Role Model

Do Role Models Matter? An Investigation of Role Modeling as an Antecedent of Perceived Ethical Leadership

Michael E. Brown • Linda K. Treviño

Received: 18 September 2012 / Accepted: 20 May 2013 / Published online: 21 June 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Thus far, we know much more about the sig-

nificant outcomes of perceived ethical leadership than we

do about its antecedents. In this study, we focus on multiple

types of ethical role models as antecedents of perceived

ethical leadership. According to social learning theory, role

models facilitate the acquisition of moral and other types of

behavior. Yet, we do not know whether having had ethical

role models influences follower perceptions of one’s ethi-

cal leadership and, if so, what kinds of role models are

important. We conducted a field study, surveying super-

visors and their subordinates to examine the relationship

between three types of ethical role models and ethical

leadership: the leader’s childhood role models, career

mentors, and top managers. We found that having had an

ethical role model during the leader’s career was positively

related to subordinate-rated ethical leadership. As expec-

ted, this effect was moderated by leader age, such that the

relationship between career mentoring and ethical leader-

ship was stronger for older leaders. Leader age also mod-

erated the relationship between childhood models and

ethical leadership ratings, such that having had childhood

ethical role models was more strongly and positively

related to ethical leadership for younger leaders. We found

no effect for top management ethical role models. Impli-

cations for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords Ethical leadership � Ethical role modeling � Role models

Introduction

National surveys show that few Americans have much

confidence in the ethics and integrity of today’s leaders of

government, business, and other institutions (Jones 2011;

The Harris Poll 2011). Thus, the popular perception is that

ethical leadership in the workplace is weak. Given this

cynicism, it is important to understand the antecedents of

perceived ethical leadership. Knowing where ethical lead-

ership comes from can help organizations strengthen it in

the workplace, thus restoring trust in leadership.

Previous research (Treviño et al. 2000, 2003) has iden-

tified traits and behaviors associated with perceptions of

ethical leadership. In their qualitative research, Treviño

et al. proposed that in order to be perceived as an ethical

leader, a leader must be seen as both moral person and

moral manager. The moral person aspect of ethical lead-

ership reflects the leader’s honesty, integrity, trustworthi-

ness, caring about people, openness to input, respect, and

principled decision making. As moral managers, ethical

leaders use leadership tools such as rewards, discipline,

communication, and decision making to communicate the

importance of ethics, to set standards, and to hold

employees accountable to those standards (Treviño et al.

2000, 2003).

Brown et al. conceptualized ethical leadership from a

social learning (Bandura 1986, 1991) perspective. They

conducted a series of seven studies to develop the construct

of ethical leadership along with an instrument, the ethical

leadership scale (ELS), to measure followers’ perceptions

of ethical leadership (Brown et al. 2005). They defined

M. E. Brown (&) Penn State-Erie, Erie, PA 16563-1400, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

L. K. Treviño

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802,

USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2014) 122:587–598

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1769-0

ethical leadership as ‘‘the demonstration of normatively

appropriate conduct through personal actions and inter-

personal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct

to followers through two-way communication, reinforce-

ment, and decision making’’ (Brown et al. 2005, p. 120).

Their research indicated that ethical leadership is related to

important employee attitudes and outcomes including trust

in supervisor, interactional fairness, supervisor effective-

ness, satisfaction with supervisor, and willingness to report

problems to management. Additional research has found

that supervisory ethical leadership is especially important

in promoting positive and reducing negative employee

behaviors in organizations (Kacmar et al. 2011; Mayer

et al. 2009, 2012; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009;

Walumbwa et al. 2011).

Despite these recent advances in our understanding of

ethical leadership and its relationship to important out-

comes, little is known about its antecedents (Brown and

Mitchell 2010). A variety of personality-based antecedents

have been proposed (Brown and Treviño 2006), but thus

far only two traits, leader agreeableness and conscien-

tiousness, have been found to be related to follower ratings

of ethical leadership (Kalshoven et al. 2011; Walumbwa

and Schaubroeck 2009). Other research on antecedents by

Jordan et al. (2013) found that ethical leadership is posi-

tively related to the leader’s cognitive moral development

and is maximized when the leader’s cognitive moral

development diverges from and is greater than the fol-

lower’s cognitive moral development. Mayer et al. (2012)

found that both dimensions of a leader’s moral identity,

internalization, and symbolization were related to ethical

leadership. This information is useful for selection pur-

poses, but individual differences are not very amenable to

change. From a practical standpoint, identifying anteced-

ents that can help organizations not only select ethical

leaders but also develop them would be beneficial.

Therefore, it becomes important to look to leaders’ expe-

riences for clues about whether and how ethical leadership

might be identified or developed. In this study, we examine

different types of antecedents of ethical leadership by

studying the various kinds of ethical role models that

leaders have had to see if they are related to employees’

perceptions of ethical leadership.

Consistent with previous research, we define a role model

as a ‘‘cognitive construction based on the attributes of people

in social roles an individual perceives to be similar to him or

herself to some extent and desires to increase perceived

similarity by emulating those attributes’’ (Gibson 2004,

p. 136). From an observer’s perspective, role modeling is a

process that involves identifying ‘‘someone I can look up to’’

(Weaver et al. 2005) as well as a process of learning from that

model. According to Gibson (2004), role modeling can be

differentiated from mentoring in that it does not require a

close, personal relationship between models and observers.

In fact, there are wide varieties of potentially important

people who can be selected as role models such as distant

leaders, co-workers, and inspiring individuals from all walks

of life (e.g., teachers, sports heroes, religious figures, family

members).

We focus on role models because prior research

grounded in social learning theory has demonstrated their

impact on moral judgment and action (Bandura 1991).

Modeling influences have been associated with the devel-

opment of prosocial behavior in children (Eisenberg and

Fabes 1998) and ethical behavior in the workplace (Mo-

berg 2000; Sims and Brinkmann 2002; Weaver et al. 2005).

Within the leadership literature, both transformational

leaders (Avolio 1999) and ethical leaders (Brown et al.

2005) have been described as ethical role models for oth-

ers. The assumption is that having been exposed to ethical

role models contributes to the development of one’s ethical

leadership (Brown and Treviño 2006; Weaver et al. 2005).

In this research, we investigate whether the ethical role

models of leaders are related to employees’ ratings of their

ethical leadership. Because ethical role models can take

many forms, we consider three different types of ethical

role models that are potential influences on the develop-

ment of ethical leadership—(a) childhood models (e.g.,

parents, teachers, and coaches); (b) career models (e.g.,

mentors or supervisors), and (c) top managers who model

ethics for employees in the organization (Treviño et al.

2000). We ground our hypotheses in social learning theory

(Bandura 1986, 1991) and the influence of modeling on the

acquisition of moral reasoning and standards. Three main

questions guided our research. Are role models related to

ethical leadership? If so, what types of models (i.e.,

childhood models, career mentors, top managers) are

influential? Given that the types of role models selected as

well as the lessons learned from such models change over

the lifetime of the learner (Gibson 2003), does leader age

moderate the relationships between different types of role

models and ethical leadership?

Theory and Hypotheses

Modeling, Social Learning, and Ethical Leadership

Social learning theory helps explain why individuals are

likely to seek guidance from role models, and how role

modeling might be related to ethical leadership. Social

learning theory posits that individuals learn what to do and

how to behave largely by observing and emulating role

models.

Most adults are not ethically self-sufficient. Rather, they

look outside themselves to peers and significant others for

588 M. E. Brown, L. K. Treviño

123

ethical guidance (Kohlberg 1969; Treviño 1986). This is

particularly true because ethical dilemmas often involve

ambiguity and individuals attempt to reduce such ambi-

guity by turning to others for guidance.

The social learning process begins when individuals

focus their attention on modeled behaviors. Among the

potential models to choose from, attractive models capture

a learner’s attention. Attractiveness is based on a number

of model characteristics such as nurturance (Yussen and

Levy 1975), status (Lippitt et al. 1952; Lefkowitz et al.

1955), competence (Kanareff and Lanzetta 1958) and

power (Bandura et al. 1963). We propose that ethical role

models influence the development of ethical leadership by

providing attractive exemplars of personal ethical behavior

and the setting of ethical standards.

We focus on three likely sources of ethical role mod-

els—childhood models, workplace mentors, and top man-

agers. For example, a beloved parent, coach or other

childhood model can teach an individual about ethical

leadership traits and behaviors such as honesty, caring,

trustworthiness, and respect. They can also convey the

importance of setting standards and boundaries for

behavior. Such traits and behaviors related to ethical

leadership might also be learned later in life by observing

career mentors or supervisors as they make principled

decisions, communicate ethical standards, and use the

reward system to guide ethical behavior. Finally, by virtue

of their important position atop the organizational hierar-

chy, top managers who are thought to be highly ethical and

who make ethics a part of their leadership agenda are likely

to be powerful models of ethical leadership for organiza-

tional members.

Childhood Models

We propose that having had ethical role models during

childhood can influence the development of ethical lead-

ership in adulthood. From a social learning perspective,

children select attractive ethical role models and learn from

them by observing and emulating modeled behavior.

Individuals who are exposed to ethical role models as

children will learn ethical behavior: behavior that facili-

tates their growth as ethical persons with the characteristics

that can help them to become ethical leaders in the

workplace.

There are many potential role models that children can

look up to, but parents represent an important type of role

model for children. The common notion that people learn

ethics at Mom’s (or Dad’s) knee fits with this idea. Parents

model not only through words, but more importantly

through actions—most notably in the closeness of the

bonds that they form with their children, the values they

convey, the standards they set, and the disciplinary

methods they use. Research has confirmed that the influ-

ence of parental modeling can have important and far-

reaching consequences for the moral behavior of adults. In

one such study, Oliner and Oliner (1988) investigated the

heroic actions of ‘‘Righteous Gentiles,’’ non-Jews who

risked their lives to rescue Jews from the Nazis. According

to these researchers, the parents of rescuers were influential

in shaping these individuals to behave altruistically later in

life. Specifically, compared to bystanders who took no

action to protect Jews, rescuers were found to have had a

close attachment bond with their parents who modeled the

value of caring for others.

In another study, ‘‘fully committed’’ civil rights activists

who were most involved and undertook great personal risks

in the American South during the 1960s reported having

parents who modeled altruism themselves (Rosenhan

1970). From a social learning perspective, direct modeling

of behavior is important. In other words, perhaps the best

way to teach empathy, tolerance, respect, and compassion

to children is by treating them with empathy, tolerance,

respect and compassion (Berkowitz and Grych 1998;

Lickona 1983).

Parents can also pass on altruistic values to their chil-

dren through their style of discipline. In particular, parents

who set standards, explain to their children why rules are

necessary, as well as the consequences of rule-breaking for

others, treat their children with a certain level of respect

and dignity. This style of discipline that emphasizes rea-

soning and the voluntary internalization of standards can

promote healthy moral development in children (Hoffman

1980) and demonstrate an approach that can be emulated

later in life. This approach sharply contrasts with an

authoritarian style of parenting that is based on strict

obedience to authority and coercion through physical

punishment (either threatened or delivered).

Of course, parents are not the only influence on chil-

dren’s moral development. Especially with older children,

other models such as teachers, coaches, and clergy become

increasingly important in development of ethical attitudes

and beliefs (Atkins et al. 2004; Perry and Nixon 2005;

Sizer and Sizer 1999). Further, peers can also influence the

learning of behavior and standards, but modeling by par-

ents and other adults remains a powerful source of learning

(Bandura 1986). Thus, individuals are likely to come

across many potential ethical role models during their

childhood. From a social learning perspective, the type of

childhood role model (e.g., parent, teacher, coach) is not as

important as having had exposure to such a model. Ethical

models represent an attractive and credible source of

information for children to learn normatively appropriate

behavior. It is likely that the lessons learned from child-

hood models will be abstract ones such as learning the

importance of honesty or caring rather than the specifics of

Role Modeling and Perceived Ethical Leadership 589

123

how to be an effective ethical leader in the workplace

(Treviño et al. 2000). Nevertheless, managers who were

exposed to strong ethical models as children can carry the

‘‘lessons’’ learned from such models into adulthood. These

leaders will continue to be influenced by the lessons

learned from these childhood models, making them more

likely to be seen as ethical leaders by their followers.

Hypothesis 1 Having had a childhood ethical role model

is positively related to perceived ethical leadership.

Career Models

A second type of role modeling that is a likely source of

influence on perceived ethical leadership comes from

career models (formal or informal). Much has been written

about the impact of models and mentors on important

workplace outcomes (Allen et al. 2004; Gibson 2003;

Manz and Sims 1981; Ragins et al. 2000) in general, and on

ethical behaviors in particular (Moberg 2000; Weaver et al.

2005). Having an ethical mentor provides an important

opportunity for employees to learn about ethical leadership

firsthand in the workplace.

Formal mentoring programs that promote learning from

role models are common in many professions such as

medicine (Kenny et al. 2003). And, informal role modeling

occurs in most workplace settings. For example, research

shows that employees learn by observing how supervisors

administer rewards and discipline (Treviño and Young-

blood 1990). In order for learning to take place, employees

need not actually be the recipient of rewards or punish-

ments themselves; rather they are able to learn vicariously

by seeing how the behaviors of others in the workplace are

reinforced.

Supervisors are likely to be important models because

their position in a prestige hierarchy makes them attractive in

that they enjoy status and power. Previous research suggests

that supervisory role models are not uncommon—a typical

rank and file employee can identify numerous positive role

models, most of them having been supervisors (Gibson

2003). More specifically, most employees are able to identify

a current or former supervisor as an ethical role model

(Weaver et al. 2005). However, supervisory authority does

not automatically make someone a good role model (Manz

and Sims 1981). Supervisors must possess the other key

elements of model attractiveness such as competence, nur-

turance and credibility. Ethical supervisors possess such

characteristics (Brown et al. 2005). In fact, research shows

that ethical leadership can enhance an individual’s potential

for promotion to higher levels of management (Rubin et al.

2010) which further enhances the ethical leader’s credibility

and attractiveness as a model. There is also then high

functional value for observing and learning ethical leader-

ship behaviors from such ethical role models at work.

Qualitative research by Weaver et al. (2005) found that

the presence of an ethical role model in the work place

helps foster ethical behavior. And, having an ethical model

might encourage learners to act as an ethical mentor or

model for others. Weaver et al. (2005) found that, when

asked to identify someone who has served as an ethical role

model for them, employees identified individuals whose

behavior and decision making they could readily observe

on a daily basis and these were frequently direct supervi-

sors. The authors described ethical role modeling as a

‘‘side-to-side phenomenon’’ (p. 324) in that employees

identified ethical role models from among those with

whom they had worked closely. The behavior associated

with ethical role models also overlapped significantly with

behavior previously associated with ethical leadership

(Weaver et al. 2005). Employees who have had such role

models and who go on to become leaders themselves are

likely to imitate the behavior of those ethical role models in

their own leadership. Thus, consistent with social learning

theory and the findings of previous research, we propose

that having had workplace ethical role models is likely to

be associated with direct reports’ ratings of one’s ethical

leadership.

Hypothesis 2 Having had a workplace ethical role model

is positively related to perceived ethical leadership.

Top Managers as Ethical Role Models

Top managers are widely thought to set the ethical tone at

the top of organizations (Clinard 1983; Ferrell and Gre-

sham 1985) and research has borne this out. Treviño et al.

(2003) found that executive ethical leaders were frequently

described as models of ethical conduct. Further, when top

managers are personally committed to ethics, their orga-

nizations’ ethics programs are more comprehensive, have

stronger aspirational orientations (Weaver et al. 1999a),

and are more fully integrated into everyday organizational

practices (Weaver et al. 1999b).

Consistent with the broader literature on ethics at the

executive-level (Mayer et al. 2009; Weaver et al. 1999a, b),

we consider the modeling of ‘‘top managers’’ globally

instead of focusing on a single executive as a role model.

This approach is also in line with previous research on role

modeling which suggests observers can piece ‘‘together a

composite role model from attributes derived from a range

of possibilities, both real and imagined…’’; in other words, modeling can be based on ‘‘multiple role models, rather

than a focus on selecting a particular exemplary person’’

(Gibson 2006, p. 702).

590 M. E. Brown, L. K. Treviño

123

From a social learning perspective, top managers are

thought to be important sources of ethical influence

because their lofty position provides them with status and

legitimacy, making them potentially attractive role models.

Research supports the idea that top managers are ethical

models for their followers and, ultimately, for others in the

organization. Specifically, Mayer et al. (2009) found that

the ethical leadership of top managers is positively related

to the ethical leadership of their direct reports. Through a

‘‘cascading effect’’ (Bass et al. 1987), ethical leadership is

thought to trickle down the levels of management from the

top to the bottom of the organization (Mayer et al. 2009).

Other research casts doubt on the cascading effect yet

supports the ability of senior leaders to influence junior

members of the organization via ethical culture (Schau-

broeck et al. 2012) as well as other influence mechanisms

(Hansen et al. 2012).

Overall, top managers are thought to set an important

example for employees to follow. Given the prestige of

their position, if top managers are perceived to be models

of ethical conduct, then this should influence employees to

emulate their conduct and positively influence ethical

leadership at lower levels of management. Thus, we pro-

pose that having had a top manager as an ethical role model

will promote one’s own ethical leadership.

Hypothesis 3 Top management modeling is positively

related to perceived ethical leadership.

The Moderating Effect of Age

How does the age of the learner influence social learning?

As we have already noted, most of the literature on role

modeling has focused on children learning from adults.

Within organizations, role modeling is seen as an important

aspect of organizational socialization for newcomers. Does

the influence of childhood ethical role models wane in

adulthood? Do other potential models (such as ethical

mentors from work) become more important as time goes

on? We expect it does and so we propose that leader age

will moderate the relationship between different types of

role modeling and ethical leadership.

The conventional wisdom in the management literature is

that the importance of learning from role models diminishes

during one’s career (e.g., Moberg 2000). However, Gibson’s

(2003) research on role modeling in the workplace suggests

that modeling is not just for newcomers—it is important for

employees at any age. Thus, although the types of models

sought out as well as the learners’ motives for social learning

change over time, employees continue to seek out and learn

from role models. Younger employees look to models for

clues on fitting in, doing well and moving up, but middle-

aged employees learn similar lessons from models about

how to succeed in unfamiliar territory (i.e., new positions,

responsibilities, and challenges) as they advance in their

careers (Gibson 2003).

We propose that the influence of childhood models is

stronger for younger employees and weaker for older

employees. Compared to older employees, younger

employees are temporally closer to their childhood models

and have had more limited exposure to role models during

their careers. However, with older employees, the influence

of childhood models is diminished and the importance of

workplace models (both career models and top managers)

is stronger. The influence of career models in the work-

place is likely to increase with age as exposure to ethical

mentors during one’s career increases, becomes more

proximal, and provides more functionally valuable infor-

mation on appropriate ethical conduct in the workplace.

Similarly, top managers will become more important

sources of information for older employees as they are

more likely to have job responsibilities and experiences

that bring them closer to executive-level leaders.

From a social learning perspective, opportunities to

observe and the lessons learned from different types of

models varies with age. Specifically, older employees are

likely to have had more contact with workplace models

during their careers compared to younger employees. Also,

the lessons learned from workplace models will provide

greater functional value for the acquisition of ethical

leadership behaviors compared to childhood models. Thus,

we propose that age moderates the relationship between

specific types of role models and ethical leadership.

Hypothesis 4 Age moderates the relationship between

childhood role modeling and perceived ethical leadership

such that the relationship should be stronger for younger

leaders compared to older leaders.

Hypothesis 5 Age moderates the relationship between

career role modeling and perceived ethical leadership such

that the relationship should be stronger for older employees

compared to younger employees.

Hypothesis 6 Age moderates the relationship between

top management modeling and perceived ethical leadership

such that the relationship should be stronger for older

employees compared to younger employees.

Methods and Results

Sample

We conducted a field study, surveying employees from a

large insurance firm in the United States. Our data were

collected from two separate sources—managers and their

Role Modeling and Perceived Ethical Leadership 591

123

direct reports. Managers provided information on their role

models (childhood, career, and top management) as well as

other demographic and background variables (age, gender,

and number of direct reports). Direct reports provided ratings

of their managers’ ethical leadership. Both surveys con-

tained additional measures that were not part of this study.

Surveys were distributed through the company’s internal

mail system. A cover letter written by a senior manager

was included with each survey explaining that the research

had been approved by the company. Managers forwarded

surveys to their direct reports. Anonymity was promised. A

postage paid business reply envelope was provided with

each survey so that both managers and respondents could

return completed surveys directly to the researchers. All

participants were told that the results would be used in

aggregate—there would be no way to link responses to a

specific individual or work group.

Our sample consisted of 217 managers (out of 600

distributed for a manager response rate of 36.2 %) who had

clearly identifiable direct reports. The average age of

managers was 41.4, and their average tenure with the

company was 11.5 years. 44 % of our sample was men. A

total of 1,561 surveys were distributed to direct reports. We

received 659 completed surveys for a direct report response

rate of 42.2 %.

Measures

Role Modeling

Because we could find no existing instruments of ethical

role modeling that were applicable to the types of models

studied in this investigation, we created our own measures

for use in this research. The influence of childhood ethical

role modeling was measured with two items (‘‘As a child, I

had strong ethical guidance that continues to influence my

work today’’ and ‘‘In my early life, people instilled in me

strong ethics and values that guide me now in my work’’;

a = .84). Career modeling was measured with three items (‘‘I have worked for at least one individual who has served

as a positive ethical role model for me’’, ‘‘During my

career, I have had at least one mentor who served as a

positive ethical role model for me’’ and ‘‘At least one

supervisor I have had became a positive role model for me

regarding how to behave ethically’’; a = .85). Top man- agement modeling was measured with three items (‘‘Top

managers of this organization represent high ethical stan-

dards,’’ ‘‘Top managers of this organization guide decision

making in an ethical direction,’’ and ‘‘Top managers of this

organization regularly show that they care about ethics’’;

a = .87). Managers were instructed to indicate their level of agreement along a 5-point (1 = strongly disagree,

5 = strongly agree) response format.

Because the modeling measures were developed for this

research, we pilot tested them in a separate sample of 155

managers drawn from the same organization from which

our primary study sample was drawn. The characteristics of

this pilot sample (average leader age = 42.7, gen-

der = 49.7 % were men, and tenure with the com-

pany = 11.3 years) were similar to those of managers in

our primary sample. The mean values in the pilot study

were: childhood role model = 4.49 [standard deviation

(SD) = .61], career models = 4.20 (SD = .68), and top

management 3.75 (SD = .82).

We conducted an exploratory factor analysis with obli-

que (direct oblimin) rotation. An examination of the scree

plot suggested a three factor solution. Eigenvalues for the

three extracted factors were 3.26, 1.92, and 1.19. The

remaining values were .5 and below. All items strongly

loaded on their appropriate factor (loading [ .7 with no cross-loadings [ .2). The estimated reliabilities for child- hood role model (a = .87), career model (a = .79) and top management (a = .87) were acceptable.

In the present study, we conducted a confirmatory factor

analysis (maximum likelihood estimation) on the three role

modeling measures as well as the ethical leadership mea-

sure. Fit indices showed that our target four-factor model fit

the data well. The comparative fit index = .95, the non-

normed fit index = .93, the standardized root mean square

residual = .05, and the root mean square residual = .06,

which were consistent with recommended standards (Ba-

gozzi and Yi 1988; Browne and Cudeck 1993; Joreskog

and Sorbom 1993).

Ethical Leadership

Direct reports rated their manager using the ten-item ELS

(a = .91) (Brown et al. 2005). At least two direct reports rated each manager. On average, 3.04 subordinates rated

each manager (i.e., 659 direct reports reporting to 217

managers). We averaged ethical leadership ratings from

multiple direct reports to form one overall score for each

manager. The mean rwg (James et al. 1984) was .92 and the

median was .96. These results supported the decision to

aggregate individual responses to the group level.

Leader Age

Leader age was measured using a single self report item.

Controls

We controlled for leader gender (dummy coded 1 = male,

0 = female) and the manager’s span of control (i.e.,

number of direct reports).

592 M. E. Brown, L. K. Treviño

123

Results

The means, SD, and correlations are reported in Table 1.

Ethical leadership was not rare in our sample. In fact,

43.3 % of the managers had ethical leadership rat-

ings C 4.0. It was also common for respondents to report

having had some kind of role model. Most widely reported

were childhood role models (92.2 % C 4.0), followed by

career models (85.2 % C 4.0), and then top management

models (55.8 % C 4.0).

To test our hypotheses, we conducted multiple ordinary

least squares regression. We ran three separate regression

models—model 1 contained leader background and

demographic variables (age, gender, and number of direct

reports), model 2 included the three role modeling pre-

dictors, and model 3 included the hypothesized moderating

variables. The results are reported in Table 2.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that having a childhood role

model is positively related to ethical leadership. However,

childhood role modeling (b = -.02, ns) was not significant in the main effects only model (model 2). Thus, Hypothesis

1 is not supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that having an

ethical role model during one’s career is positively related

to ethical leadership. The results indicated that having had

a career role model (b = .16, p \ .01) was significantly related to follower ratings of ethical leadership, supporting

Hypothesis 2. Counter to our predictions, top management

ethical modeling (Hypothesis 3) was not significantly

related (b = -.06, ns) to ethical leadership. In addition, none of the control variables was related to follower ratings

of ethical leadership.

Next, we tested the hypotheses that age moderates the

relationship between childhood modeling and ethical

leadership (Hypothesis 4), career modeling and ethical

leadership (Hypothesis 5), and top management modeling

and ethical leadership (Hypothesis 6). The results (Table 2,

model 3) showed that two of the interaction effects

(childhood model 9 age, b = -.02, p \ .05; career model 9 age, b = .02, p \ .10) were significant. The

impact of having had a childhood model on ratings of

ethical leadership (Fig. 1) is more strongly positive for

younger managers compared to older leaders. Age enhan-

ces the relationship between career modeling and ethical

leadership (Fig. 2), such that the influence of having an

ethical model during one’s career on ethical leadership was

stronger for older leaders. Overall, these results are sup-

portive of Hypotheses 4 and 5. We did not find a significant

interaction, however, for the leader age by top management

interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 6 is not supported.

Discussion

We investigated the relationship between different types of

ethical role models and follower ratings of ethical leader-

ship. We found, at least among respondents in this orga-

nization, that ethical role modeling is not rare. Childhood

models were the most commonly reported type of ethical

role model, followed by career role models and finally, by

top management models. Given the cynicism about ethics

in the workplace, it is noteworthy that a large majority of

respondents reported having had ethical role models in

their careers and more than half of respondents saw top

management as modeling ethical behavior.

We found no support for the idea that seeing top man-

agers as models of ethical behavior is related to a leader’s

ethical leadership ratings. But, leaders who reported having

had career ethical role models were more likely to be rated

as ethical leaders by their direct reports (Table 2). In

addition, the importance of these career ethical role mod-

eling effects varied with age (Fig. 2). Finally, we found no

main effect of having had a childhood role model on eth-

ical leadership. However, there was a significant interac-

tion between having had a childhood model and leader age

(Fig. 1).

The mean age of leaders in our sample was approximately

41 years old. Leaders one SD below the mean were about 34

and those 1 SD above the mean were approximately 49 years

Table 1 Means, SD, and correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ethical leadership 3.87 .47 (.91)

Age 41.36 7.51 .07

Gender .44 .50 -.01 -.03

Number of direct reports 9.05 5.62 -.12 -.12 -.16*

Childhood role model 4.53 .59 .03 .11 -.03 -.03 (.84)

Career mentor 4.30 .66 .19** .10 -.10 -.01 .33** (.85)

Top management 3.80 .75 -.05 .10 .05 .02 .27** .28** (.87)

N = 217; gender coded 1 = male, 0 = female; reliabilities in (diagonal); number of direct reports indicated total number of subordinates

reporting to a manager (including those not surveyed in this research). The mean number of direct reports studied in this research was 3.04

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Role Modeling and Perceived Ethical Leadership 593

123

of age. As hypothesized, the impact of childhood modeling

was strongest for younger leaders. This is likely because

childhood experiences are more recent and salient for these

leaders and the ethical lessons learned from childhood

models extend into early adult experiences in the workplace.

But, over time and with career advancement, the impact of

childhood models diminishes, while the impact of career

ethical role models increases (Fig. 2). Research suggests that

individuals ‘‘…often solidify their values or even develop new moral values in adulthood in the process of interacting

with other adults …’’ (Eisenberg and Fabes 1998, p. 715). As one progresses in one’s career, it is also likely that ethical

role models at work become more available and the oppor-

tunity to learn from them increases.

Further, developing ethical leadership involves acquir-

ing behaviors that go beyond the broad qualities associated

with being an ethical person. The types of general values

and behaviors (e.g., caring for others, honesty) learned

from childhood role models appear to provide a solid

foundation for ethical leadership in the beginning stages of

a leader’s career. However, ethical leadership also involves

incorporating leadership behaviors such as communicating

clear ethical standards and disciplining employees who

violate them. These may be more readily learned from an

ethical role model in the work context. These results sug-

gest that role modeling for ethical leadership might be

more effective over time when the model is from the same

context (the workplace) compared to an individual from a

different setting (childhood).

For most employees, the quantity and variety of models

that they were exposed to during their lifetime increases

with age. As a result, early childhood models should

eventually be supplemented and perhaps replaced by

models that are more proximate, salient, and relevant to the

workplace domain. We speculate, that if older leaders (i.e.,

almost 50 years old in our sample) perceive that they

continue to be greatly influenced by childhood models that

they were exposed to approximately four decades earlier,

this might reflect a lack of exposure to and learning from

other types of models who could provide a more complete

picture of what it means to be an ethical leader in the

workplace. Future research is necessary to investigate the

relationship between learner age and modeling influences.

We hypothesized but did not find support for the influ-

ence of top management ethical models on perceived eth-

ical leadership. Given that this research was conducted in a

single organization, we considered range restriction in our

top management modeling variable to be a possible culprit.

However, the data suggest that this was not the case.

Table 2 Results of multiple regression analysis

Variable Model 1

controls

only

Model 2

main

effects

Model 3

moderating

effects

Constant 3.84** 3.48** 2.51

Gender -.03 .00 -.01

Number of direct reports -.01 -.01 -.01

Age .00 .00 .03

Childhood role model -.02 .71*

Career .16** -.45

Top managers -.06 .02

Childhood role model 9 age -.02*

Career 9 age .02 �

Top managers 9 age .00

R 2

.02 .06 .10

F 1.35 2.39* 2.51*

Gender coded 1 = male, 0 = female �

p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

Low Childhood Model High Childhood Model

E th

ic al

L ea

d er

sh ip

Low Age

High Age

Fig. 1 Moderating effect of age on the relationship between child- hood modeling and ethical leadership. Values for high = ?1 SD,

low = -1 SD

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

Low Career Model High Career Model

E th

ic al

L ea

d er

sh ip

Low Age

High Age

Fig. 2 Moderating effect of age on the relationship between career modeling and ethical leadership. values for high = ?1 SD, low =

-1 SD

594 M. E. Brown, L. K. Treviño

123

Variation in the top management modeling variable

(SD = .75) was greater than the variation for career men-

toring (SD = .69) and childhood modeling variables

(SD = .59), suggesting that respondents varied in their

perceptions of top management ethical behavior. Rather,

we suspect that our failure to find significant effects reflects

the challenges top managers face as ethical role models for

lower level supervisors in large organizations.

Upon further consideration, we believe that there are

likely more substantive reasons why top management

modeling was not significantly related to ethical leadership.

In large organizations such as this one, senior managers are

far removed from most employees and their leadership

behaviors are generally aimed at the entire organization,

thus providing little explicit behavior for lower-level

leaders to mimic. Employees also have few opportunities to

observe and form personal relationships with senior lead-

ers. Thus, even if senior leaders are seen as behaving

ethically, it is difficult for a lower-level leader to model

specific leadership behaviors based upon that leader’s

behavior. Our findings are consistent with previous

research on ethical role modeling which suggests that

ethical role modeling is a ‘‘side by side’’ phenomenon

(Weaver et al. 2005), one that requires frequent interaction

between the model and learner.

This is not to suggest that top managers are irrelevant

when it comes to organizational ethics. Research has

shown that top managers play an important role in shaping

the ethical culture of their organizations (Schaubroeck

et al. 2012; Treviño et al. 2000; Weaver et al. 1999a).

Research has also found that top management’s ethical

leadership has both direct and indirect effects on employee

attitudes and behaviors at lower levels in the organization

(Hansen et al. 2012; Mayer et al. 2009). Finally, although

our results suggest that the direct impact of top managers as

role models for managers at lower levels of organizations is

limited, top managers are likely to be important role

models for their own direct reports.

Implications for Research

This study contributes to the limited research on the ante-

cedents of perceived ethical leadership and is consistent

with a social learning perspective. It represents an impor-

tant step in examining the relationship between role mod-

eling and perceived ethical leadership. Although we have

learned that childhood models and career mentors are

linked to ethical leadership, many unanswered questions

about this topic merit further investigation.

Previous research has found a link between a leader’s

agreeableness and conscientiousness and follower ratings

of ethical leadership (Kalshoven et al. 2011; Walumbwa

and Schaubroeck 2009). One way to explain the link

between personality and ethical leadership is with social

learning theory, and specifically modeling. Are there spe-

cific traits that make ethical leaders more likely to seek out

and learn from role models? For example, leaders who are

more open to experience may be more aware of potential

models in their environment and more willing to learn from

them. Highly conscientious leaders might be more moti-

vated to seek guidance and cues from ethical role models

about how to boost their own responsibility and scrupu-

lousness. Leaders who are more agreeable might have more

opportunity to form close relationships with others during

their career: relationships that are conducive to formal and

informal ethical mentoring (Weaver et al. 2005). All of

these questions might be pursued in future research.

Beyond the big five model, other individual differences

should also be investigated. For example, cognitive moral

development might influence the social learning of ethical

standards and behavior from role models (Moberg 2000).

At a conventional level of moral reasoning (characteristic

of most adults), individuals look to others for ethical

guidance. This suggests that leaders at a conventional level

are more likely to look to role models for ethical guidance.

Thus, a leader’s level of moral reasoning might influence

the number of models selected or the influence of such

models on the development of ethical leadership.

Researchers should also examine the underlying factors

that explain how ethical role models facilitate the devel-

opment of ethical leadership. What is it about an ethical

role model that enhances perceived ethical leadership?

Does exposure to ethical role models strengthen leaders’

moral identity (Aquino and Reed 2002), increase moral

awareness (Rest 1986), advance moral reasoning (Kohl-

berg 1969), or encourage the internalization of moral val-

ues? All seem likely to play a role in the development of

ethical leadership.

In addition, we do not know how conflicting messages

from a particular model would influence ethical leadership

or whether different modeling sources enhance or neu-

tralize each other. Previous research on modeling suggests

that conflicting modeling information from a particular

source can be problematic. Inconsistences from the same

model that are seen to be hypocritical have a particularly

negative effect (Bandura 1986). But what happens when

multiple modeling influences send congruent messages?

Do modeling influences interact to enhance ethical lead-

ership? To explore this possibility, we examined higher

order interactions between career, childhood, and top

management models in a post hoc analysis but did not find

significant results. However, our ability to do so is con-

strained by the limitations of our sample size. Future

research should examine these possibilities more closely in

sample sizes large enough to detect higher order interaction

effects.

Role Modeling and Perceived Ethical Leadership 595

123

The context for this research was a traditional office

environment where face to face interaction between

employees is the norm. However, the increasing prevalence

of distributed organizations and the use of technologies to

work and communicate may alter how people select,

observe and learn from models. Whether and how effective

ethical modeling can occur in these types of organizations

must be studied further especially in work situations where

employees are distributed or working virtually and have

fewer opportunities for ‘‘side by side’’ interactions with

ethical role models.

Finally, although the recent trend is to focus on positive

organizational scholarship, researchers should examine the

role of unethical role models and abusive leaders (Tepper

2000). Related research on ethical leadership suggests that

negative leadership might be more important in predicting

negative outcomes in some settings (Detert et al. 2007).

Previous research suggests that peer modeling of unethical

behavior impacts individual-level deviance and unethical

behavior (Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998; Zey-Ferrell

et al. 1979). What impact does unethical leader modeling

have on ethical leadership? Might negative role models

motivate subordinate leaders to emulate or to avoid the

modeled behaviors? If the leader chooses avoidance, can

such a leader become an ethical leader without having had

positive role models? Does having had a good ethical role

model in one’s career outweigh the influence of a bad

ethical model? Does that depend on how successful each is

in the organization? Research on role modeling in general

suggests that older employees tend to learn from both

positive (i.e., learn what to do) and negative (i.e., learn

what ‘‘not’’ to do) role models (Gibson 2003), so it seems

likely that having had both types of role model might

influence ethical leadership in a positive way because the

developing leader has choices among models. Such ques-

tions clearly require additional research.

Implications for Practice

This research has a number of implications for practice.

First and foremost, the results point to a way that organi-

zations may be able to promote ethical leadership by

identifying and promoting ethical role models within their

organizations. Given the importance of childhood model-

ing, especially for younger leaders, employers might ask

young applicants about and select employees who have had

experiences with strong ethical role models early in life.

Then, it appears important to build on those early experi-

ences by emphasizing the importance of ethical role

models as one’s career develops. This means emphasizing

the important role that managers and mentors play in the

development of ethical leaders. Also, given the increased

mobility in the labor market and the likelihood that

employee tenure in a single organization may be short, it

will be important to ask prospective employees questions

about whether they have had both types of role models and

use this information in their leadership development.

The effect of senior manager ethical role models seems

limited in terms of developing ethical leadership at lower

levels of management, especially in large organizations.

Certainly top management ethical leadership is important

for creating and providing resources to support an ethical

culture (Schaubroeck et al. 2012; Treviño 1990), but in

terms of developing ethical leadership at the supervisory

level, more proximal ethical role models are needed.

Organizations interested in developing ethical leadership

should make efforts to promote ethical role modeling

among supervisors at all levels. One challenge to doing so

is that Weaver et al. (2005) found that ethical role models

tend to be humble. They are not likely to tout the fact that

they are ethical role models. As a result, leadership

development programs need to find them (perhaps through

360� evaluation programs) and emphasize the importance of their role without contradicting their humble nature.

Finally, given the prominence of corporate philanthropy,

especially among large corporations, this research suggests

that companies may wish to invest in organizations that

promote opportunities for childhood ethical role modeling

and development (such as scouting or Big Brother Big

Sister programs). They can now tie such donations to their

own strategic needs in a way that they may not have pre-

viously considered.

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations that require caution

when interpreting the findings.

First, the research was conducted in a single organiza-

tion. Although this allowed us to control for contextual

factors that might influence ethical leadership (Brown and

Treviño 2006), we do not know whether or to what degree

our findings generalize to other organizations. For exam-

ple, it seems likely that the potential modeling influence of

top managers is greater in small organizations, where

opportunities to interact with and observe senior leaders up

close are more frequent.

Second, the role modeling measures were developed for

this research. Although these measures were pilot tested

and appear to have acceptable psychometric properties, we

cannot rule out that some of our non-findings may be

related to the way we measured these constructs. These

measures should be subjected to more rigorous measure

development processes in the future. In addition, our

modeling measures were broadly written to capture three

categories of models—childhood, career, and top

596 M. E. Brown, L. K. Treviño

123

managers. Now that we have some evidence to suggest role

modeling is related to ethical leadership, in the future these

measures could be refined in order to tease out specific

types of models (e.g., parents, former supervisors, etc.) and

evaluate their impacts on ethical leadership development.

Finally, this study used a cross-sectional design. Our

results indicate that role modeling and ethical leadership are

related. And, theory suggests that the causal arrow flows

from having had ethical role models in the past to be seen as

an ethical leader oneself currently. However, future research

should employ longitudinal data to establish causality.

Conclusion

Our findings support the idea that role modeling is related

to ethical leadership. Having had an ethical role model

during one’s career is positively associated with ethical

leadership. The importance of career ethical role models is

stronger for older leaders. Similarly having had a childhood

ethical role model is positively related to follower-rated

ethical leadership, but this relationship diminishes with

leader age. Overall, these findings suggest that organiza-

tions can promote and develop ethical leadership within

their organizations by hiring young employees who have

had strong ethical role models early in life and by sup-

porting career ethical role models who play an important

role in developing ethical leadership, especially for older

leaders.

References

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004).

Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-

analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral

identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6),

1423–1440.

Atkins, R., Hart, D., & Donnelly, D. M. (2004). Moral identity

development and school attachment. In D. Lapsley & D. Narvaez

(Eds.), Morality, self and identity (pp. 65–82). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital

forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural

equation models. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 16(1),

74–94.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A

social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and

action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of

moral behavior and development (pp. 45–59). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). A comparative test of the

status envy, social power, and secondary reinforcement theories

of identificatory learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67, 527–534.

Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987).

Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect.

Group & Organization Management, 12(1), 73–87.

Berkowitz, M. W., & Grych, J. H. (1998). Fostering goodness:

Teaching parents to facilitate children’s moral development.

Journal of Moral Education, 27, 371–391.

Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical

leadership: 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. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical

leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-

ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 97(2), 117–134.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing

model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural

equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clinard, M. B. (1983). Corporate ethics and crime: The role of middle

management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007).

Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in

organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 993–1005.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W.

Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology

(5th ed., pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.

Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework

for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal

of Marketing, 49(3), 87–96.

Gibson, D. E. (2003). Developing the professional self-concept: Role

model construals in early, middle, and late career stages.

Organization Science, 14, 591–610.

Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 65(1), 134–156.

Gibson, D. E. (2006). Role Models. In J. H. Grennhaus & G.

A. Callanan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of career development (pp.

701–703). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford,

B. E. (2012). Ethical leadership: Assessing the value of a

multifoci social exchange perspective. Journal of Business

Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1408-1.

Hoffman, M. L. (1980). Moral development in adolescence. In J.

Adleson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp.

295–343). New York: Wiley.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-

group interrater reliability with and without response bias.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.

Jones, J. M. (2011). Retrieved 4 Jan 2012, from http://www.

gallup.com/poll/151460/Record-Rate-Honesty-Ethics-Members-

Congress-Low.aspx.

Jordan, J., Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Finkelstein, S. (2013).

Someone to look up to: Executive-follower ethical reasoning and

perceptions of ethical leadership. Journal of Management, 39(3),

660–683.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL �

8: Structural

equation modeling with SIMPLIS TM

command language. Chi-

cago: Scientific Software International.

Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011).

Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring

Role Modeling and Perceived Ethical Leadership 597

123

the moderating role of gender and organizational politics.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 633.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).

Ethical leader behavior and big five factors of personality.

Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 349–366.

Kanareff, V. T., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1958). The acquisition of imitative

and opposition responses under two conditions of instruction-

induced set. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 516–528.

Kenny, N. P., Mann, K. V., & MacLeod, H. (2003). Role modeling in

physicians’ professional formation: Reconsidering an essential

but untapped educational strategy. Academic Medicine, 78(12),

1203–1210.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). State and sequence: The cognitive-development

approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of

socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Lefkowitz, M., Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1955). Status factors in

pedestrian violation of traffic signals. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 51, 704–705.

Lickona, T. (1983). Raising good children. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Lippitt, R., Polansky, N., & Rosen, S. (1952). The dynamics of power.

Human Relations, 5, 37–64.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence

of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 6(1), 105–113.

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012).

Who displays ethical leadership and why does it matter? An

examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leader-

ship. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,

R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a

trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.

Moberg, D. J. (2000). Role models and moral exemplars: How do

employees acquire virtues by observing others? Business Ethics

Quarterly, 10(3), 675–696.

Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality:

Rescuers of jew in nazi europe. New York: Free Press.

Perry, G., & Nixon, C. (2005). The influence of role models on the

negotiation ethics of college students. Journal of Business

Ethics, 62, 25–40.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal

mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship,

and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of

Management Journal, 43(6), 117–1194.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and

theory. New York: Praeger.

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see,

monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial

behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6),

658–672.

Rosenhan, D. (1970). The natural socialization of altruistic autonomy.

In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowtiz (Eds.), Altruism and helping

behavior: Social psychological studies of some antecedents and

consequences (pp. 251–268). New York: Academic Press.

Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010). Do ethical

leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotabil-

ity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 215–236.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J.,

Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., et al. (2012). Embedding ethical

leadership within and across organization levels. Academy of

Management Journal, 55(5), 1053–1078.

Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2002). Leaders as moral role models:

The case of John Gutfreund at Salomon Brothers. Journal of

Business Ethics, 35(4), 327–339.

Sizer, T. R., & Sizer, N. F. (1999). The students are watching. Boston:

Beacon Press.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy

of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

The Harris Poll. (2011). Retrieved 4 Jan 2012, from http://www.

harrisinteractive.com/vault/HI-Harris-Harris-Poll-Confidence-

Index-2011-05-18.pdf.

Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A

person–situation interactionist model. The Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 11(3), 601–617.

Treviño, L. K. (1990). A cultural perspective on changing and

developing organizational ethics. In R. Woodman & W.

Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and devel-

opment (pp. 195–230). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M. E., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative

investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Percep-

tions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human

Relations, 56(1), 5–37.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person

and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for

ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4),

128–142.

Treviño, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad

barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378–385.

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K.,

& Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to

employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange,

self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213.

Walumbwa, F. O., & 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.

Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Agle, B. (2005). ‘‘Somebody I look

up to:’’ Ethical role models in organizations. Organizational

Dynamics, 34(4), 313–330.

Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999a). Corporate

ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive

commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 42(1), 41–57.

Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999b). Integrated

and decoupled corporate social performance: Management

commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices.

Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

Yussen, S. R., & Levy, V. M, Jr. (1975). Effects of warm and neutral

models on the attention of observational learners. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 66–72.

Zey-Ferrell, M., Weaver, K. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1979). Predicting

unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. Human

Relations, 32(7), 557–570.

598 M. E. Brown, L. K. Treviño

123