and
economic systems of each country (e.g., Gelfand, Lim, & Raver, 2004). In the
increasingly global business environment, the organizational practices, including
accountability, have become very similar and tend to follow the Western model of
managerial practices. Growth of the West’s free market and democratic ideologies
throughout the world are enhancing the managerial norms and standards of practices
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
147
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
which have been greatly influenced by Western traditions and values (Zhou, Poon, &
Huang, 2012).
Finally, the sample was comprised of leaders from a variety of industries, with
approximately 30% working in manufacturing, followed by education (22.3%), healthcare
(12.6%), government (11.7%), professional (8.7%), energy (3.9%), information (3.9%),
and 6.8% did not respond.
Table 1: Characteristics of Sample by Gender, Age, Education, Leader Role, and
Leader Experience
Note: Sample frequency is expressed as % of all participants, N = 103.
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Chi-square test for equality of distribution.
Table 2: Characteristics of Sample by Country and Industry
Characteristic n % Characteristic n %
Total Sample 103 100.0 Leader Role
Gender Lower 15* 14.6
Male 66** 64.1 Middle 36 35.0
Female 34 33.0 Senior 33 32.0
No response 3 2.9 No Response 19 18.4
Age Leader Experience
18-29 9** 8.7 1 - 4 years 28 27.2
30-39 23 22.3 5 - 9 years 27 26.2
40-49 34 33.0 10 - 14 years 19 18.5
50-59 29 28.2 15 - 19 years 13 12.6
60+ 5 4.9 20 years or more 16 15.5
No Response 3 2.9
Education
High school degree 2** 1.9
Associate's degree 8 7.8
Bachelor's degree 24 23.3
Master's degree 33 32.0
Doctoral degree 33 32.0
No Response 3 2.9
Characteristic n
%
Total Sample 103 100.0
Country
Asia 2** 1.9
Canada 23 22.3
Europe 4 3.9
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
148
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Note: Sample frequency is expressed as % of all participants, N = 103.
**p < 0.01 Chi-square test for equality of distribution.
Reliability and Validity The psychometric properties of the scales measuring ethical leadership and
accountability were evaluated statistically in the study sample using Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha test of internal consistency and CFA test of construct validity. The
criterion value for reliability was set at 0.7 (Hinkin, 1998), and criterion values for
construct validity were set at factor loadings significant at p < 0.05, chi-square/df < 2, RMSEA (90% CI) ≤ 0.08, and CFI ≥ 0.90 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1998; Bentler, 1990, 2007;
Loehlin, 1998). The psychometric properties of Lind’s (2016a) 26-item measure of moral
competence were not evaluated statistically in the study sample because the measure
does not conform to the assumptions of normal distributions (i.e., the moral competence
C-index is derived from each participant’s total response variation). In regard to ethical
leadership, while the original 24-item scale used to measure ethical leadership was
found to be reliable (alpha = 0.846), the scale required modification after evaluating the
psychometric properties of the combined seven factors comprising ethical leadership
such that two items were dropped to optimize reliability and validity: one item was
dropped from the factor people orientation and one item was dropped from the factor
power sharing. The modified 22-item ethical leadership scale had good reliability (alpha
= 0.858), and five of the seven factors also had good reliability with alphas > 0.80
(ethical guidance, integrity, power sharing, role clarification, and sustainability).
Although reliability of the fairness and people orientation factors were found to be lower
than the criterion alpha value, analysis of the psychometric properties found it was
necessary to include them in the full measure of ethical leadership to optimize construct
validity. Results of CFA found all factor loadings were significant, chi-square/df was < 2,
the lower end of the RMSEA confidence interval was < 0.08, and CFI was > 0.90. These
results support the use of the 22-item ethical leadership scale along with its seven
factors in the study hypothesis tests. In regard to accountability, the two scales
measuring accountability required modification to optimize reliability and validity: two
Middle East 24 23.3
US 50 48.5
Industry
Education 23** 22.3
Energy 4 3.9
Government 12 11.7
Health 13 12.6
Information 4 3.9
Manufacturing 31 30.1
Professional 9 8.7
No Response 7 6.8
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
149
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
items were dropped from the factor self-accountability and four items were dropped from
the factor other-accountability. The modified 16-item accountability scale and its two
factors had good reliability (alphas > 0.7) and good construct validity (all factor loadings
were significant, chi-square/df was < 2, and the lower end of the RMSEA confidence
interval was < 0.08). These results support the use of the 16-item accountability scale
along with its two factors (8-item self-accountability, and 8-item other-accountability) in
the study hypothesis tests.
Inferential Statistics Hypothesis one (H1) tested accountability and its two constitutive factors (self-
accountability and other-accountability) as significant positive predictors of ethical
leadership. H1 was tested by regressing ethical leadership and its seven factors on
accountability and its two factors. First, accountability was tested as a predictor of
ethical leadership and its seven factors (see Table 3). Next, the two factors of accountability were tested as predictors of ethical leadership and its seven factors (see
Table 4). As shown in Table 3, accountability was found to be a significant positive predictor of ethical leadership at the 90% level of significance (Z = 1.66, p < 0.10).
The unstandardized regression coefficient suggests a one-unit change in accountability
is estimated to predict an increase in ethical leadership of 0.155. Accountability was
also found to be a significant positive predictor at the 99% level of significance of the
ethical leadership factor ethical guidance (Z = 2.71, p < 0.01), and at the 95% level of
significance of the ethical leadership factor power sharing (Z = 2.47, p < 0.05). The
unstandardized regression coefficients suggest a one-unit change in accountability is
estimated to predict an increase in ethical guidance of 0.455 and an increase in power
sharing of 0.410. The R-square for accountability as a predictor of ethical leadership, ethical guidance and power sharing is < 7%, suggesting accountability is accounting for a
small variance in the change of these dependent variables.
Table 3: Ethical Leadership and its Seven Factors Regressed on Accountability
Dependent
Variable
Predictor Beta SE Z p R-square
Ethical Leadership Constant 4.428 0.460 9.63 <0.001 2.65%
ACC 0.155 0.093 1.66 0.099
Ethical Guidance Constant 3.565 0.824 4.32 <0.001 6.80%
ACC 0.455 0.167 2.71 0.008
Fairness Constant 3.924 0.609 6.44 <0.001 0.53%
ACC 0.091 0.124 0.73 0.466
Integrity Constant 5.421 0.759 7.14 <0.001 0.14%
ACC 0.058 0.154 0.38 0.708
People Orientation Constant 3.406 0.654 5.21 <0.001 0.07%
ACC -0.035 0.133 -0.26 0.792
Power Sharing Constant 3.846 0.815 4.72 <0.001 5.71%
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
150
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
ACC 0.410 0.166 2.47 0.015
Role Clarification Constant 5.448 0.709 7.69 <0.001 1.15%
ACC 0.156 0.144 1.09 0.280
Sustainability Constant 6.311 0.783 8.06 <0.001 0.01%
ACC 0.020 0.159 0.12 0.903
Note: Beta of the linear regression is presented as the unstandardized regression coefficient. SE =
standard error of Beta. N = 103. Accountability (ACC). Predictors in bold significant at p < 0.10.
As shown in Table 4, when ethical leadership and its seven factors were regressed on the two factors of accountability, only self-accountability was found to be a significant
positive predictor of ethical leadership at the 95% level of significance (Z = 2.36, p < 0.05). The unstandardized regression coefficient suggests a one-unit change in self-
accountability is estimated to predict an increase in ethical leadership of 0.213. Self-
accountability was also found to be a significant positive predictor at the 99% level of
significance of the ethical leadership factors ethical guidance (Z = 4.01, p < 0.01), power sharing (Z = 2.89, p < 0.01), role clarification (Z = 3.58, p < 0.01) and sustainability (Z = 2.62, p < 0.01), and at the 90% level of significance of the ethical leadership factor integrity (Z = 1.89, p < 0.10). As supported by the negative correlation between self-
accountability and people orientation, self-accountability was found to be a significant
negative predictor of people orientation (Z = -2.98, p < 0.01). The R-square for self- accountability as a predictor of ethical leadership and its factors ranges from 5.5% to
14.5%.
Table 4: Ethical Leadership and its Seven Factors Regressed on Self-Accountability and
Other-Accountability
Dependent Variable Predictor Beta SE Z p R-square
Ethical Leadership Constant 3.850 0.567 6.79 <0.001 5.53%
SA 0.213 0.090 2.36 0.020
OA 0.026 0.055 0.46 0.643
Ethical Guidance Constant 1.828 0.989 1.85 0.067 14.51%
SA 0.632 0.157 4.01 <0.001
OA 0.076 0.097 0.78 0.434
Fairness Constant 4.152 0.762 5.45 <0.001 0.90%
SA -0.011 0.121 -0.09 0.928
OA 0.070 0.074 0.95 0.347
Integrity Constant 4.324 0.932 4.64 <0.001 3.90%
SA 0.281 0.149 1.89 0.061
OA -0.062 0.091 -0.68 0.500
People Orientation Constant 4.936 0.777 6.35 <0.001 9.83%
SA -0.369 0.124 -2.98 0.004
OA 0.108 0.076 1.42 0.159
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
151
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Power Sharing Constant 2.740 1.000 2.73 0.007 8.91%
SA 0.462 0.160 2.89 0.005
OA 0.110 0.098 1.12 0.264
Role Clarification Constant 3.726 0.837 4.45 <0.001 12.00%
SA 0.478 0.133 3.58 0.001
OA -0.070 0.082 -0.85 0.396
Sustainability Constant 4.709 0.937 5.03 <0.001 8.52%
SA 0.391 0.149 2.62 0.009
OA -0.144 0.092 -1.57 0.120
Note: Beta of the linear regression is presented as the unstandardized regression coefficient. SE =
standard error of Beta. N = 103. Self-accountability (SA), other-accountability (OA). Predictors in bold
significant at p < 0.10.
Hypothesis two (H2) tested moral competence as a moderator of the relationship
between accountability and ethical leadership. Table 5 presents the results of linear regressions that tested H2 by first regressing ethical leadership on accountability,
followed by regressing ethical leadership on an accountability x moral competence
interaction term (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). For the linear regressions, the moral
competence C-index was included as a continuous variable (see Appendix A for the
scoring procedure used to generate the C-index). As shown in the top panel of Table 5, a multiple regression with ethical leadership regressed on accountability and moral
competence, and then regressed on the accountability x moral competence interaction
term found the interaction term was significant at the 90% level of significance (Z = - 1.67, p < 0.10). The middle panel of Table 5 shows the results of a multiple regression with ethical leadership regressed on self-accountability and moral competence, and then
regressed on self-accountability x moral competence. Results found the self-
accountability x moral competence interaction term was significant at the 90% level of
significance (Z = -1.70, p < 0.10). Finally, the bottom panel of Table 5 shows the results of a multiple regression with ethical leadership regressed on other-accountability and
moral competence, and then regressed on other-accountability x moral competence.
Results found the other-accountability x moral competence interaction term was not
significant (Z = -0.39, p > 0.10). These results suggest H2 is supported in that moral competence was found to moderate the relationship between accountability full score
and ethical leadership, and between self-accountability and ethical leadership.
Table 5: Moderation of the Accountability-Ethical Leadership Relationship by Moral
Competence Predictor Beta SE Z p R-square
Constant 4.36 0.49 8.94 <0.001 3.04%
ACC 0.16 0.10 1.73 0.088
Moral Competence 0.00 0.01 0.31 0.760
Constant 3.78 0.74 5.12 <0.001 4.13%
ACC 0.28 0.15 1.91 0.060
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
152
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
MC 0.06 0.06 1.06 0.290
ACC*Moral Competence -0.02 0.01 -1.67 0.099
Constant 3.37 0.57 5.86 <0.001 9.74%
SA 0.30 0.09 3.20 0.002
Moral Competence 0.01 0.01 0.89 0.376
Constant 2.46 0.80 3.07 0.003 12.16%
SA 0.46 0.14 3.38 0.001
Moral Competence 0.09 0.05 1.73 0.088
SA* Moral Competence -0.02 0.01 -1.70 0.097
Constant 5.12 0.25 20.54 <0.001 0.06%
OA 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.816
Moral Competence 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.981
Constant 4.99 0.41 12.21 <0.001 0.22%
OA 0.04 0.10 0.45 0.652
Moral Competence 0.01 0.03 0.39 0.700
OA* Moral Competence -0.01 0.01 -0.39 0.696
Note: Beta of the linear regression is presented as the unstandardized regression coefficient. SE =
standard error of Beta. N = 103. Accountability (ACC), self-accountability (SA), other-accountability
(OA). Predictors in bold are significant at p < 0.10.
Hypothesis three (H3) tested the leader’s gender, age, education, leadership experience
or leadership role as moderators of the relationship between accountability and ethical
leadership. Overall, the results suggest H3 is partially supported because only the
leader’s gender and leadership role were found to moderate the relationship between
accountability and ethical leadership. In this study, the results of linear regressions that
tested each of leader’s gender and leadership role as moderators using the same data
analysis procedure for testing H2.
Specifically, the study tests of moderation of the accountability-ethical leadership
relationship by gender found only the other-accountability x gender interaction term was
significant (Z = 1.73, p < 0.10). To help with interpretation of this significant interaction term, a factorial plot was created after categorizing other-accountability as low vs. high
(using median split). Figure 2 shows the factorial plot of gender as a moderator of the
other-accountability-ethical leadership relationship. Other-accountability was found to be
a predictor of ethical leadership in female rather than male leaders whereas the ethical
leadership behavior of female leaders is predicted to increase when other-accountability
is high. Reasons for this phenomenon require additional research and are beyond the
scope of this paper. However, this may result from an instinctual characteristic of
women, regardless of their leadership role. Additionally, accountability represents a
social protection system within organizations where women may feel the need to protect
themselves from abuse and gender inequality in the workplace (COFEM, 2017). In this
regard, female leaders tend to justify their actions within the accountability system
because accountability theoretically provides a state of job security for them.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
153
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Consequently, they may feel that it is necessary to adhere and comply with accountability
requirements thus displaying high ethical behavior.
Figure 2: Gender as a
moderator of the relationship
between other-accountability
and ethical leadership.
A multiple regression with
ethical leadership regressed
on accountability and the
accountability x leader role
interaction term found the
interaction term was
significant at the 90% level
of significance (Z = -1.68, p < 0.10). Results found the self-accountability x leader role interaction term was significant at the 90% level of significance (Z = -1.70, p < 0.10). The results of a multiple regression with ethical leadership regressed on other-accountability
and other-accountability x leader role found the other-accountability x leader role
interaction term was not significant (Z = -0.02, p > 0.10). To help with interpretation of the significant interaction terms, factorial plots were created after categorizing
accountability as low vs. high (using median split). Figure 3 shows the factorial plot of leader role as a moderator of the accountability-ethical leadership relationship, and
Figure 4 shows the factorial plot of leader role as a moderator of the self-accountability- ethical leadership relationship. As shown in Figure 2, the leaders’ role in their company moderates the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership when
accountability to self and others is low. Specifically, when a leader’s accountability to self
and others is low, their ethical leadership increases as their role increases from lower to
senior levels of leadership. As shown in Figure 3, the leaders’ role in their company moderates the relationship between self-accountability and ethical leadership when self-
accountability is low. Specifically, when a leader’s self-accountability is low, their ethical
leadership increases as their role increases from lower to senior levels of leadership.
Figure 3: Leader
role as a moderator
of the relationship
between
accountability and
ethical leadership.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
154
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Figure 4: Leader
role as a moderator
of the relationship
between self-
accountability and
ethical leadership.
Discussion This study empirically investigated the relationship among accountability, moral
competence, and ethical leadership in a sample of organizational leaders via a cross-
sectional quantitative survey research design study. Specifically, the study investigated
accountability as a positive predictor of ethical leadership, and moral competence and
demographic variables as moderators of the relationship between accountability and
ethical leadership. The results support previous research on positive effects of
accountability in ethical behavior (Bane, 2004; Beu, 2000; Beu & Buckley, 2001; Lagan
& Moran, 2006; Quinn & Schlenker, 2002). Second, study results suggest moral
competence moderates the effect that accountability has on ethical leadership. Third,
study results suggest a leader’s gender and leadership role moderate the effect that
accountability has on ethical leadership.
Implications for Practice and Recommendations Results of this study have important implications for increasing ethical leadership among
organizational leaders through boosting accountability and moral competence within
their organizations. The obvious implications to organizational leaders of the positive
effects of accountability include reduced corruption, enhanced social exchange,
controlled spending, increased productivity, increased job satisfaction, enhanced justice,
and employee retention. Additionally, the positive effects of moral competence include
high ethical awareness, making moral decisions, increased performance, and increased
organizational performance. Therefore, it behooves organizations to ensure leaders are
accountable for their actions and behaviors and also demonstrate high moral
competence.
This study has implications regarding the moderating effects of leadership role on the
behavior of organizational leaders. Study results found the leader’s role within the
organization moderates the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
155
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
These results imply when an organizational leader is a senior leader, he/she is more
likely to have high ethical leadership behavior even when there is low accountability.
However, when the leader is a lower or middle leader in the organization, his or her
ethical leadership will be positively impacted by accountability to self or others.
Regarding self-accountability, when self-accountability is low, leadership role reflects the
level of ethical leadership such that ethical leadership increases as leadership role
increases. However, regardless of the leadership role, self-accountability is associated
with high ethical leadership.
Next, these results provide a focus for practical recommendations to boost the strength
of the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership via enhancing moral
competence. Therefore, recommendations are provided to create ethical leadership,
boost self-accountability in an organization, and to buttress the moral competence of
organizational leaders. Increasing self-accountability requires that organizational owners
and executives to create a culture of accountability in the workplace by weaving
accountability into the fabric of their organizations. When organizational leaders increase
self-accountability of their behavior, they will begin to take responsibility for their ethical
behavior and may increase their ethical leadership because the nature of accountability
strengthens the bond of trust and cooperation between management and subordinates.
Increasing self-accountability may also occur by enhancing the concept of self-monitoring
in organizational leaders. Self-monitoring is one of the best behavioral precursors to
increasing high-quality decision-making and decreasing inappropriate behavior in
accountable environments (Latham & Frayne, 1989; Quinn & Schlenker, 2002).
Subsequently, when leaders make high-quality decisions in their organizations, positive
effects are experienced throughout because leaders are making better ethical decisions,
are communicating efficiently with their subordinates, co-workers and superiors, and are
showing increased job attendance.
Organizational owners and executives should help their leaders increase moral
competence. According to Lind (2016b), morality is not innate and does not develop on
its own accord. Morality can be taught and this knowledge can be fostered effectively. In
this regard, organizational leaders can be trained to increase their moral compass and
become morally competent. Increasing one’s moral compass through training involves
educational materials, communication, role playing, and continued assessment of moral
competence via feedback opportunities.
Results of this study reinforce the importance of creating a culture of ethical leadership
in organizations. Leadership research supports the ethical role that reflective leadership
can play in solving and reducing issues in the workplace (Castelli, 2012, 2016; Looman,
2003, Park, Kim, & Song, 2015). Consistent with values-based leadership, reflective
leadership practices can help employees understand the role they play in the
organization’s goal attainment. An organization that encourages reflective practices
creates a safe environment that promotes trust, values open communications, connects
work to the organization mission, builds the confidence of the workforce, respects
diverse cultures, and challenges beliefs and assumptions (Castelli, 2012, 2016).
Leadership research also supports the role that emotional intelligence can play in
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
156
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
reducing ethical dilemmas (Barling, Slater, & Kevin Kelloway, 2000; Cole, Cox, & Stavros,
2018; Sivanathan & Cynthia Fekken, 2002). Self-regulation and relationship
management are important elements of emotional intelligence and are vital in the
leaders’ ability in building good communication and relationships of trust within the
organizational boundaries. Improving self-regulation helps leaders to control impulsive
actions and emotions that negatively affect their potential for developing their leadership
traits, including ethical behavior (Baksh et al., 2018). Moreover, developing leaders’
relationship management helps leaders to improve their ability to communicate
effectively in order to make good decisions and move their subordinates in a desired
direction (Nwokah & Ahiauzu, 2010).
Academic institutions also should educate their students along multiple disciplines to
become morally competent leaders and managers who can make moral decisions on
their own. Students, as prospective leaders, can receive education and training to
increase their moral competencies (Lind, 2016b). Moral education courses and class
sessions may help leadership students to bridge the gap between ethics courses and
real-life practices in order to transfer the learned experience into ethical skills and
abilities (Mohamed Saat, Porter, & Woodbine, 2010). Despite increased attention to
ethics-related courses in the last decade, especially after the global financial crisis that
began in 2007, comparatively about 75% of all offered courses are electives. Ethics
education should stretch beyond the traditional disciplines to move deeper to be a core
part into all curriculums, especially in the Master in Business Administration (MBA)
program.
Study Limitations and Future Directions This study has potential limitations that should be considered. First, the study is limited
related to the potential for common-method bias. Common-method bias is the
perceptual bias that occurs when a study involves data from a single source. Specifically,
this study used the same group of people to provide self-report measurements of the
independent and dependent variables. The second study limitation concerns the
potential of poor external validity. External validity refers to the ability of study results to
generalize to other samples beyond the study sample. Future research should use
qualitative methodology to explore how accountability has positive effects on ethical
leadership. Future research can explore the important relationships between self-
accountability and ethical leadership factors such as ethical guidance, people
orientation, power sharing, role clarification, and sustainability; these are important
relationships that need additional study.
References
Ardelean, A. (2015). Perceptions on audit quality based on the ethical behaviour of
auditors. Audit Financiar, 3(123), 61-73.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
157
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Artley, W. (2001). Establishing accountability for performance. The Performance Based- Management Handbook.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327.
Bane, K. (2004). Avoiding catastrophe: The role of individual accountability in team
effectiveness. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 31, 130-131.
Barbuto Jr, J. E., Fritz, S. M., Matkin, G. S., and Marx, D. B. (2007). Effects of gender,
education, and age upon leaders’ use of influence tactics and full range leadership
behaviors. Sex Roles, 56(1-2), 71-83.
Barling, J., Slater, F., and Kevin Kelloway, E. (2000). Transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 157-161.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825-829.
Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Accountability theory meets accountability practice. Emerald Group Publishing.
Beu, D. (2000). Accountability as it influences ethical behavior (Order No. 9994076). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global (304712873).
Beu, D. S. and Buckley, M. R. (2001). The hypothesized relationship between
accountability and ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(1), 57-73. doi:10.1023/A:101195 7832141.
Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a
mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967.
Brown, M. and Trevino, L. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.
Castelli, P. A. (2012, November). The global leader as reflective practitioner. In Association for Global Business International Academy of Linguistics Behavioural and Social Sciences 2012 Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting, Vol. 24, Washington, DC., USA.
Castelli, P. A. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A framework for improving
organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.
Castelli, P. A., Egleston, D. O., and Marx, T. G. (2013). Social media: A viable source for
collecting research data. Business Education Innovation Journal, 5(2), 30-34.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
158
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
COFEM (2017). How a lack of accountability undermines work to address violence against women and girls: Feminist perspectives on addressing violence against women and girls. Series, Paper No. 1. Coalition of Feminists for Social Change.
Cole, M. L., Cox, J. D., and Stavros, J. M. (2018). SOAR as a mediator of the relationship
between emotional intelligence and collaboration among professionals working in
teams: implications for entrepreneurial teams. SAGE Open, 8(2), 1-12.
Cotte, J. and Trudel, R. (2009). Socially conscious consumerism: A systematic review of the body of knowledge. London: Network for Business Sustainability.
Cox, C. (2010). Legal responsibility and accountability. Nursing Management - UK, 17(3), 18-20.
Dhiman, A., Sen, A., and Bhardwaj, P. (2018). Effect of self-accountability on self-
regulatory behaviour: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 79-97. doi:10.1007/s 10551-015-2995-4
Eagly, A. H. and Johannesen‐Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781-797.
Eubanks, D. L., Brown, A. D., and Ybema, S. (2012). Leadership, identity, and
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 1-3.
Ferrell, O. C. and Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Nelson Education.
Fiedler, F. E. (1994). Leadership experience and leadership performance. Seattle: University of Washington.
Filatotchev, I. (2012). Corporate governance issues in competitive strategy research. In G. Dagnino (Ed.), Handbook of research on competitive strategy (pp. 300–324). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Frink, D. D. and Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations
and human resource management. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 16, pp. 1–51. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B. C., and Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and accountability in
organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 135-160.
Gilbert, D. U. and Rasche, A. (2007). Discourse ethics and social accountability: The
ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 187-216.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational research methods, 1(1), 104-121
Hollander, J. A. (2013). “I demand more of people” accountability, interaction, and
gender change. Gender & Society, 27(1), 5-29.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
159
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Horsfall, G. A. (1996). Accountability: The force behind empowerment. Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly, 18(2), 26-31.
Hsieh, N. (2017). The responsibilities and role of business in relation to society: Back to
basics? Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 293-314. doi:10.1017/beq.2017.8
Hunt, B. (2007). Managing equality and cultural diversity in the health workforce. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(12), 2252-2259.
Javed, B., Rawwas, M. Y., Khandai, S., Shahid, K., and Tayyeb, H. H. (2018). Ethical
leadership, trust in leader and creativity: The mediated mechanism and an
interacting effect. Journal of Management & Organization, 24 (3), 388–405.
Jeewon, C., Jung Hyun, L., Yoonjung, B., Pillai, R., and Se Hyung, O. (2018). Ethical
leadership and follower performance above and beyond the full-range leadership
model and authentic leadership. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2018(1), 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2018.142
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., and De Hoogh, A. H. (2011). Ethical leadership at work
questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional
measure. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51-69.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D., and De Hoogh , A. (2013). Ethical leadership and
followers' helping and initiative: The role of demonstrated responsibility and job
autonomy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), 165-181.
Khokhar, A. M. and Zia-ur-Rehman, M. (2017). Linking ethical leadership to employees’
performance: Mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, 11(1), 321-350.
Kimura, T. and Nishikawa, M. (2018). Ethical leadership and its cultural and institutional
context: An empirical study in Japan. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 707-724. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3268-6.
Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10-16. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. Review of child development research, 1, 383-431.
Kohlberg. L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialisation theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lagan, A. and Moran, B. (2006). Governance, corporate social responsibility and
employee accountability. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 8, 49-66.
Latham, G. P. and Frayne, C. A. (1989). Self-management training for increasing job
attendance: A follow-up and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 411−416.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
160
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Lerner, J. S. and Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255.
Lind, G. (2015). Moral ist lehrbar!: Wie man moralisch-demokratische Fähigkeiten fördern und damit Gewalt, Betrug und Macht mindern kann. Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH.
Lind, G. (2016a). An introduction to the Moral Competence Test (MCT). Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/mut/mjt-engl.htm.
Lind, G. (2016b). Validation and certification procedure for the moral competence test. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from Moral-democratic competence: http://www.uni-
konstanz.de/ag-moral/mut/mct-certification.htm#certification.
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Looman, M. D. (2003). Reflective leadership strategic planning from the heart and soul.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 55(4), 215-221. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.55.4.215.
Loviscky, G. E., Trevino, L. K., and Jacobs, R. R. (2007). Assessing managers’ ethical
decision-making: An objective measure of managerial moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(3), 263-285.
Malena, C., Forster, R., and Singh, J. (2004). Social accountability: An introduction to the
concept and emerging practice. Social Development Papers, 76, 1-18.
Mansouri, M. and Rowney, J. (2014). The dilemma of accountability for professionals: A
challenge for mainstream management theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 123 (1), 45-56.
Marquardt, D. J., Brown, L. W., and Casper, W. J. (2018). Ethical leadership perceptions:
Does it matter if you’re black or white?. Journal Of Business Ethics, 151(3), 599-612. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3250-3
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., and Salvador, R. B. (2009). How
low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13.
McLaughlin, D. J. (1995). Strengthening executive decision making. Human Resource Management, 34(3), 443-461.
Mendonca, M. (2001). Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 18(4), 266-276.
Mkandawire, T. (2010). Aid, accountability, and democracy in Africa. Social Research, 77(4), 1149-1182.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
161
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Mohamed Saat, M., Porter, S., and Woodbine, G. (2010). The effect of ethics courses on
the ethical judgement-making ability of Malaysian accounting students. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 8(2), 92-109.
Mordhah, N. (2012). Self-Accountability: The link between self-accountability and
accountability in Islam. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(5), 240-245.
Mulla, Z. R. and Krishnan, V. R. (2014). Karma-yoga: The Indian model of moral
development. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 339-351. doi:10.1007/s10551- 013-1842-8.
Musah, M. B. (2011). The culture of individualism and collectivism in balancing
accountability and innovation in education: An Islamic perspective. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(8), 69-76.
Neubert, M., Wu, C., and Roberts, J. (2013). The influence of ethical leadership and
regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 269-296. doi:10.5840/beq201323217.
Northouse, P. (2013). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (6th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Newman, A., Round, H., Bhattacharya, S., and Roy, A. (2017). Ethical climates in
organizations: A review and research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(4), 475- 512. doi:10.1017/beq.2017.23.
Nunn, S. G. and Avella, J. T. (2017). Symposium introduction: Achieving ethical
leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(2), 37-41. doi:10.1002/jls.21521.
Page, D. and Wong, T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant
leadership. The human factor in shaping the course of history and development, 69- 110.
Paolini, S., Crisp, R. J., and McIntyre, K. (2009). Accountability moderates member-to-
group generalization: Testing a dual process model of stereotype change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45(4), 676–685.
Park, S. (2017). Accountability as justice for the Multilateral Development Banks?
Borrower opposition and bank avoidance to US power and influence. Review of International Political Economy, 24(5), 776-801. doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1363798.
Park, C. H., Kim, W., and Song, J. H. (2015). The impact of ethical leadership on
employees' in-role performance: The mediating effect of employees' psychological
ownership. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(4), 385-408. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21217.
Peloza, J., White, K., and Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self
accountability in influencing references for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104-119.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
162
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Petrick, J. A. and Quinn, J. F. (2001). The challenge of leadership accountability for
integrity capacity as a strategic asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3/4), 331-343.
Pierce, B. and Sweeney, B. (2010). The relationship between demographic variables and
ethical decision making of trainee accountants. International journal of auditing, 14(1), 79-99.
Pies, I., Beckmann, M. and Hielscher, S. (2010). Value creation, management
competencies, and global corporate citizenship: An ordonomic approach to business
ethics in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 265-278.
Quinn, A. and Schlenker, B. R. (2002). Can accountability produce independence? Goals
as determinants of the impact of accountability on conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 472-483.
Resick, C. J., Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Dickson, M. W., Kwan, H. K., and Peng, C.
(2011). What ethical leadership means to me: Asian, American, and European
perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 435-457.
Rhodes, C. and Badham, R. (2018). Ethical irony and the relational leader: grappling with
the infinity of ethics and the finitude of practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(1), 71- 98. doi:10.1017/beq.2017.7
Royle, M. T. (2006). The nature and effects of informal accountability for others (Order No. AAI3252192). Available from Sociological Abstracts. (61770677; 200915164).
Saari, L. M. and Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human resource management, 43(4), 395-407.
Samuel, M. (2006). Creating the accountable organization: A Practical guide to improve performance execution. California: Xephor Press.
Sankar, Y. (2003). Character not charisma is the critical measure of leadership
excellence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 45-55.
Schatz, F. (2013). Fighting corporation with social accountability: A comparative analysis
of social accountability mechanisms’ potential to reduce corruption in public
administration. Public Administration & Development, 33(3), 161-174. doi:10.1002/pad.1648.
Schillemans, T. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal
accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 175.
Schlenker, B. and Weigold, M. (1989). Self-identification and accountability. In R.
Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld, Impression management in the organization (pp. 21-43). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., and Neubaum, D. O. (2005). The effect of leader moral
development on ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 135-151.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
163
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
Sikka, P. (December, 2017). Using freedom of information laws to frustrate
accountability: Two case studies of UK banking frauds. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 300-317). Elsevier.
Sims, R. and Felton, E. (2006). Designing and delivering business ethics teaching and
learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 297-312. doi:10.1007/s10551-005- 3562-1.
Sivanathan, N. and Cynthia Fekken, G. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning
and transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 198-204.
Solomon, J. (2009). Corporate governance and accountability (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley and Sons.
Steinbauer, R., Renn, R. W., Taylor, R. R., and Njoroge, P. K. (2014). Ethical leadership
and followers’ moral judgment: The role of followers’ perceived accountability and
self-leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 381-392.
Trevino, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., and Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un) ethical
behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635-660.
Umphress, E. E. (2003). In the name of the company: Unethical behaviors perpetrated by employees in response to accountability and fair treatment (Order No. 3084136). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (305305234).
Wachter, R. M. (2013). Personal accountability in healthcare: Searching for the right
balance. BMJ quality & safety, 22(2), 176-180.
Walumbwa, F. O. and Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee
voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological
safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286.
Weiss, J. (2008). Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach (5th Ed.). Macon, OH: Cengage Learning.
Zhou, Y., Poon, P., and Huang, G. (2012). Corporate ability and corporate social
responsibility in a developing country: The role of product involvement. Journal of Global Marketing, 25(1), 45-56.
About the Authors
Dr. Kassem A. Ghanem is a management consultant in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. His research interests include ethical leadership, accountability, and organizational
leadership development.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
164
L E
A D
E R
S H
IP
He can be contacted at:
Kassem A. Ghanem, DBA
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
519.992.0180
Dr. Patricia A. Castelli is a professor of management at Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, Michigan, USA. Her research interests include leadership
development, global leadership, reflective leadership and motivational theories.
She can be contacted at:
Patricia Castelli, PhD
Professor, College of Business and IT
Lawrence Technological University
21000 West Ten Mile Road Southfield, MI 48075-1058, USA
248.204.3066
- The Journal of Values-Based Leadership
- January 2019
- Winter/Spring 2019
- Recommended Citation
- Binder1.pdf
- jvbl_cover_12.1_2019
- jvbl_cover_12.1_2019_2
- Binder1.pdf
