HMGT 320 WEEK 5 DISC DOCX

ORIGINAL PAPER

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Empirical Study in Social Enterprises

Palvi Pasricha1 • Bindu Singh1 • Pratibha Verma1

Received: 30 April 2016 / Accepted: 8 May 2017 / Published online: 22 May 2017

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Abstract While recent studies have increasingly suggested

leadership as a major precursor to corporate social

responsibility (CSR), empirical studies that examine the

impact of various leader aspects such as style and ethics on

CSR and unravel the mechanism through which leadership

exerts its influence on CSR are scant. Ironically, paucity of

research on this theme is more prevalent in the sphere of

social enterprises where it is of utmost importance. With

the aim of addressing these gaps, this research empirically

examines the interaction between ethical leadership and

CSR and, in addition, investigates organic organizational

cultures (clan culture and adhocracy culture) as mediators

in the above interaction. To this end, a model was devel-

oped and tested on the sample of 350 middle- and top-level

managers associated with 28 Indian healthcare social

enterprises, using Structural Equation Modeling Analysis,

Bootstrapping and PROCESS. Results reveal that ethical

leadership both directly and indirectly influences CSR

practices. The indirect influence of ethical leadership

involves nurturing clan and adhocracy cultures, which in

turn influence CSR. These findings are significant for social

enterprise leaders seeking to encourage their organizations’

socially responsible behavior.

Keywords Leadership � CSR � Organic organizational culture � Clan culture � Adhocracy culture � Social enterprise

Introduction

In recent years, academics have shown considerable

interest in examining corporate social responsibility (CSR);

much of the initial thrust for research into the social

responsibility of organizations came from the corporate

sector against the backdrop of major scandals, such as the

Enron and WorldCom. More specifically, research has

concentrated on consolidating the aspects of corporate

leadership that foster ethical and socially responsible

behavior on the part of organizations (Angus-Leppan et al.

2010; Groves and LaRocca 2011; Swanson 2008; Wald-

man et al. 2006a, b; Waldman and Siegel 2008; Wu et al.

2015). Amidst the turmoil created by these scandals, it is

ironic that the traditional CSR research has overlooked the

prevalence of CSR in a very important sector, the social

enterprise sector comprised of social enterprises engaged in

commercial activities to accomplish social ends (Dart

2004; Di Domenico et al. 2010). The effectiveness of social

enterprises depends upon catering to the expectations of

diverse stakeholders (Balser and McClusky 2005; Herman

and Renz 1997), and hence the prevalence of CSR practice

in these organizations is a subject matter of further enquiry

(Cornelius et al. 2008).

This paper has two key objectives. First, it examines the

interaction between ethical leadership [the leadership style

most eminent in the social enterprise context (De Hoogh

and Den Hartog 2008)] and CSR in social enterprises;

specifically, it attends to ethical leadership at the level of

the CEO in congruence with literature that acknowledges

The original version of this article has been revised: hypotheses

numbers and accompanying text have been corrected.

& Palvi Pasricha [email protected]; [email protected]

Bindu Singh

[email protected]

Pratibha Verma

[email protected]

1 Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of

Technology (IIT), Roorkee 247667, India

123

J Bus Ethics (2018) 151:941–958

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3568-5

top executives as the prime individuals who can influence

CSR initiatives (Swanson 2008; Waldman et al. 2006a, b;

Wu et al. 2015). Second, it elaborates on the contribution

of the two types of organic organizational cultures, the clan

culture and the adhocracy culture, in the link between

ethical leadership and CSR in social enterprises. These

objectives are significant as they address two key concerns

in CSR research: first is a lack of empirical studies that

examine the impact of leader aspects such as style and

ethics on CSR; and second is a lack of understanding of the

underlying mechanisms linking leadership with CSR

(Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Angus-Leppan et al. 2010;

Christensen et al. 2014; Groves and LaRocca 2011; Mor-

geson et al. 2013). In order to substantiate these objectives,

India, which harbors the largest number of social enter-

prises in the world (Bhalla 2014), is taken up as the apt

context for this study.

This work contributes to the extant literature in fol-

lowing ways. Carried out in the sphere of social enter-

prises, the study contributes to the debate on CSR in social

enterprises. Additionally, by examining the role of leader

behavior as a precursor to CSR, it heeds to calls for

research on the microfoundations of CSR (Aguinis and

Glavas 2012; Christensen et al. 2014). Specifically, it

makes a value-added contribution toward recognizing the

potential that ethical leadership holds in advancing schol-

arship on leadership and CSR, both (Angus-Leppan et al.

2010; Christensen et al. 2014; Groves and LaRocca 2011;

Morgeson et al. 2013). Furthermore, this study widens the

applicability of organic organizational cultures by

demonstrating their role in facilitating an in depth under-

standing of leadership–CSR association. In the attempt to

relate leadership and organizational culture to CSR, it

attends to important questions revolving around the role of

these two in research on CSR; specifically, questions such

as ‘‘How is CSR related to effective leadership and the

characteristics of top executives?’’ and ‘‘What is the rela-

tionship between organizational culture/climate and

CSR?’’ have encouraged research into the liaison between

Organizational Behavior (OB) and CSR (Morgeson et al.

2013, p. 820). Therefore, by adopting an OB lens to

facilitate a better understanding of CSR, this work con-

tributes to research on the confluence of CSR with two

popular OB domains, namely, ‘leadership influences’ and

‘work motivation and attitudes’ (Cascio and Aguinis 2008).

Finally, this study contributes to the social work literature

encompassing the role of leadership in maximizing social

impact.

The rest of this article is structured as follows. The

subsequent section pertains to the development of study

hypotheses grounded on a review of the related literature.

Next, the methodology applied and the results obtained

from it are elaborated. The findings are discussed. Then,

the implications and future research avenues are offered,

followed by the conclusion.

Theory and Hypotheses Development

CSR: An Overview

In the academic literature, the concept of CSR has its roots

in the seminal work of Bowen (1953), Social Responsi-

bilities of the Businessman, where social responsibility was

first defined as ‘‘the obligations of businessmen to pursue

those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those

lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objec-

tives and values of our society’’ (p. 6). Further, Davis

(1960) outlined social responsibility as ‘‘businessmen’s

decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially

beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest’’ (p.

70). In 1979, Carroll conceptualized CSR (Carroll 1979),

and later in 1991 introduced the pyramid of CSR (Carroll

1991, p. 42), which encompasses a spectrum of four kinds

of responsibilities, namely, the economic, legal, ethical,

and philanthropic responsibilities, the fulfillment of which

constitutes the social responsibility of business. Addition-

ally, Carroll elaborated CSR taking into account the per-

spective of moral management of organization’s

stakeholders (shareholders, employees, customers, and the

local community) (Carroll 1991). Since then, the field has

developed significantly and today houses a great prolifer-

ation of approaches/conceptualizations (Aguinis 2011;

Carroll 1999; Waddock 2004; Waldman et al. 2006b), each

capturing important aspects related to the concept.

This study uses the conceptualization of CSR offered by

Aguinis (2011, p. 855): ‘‘context-specific organizational

actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’

expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social,

and environmental performance.’’ Underpinning this defi-

nition is the notion of the ‘triple bottom line’ within the

doctrine of which several mainstream organizations, pre-

dominantly the social enterprises, today operate. In

essence, it describes the very nature of social enterprises,

drives the social mission of these organizations, and

motivates social enterprise activity (Chell 2007; Cornelius

et al. 2008; Ridley-Duff 2008). Defined around the concept

of the ‘triple bottom line’ demarcates social enterprises

from economic enterprises (Chell 2007); in reality, it

entails ‘‘greater complexity at the managerial level for

ensuring sustainability’’ (Chell et al. 2010, p. 488).

Therefore, managers in social enterprises need to be

increasingly savvy about enacting apt leadership behaviors

that may be effective within the context of CSR. Unfor-

tunately, the study and understanding of the relationship of

leader behavior to social responsibility with specificity to

942 P. Pasricha et al.

123

the social enterprise is still in its infancy. The ensuing write

up within this section thus draws upon the extant literature

to situate particularly the impact of ethical leadership

behavior on CSR in the social enterprise.

Ethical Leadership: A Precursor to CSR

Over the past few years, ethical business practices on the

part of managers have gained widespread attention from

the international community (Brown et al. 2005; Treviño

et al. 2006); consequentially, the term ethical leadership

has today become a catchword in business and academic

circles. In their work on ethical leadership, Treviño et al.

(2000) identified two aspects, the moral person and the

moral manager, that leaders ought to exhibit in order to be

recognized as ethical leaders. Moral persons hold attributes

such as honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness; they engage

in ethical behavior and carry out decision making in

adherence to ethical principles. Moral managers foster the

salience of ethics in the organization by serving as role

models for ethical conduct, communicating about ethics,

and employing reinforcement systems to hold individuals

accountable for apt conduct (Treviño et al. 2000). Although

various other leadership styles such as transformational

leadership (Bass 1985; Burns 1978), spiritual leadership

(Fry 2003) and authentic leadership (Gardner et al. 2005)

all capture the moral person aspect in some way, the moral

manager aspect in ensuring that leaders do not undermine

ethical standards in their quest for achievement of short-

term ends, sets ethical leadership apart from these styles

(Brown et al. 2005; Brown and Treviño 2006). Incorpo-

rating these aspects, Brown et al. (2005) offered a consti-

tutive definition of ethical leadership: ‘‘the demonstration

of normatively appropriate conduct through personal

actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion

of such conduct to followers through two-way communi-

cation, reinforcement, and decision-making’’ (p. 120). Prior

research recognizes the contribution of ethical leadership

toward promoting an extensive range of follower attitudi-

nal and behavioral outcomes (Avey et al. 2011; Brown and

Treviño 2006; Brown et al. 2005; De Hoogh and Den

Hartog 2008; Mayer et al. 2012; Piccolo et al. 2010; Resick

et al. 2013; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009). Surpris-

ingly, it overlooks the influence of ethical leaders on

organizational policies and practices, particularly CSR.

The current effort adopts Brown et al.’s (2005) ethical

leadership conceptualization and predicts ethical leadership

to encourage CSR practices, for various reasons. First, eth-

ical leadership is characterized by altruism (Kanungo and

Mendonca 1996; Resick et al. 2006). Ethical leaders have a

broad ethical awareness in that they are concerned about

(a) serving the greater good, (b) means, not just ends,

(c) long-term, not just the short-term, and (d) multiple

stakeholders’ perspectives (Treviño et al. 2003, p. 19). They

possess a high ethical orientation, identify the significance of

proactively prioritizing ethics, and carry out decision making

taking into consideration the long-term interests of the

organization and all its stakeholders, and hence demonstrate

responsible leadership behavior (Maak and Pless 2006;

Treviño et al. 2000; Yukl 2001). Prior research posits that

grounded on the stakeholder perspective, ethical leaders in

their endeavor to meet stakeholder expectations may chalk

out ways to improve the organization’s environmental,

social, and ethical performance, and hence promote the

pursuit of ethical and socially responsible business practices

(Groves and LaRocca 2011; Zhu et al. 2014). Second, recent

studies (Brown and Treviño 2006; Jordan et al. 2013; Tre-

viño et al. 2000, 2003) suggest that ethical leaders reflect

high levels of moral development, practice values-based

management, convey ethical standards to employees to fol-

low, and advance clear sets of ethical policies and programs,

which are associated with greater CSR activity in the orga-

nization (Valentine and Fleischman 2008). Third, ethical

leaders express their fundamental beliefs, and call attention

to the ethical consequences and long-term risks associated

with decisions that go against the interests of various

stakeholders; in doing so, they bring into underway role-

modeling and a learning process (Bandura 1977; Brown et al.

2005) that gives an impetus to the pursuit of social respon-

sibility initiatives by individuals in the organization. They

imbue in the organizational members ambitions that are in

accord with the demands of various stakeholders, and

motivate followers to act responsibly and rise above their

self-interests for the wider interests of the organization and

its stakeholders (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999; Kanungo and

Mendonca 1996; Resick et al. 2006). Ethical leaders endorse

a broad stakeholder-centric view of the organization; they

thus hold importance, specifically in the current context of

the social enterprise as they would ensure that practices

undertaken attend to the enterprise’s primary objective of

stakeholder value maximization. Fourth, ethical leadership

is significantly and positively associated with the intellectual

stimulation component of transformational leadership (Bedi

et al. 2016; Toor and Ofori 2009), which is positively related

to CSR practices (Waldman et al. 2006b). Overall, the above

arguments suggest that ethical leadership positively affects

the organization’s CSR practices.

Hypothesis H1 Ethical leadership has a positive effect

on CSR practices.

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational

Cultures, CSR

Organizational culture represents ‘‘a collective phe-

nomenon emerging from members’ beliefs and social

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An… 943

123

interactions (Schneider 1987; Trice and Beyer 1993),

containing shared values, mutual understandings, patterns

of beliefs, and behavioral expectations (Rousseau 1990)

that tie individuals in an organization together over time

(Schein 2004)’’ (Giberson et al. 2009, p. 124). It manifests

in different layers within the organization; the most com-

monly referred layer is that of shared values (Ott 1989;

Rousseau 1990; Schein 2004; Trice and Beyer 1993).

Shared values ‘‘serve the normative or moral function of

guiding members… in how to deal with certain key situ- ations’’ (Schein 2004, p. 29) and can be a ‘‘source of

identity and core mission’’ (Schein 2004, p. 30). Rousseau

(1990) suggested that values are deep-seated in the layered

formation of culture and ought to be examined in order to

gain insights into the organization’s culture. Also, it is

believed that values (e.g., ethicality, concern for people,

and excellence) are endorsed primarily by the organiza-

tion’s leadership (Schein 2004). The present study thus in

line with its stated objectives examines organizational

culture through the values shared among individuals in the

organization.

Although the importance of organizational culture in

facilitating an understanding of diverse management pro-

cesses has been abundantly demonstrated, for instance, in

terms of achievement of outcomes such as organizational

innovativeness (Deshpandé et al. 1993), competitive

advantage (Barney 1986), and organizational effectiveness

(Denison 1990), the attention accorded to organizational

culture in research on CSR is meager. The current research

contributes to this line of inquiry by investigating into the

crucial role of organizational culture in the liaison between

leadership and CSR. Just recently, the academic literature

has identified organizational culture as a mediator between

leadership and organizational outcomes (Berson et al.

2008). This perspective argues that organizational culture

is a reflection of upper echelon leadership (Giberson et al.

2009, p. 125) and explains how leaders influence certain

key outcomes. Consistent with this perspective, the current

study proposes a model in which ethical leadership influ-

ences organic organizational cultures, which in turn are

related to CSR practices (see Fig. 1). The model builds on

the upper echelons theorization (Hambrick and Mason

1984) as the conceptual foundation for examining the

proposed mediation.

Organic organizational cultures, namely clan and

adhocracy, are pervasive in organizations in the emerging

countries (Appiah-Adu and Blankson 1998; Cameron and

Quinn 2006; Wei et al. 2014). Due to their emphasis on

flexibility, organic cultures are effective in the rapidly

changing and unpredictable environments in such countries

(Alvesson and Lindkvist 1993; Burns and Stalker 1961;

Ouchi 1980; Covin and Slevin 1989). Since India is an

emerging country (International Monetary Fund 2014), the

organizations here face volatile environments resulting into

the dominance of organic cultures. Additionally, the pri-

macy of collectivistic values and low scores on uncertainty

avoidance (Hofstede et al. 2010) evince the importance of

these cultures in Indian organizations. Specifically, insights

into India’s social enterprise sector communicate its

propensity for placing emphasis on the worth of human

resource development and innovation so as to remain

responsive to the unpredictable market scenario (Intellecap

2012). This study thus attends to organic organizational

cultures in the examination of social enterprises in the

country. Henceforth, the subsequent paragraphs in this

section pertain to the proposed relationships among ethical

leadership, the clan and adhocracy organizational cultures,

and CSR.

Effect of Ethical Leadership on Clan Culture

The clan culture places a premium on internal maintenance

and flexibility; it is characterized by trust, participation,

cohesiveness and cooperation, and fosters development of

a friendly workplace (Cameron and Quinn 2006).

Employee empowerment and commitment are considered

key contributors to organizational success, and customers

are viewed as partners (Cameron and Quinn 2006). Shared

values and goals, and a sense of synergy permeate clan-

type organizations; also, such organizations favor leader-

ship styles that embody a concern for people (Cameron and

Quinn 2006).

The present work suggests that in order to promote CSR,

an ethical leader may encourage clan culture in the orga-

nization. Research on leadership and organizational culture

postulates that establishing an apt organizational culture is

a fundamental task of leaders (Bennis 1986; Davis 1984;

Giberson et al. 2009; Tsui et al. 2006). By definition,

ethical leaders are altruistically motivated, people-oriented,

cooperative, caring, and concerned about maintaining

positive relationships with others (Brown and Treviño

2006; Brown et al. 2005; Kanungo 2001; Treviño et al.

2000; Treviño et al. 2003), so, they hold preference for

supportive, cohesive and sociable organizational cultures

(Brown et al. 2005; Mayer et al. 2012; Pastoriza et al.

2008). Owing to virtues of honesty, trustworthiness,

integrity, and fairness, ethical leaders seek to promote trust

and loyalty within the organization (Treviño et al.

2000, 2003; Zhu et al. 2004). In addition, ethical leadership

has been associated with employees’ organizational com-

mitment (Brown and Treviño 2006; Zhu et al. 2004). For

instance, Khuntia and Suar (2004) found that ethical

leadership of Indian private and public sector managers

empowered subordinates, and enhanced subordinates’ job

performance, job involvement, and affective commitment.

Prior empirical studies further suggest that ethical leaders

944 P. Pasricha et al.

123

have preferences for participative organizational cultures

wherein employees have a say in decision making (De

Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008). Ethical leaders strive to

foster work cultures with high employee morale. For

example, De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) found that

CEO ethical leadership was positively related to top man-

agement team (TMT) dynamics that were characterized by

higher levels of optimism and effectiveness; members of an

effective top management team have a clear understanding

of the organization’s mission, and work coherently toward

accomplishing it. Overall, ethical leadership seems likely

to foster clan culture in the organization.

Hypothesis H2 Ethical leadership favors the develop-

ment of clan culture.

Effect of Ethical Leadership on Adhocracy Culture

The adhocracy culture emphasizes flexibility and is exter-

nally oriented; it is characterized by risk taking, creativity,

innovation and adaptability, and fosters development of a

dynamic and entrepreneurial workplace (Cameron and

Quinn 2006). ‘‘Innovative and pioneering initiatives are

what lead to success, organizations are mainly in the

business of developing new products and services and

preparing for the future, and the major task of management

is to foster entrepreneurship, creativity, and activity on the

cutting edge’’ (Cameron and Quinn 2006, p. 43). A com-

mitment to experimentation pervades organizations domi-

nated by adhocracy culture. Additionally, such

organizations favor visionary and risk-oriented leadership

styles (Cameron and Quinn 2006).

The current study posits that ethical leaders may

encourage adhocracy culture in the organization in their

endeavor to foster CSR. Prior research shows that ‘‘leaders

with strong ethical commitments who regularly demon-

strate ethically normative behavior’’ (Piccolo et al. 2010,

p. 259) tend to build work environments that offer orga-

nizational members high levels of autonomy, thereby

encouraging members to exhibit productive behaviors at

work (Brown et al. 2005; Brown and Treviño 2006; De

Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Piccolo et al. 2010; Toor and

Ofori 2009). Characterized by virtues of: accountability,

and a collective orientation for the organization and the

society (Resick et al. 2006, 2011), ethical leadership is

likely to inspire members to act responsibly to the con-

stantly evolving needs of the organization and the society

(Wu et al. 2015), and so create cultures with an external

orientation. Owing to high personal moral standards, and

preferences for transparency and openness in information

sharing (Brown et al. 2005; Treviño et al. 2003), ethical

leaders strive to promote high levels of psychological

safety and risk taking within the organization (Walumbwa

and Schaubroeck 2009). In addition, ethical leadership has

been positively associated with employees’ willingness to

report problems to management, employee voice, and

employee initiative (Brown et al. 2005; De Hoogh and Den

Hartog 2008; Kalshoven et al. 2013; Walumbwa and

Schaubroeck 2009). Being primarily people-focused (Tre-

viño et al. 2003), ethical leadership expresses itself in the

pursuit of empowerment strategies which encompass

developing employees and encourage them for innovation

and realization of organizational vision; hence, it seeks to

enhance employee self-efficacy (Khuntia and Suar 2004).

Workplaces with high self-efficacy among employees tend

to be creativity and innovation intensive (Amabile et al.

2004; Kumar and Uzkurt 2011; Hsu et al. 2011; Tierney

and Farmer 2002). Also, several studies have emphasized

Fig. 1 Hypothesized model

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An… 945

123

the direct and indirect influence of ethical leadership on

employee creativity and innovativeness (Chughtai 2014;

Ma et al. 2013; Yidong and Xinxin 2013). More specifi-

cally in terms of organizational culture, Toor and Ofori

(2009) found that ethical leadership was positively related

to transformational culture (Bass and Avolio 1993), which

provides a supportive context for innovation. Based on the

above argumentation, it seems that ethical leadership fos-

ters adhocracy culture in the organization.

Hypothesis H3 Ethical leadership favors the develop-

ment of adhocracy culture.

Clan Culture and Adhocracy Culture as Mediators

in the Ethical Leadership-CSR Relationship

An organization’s culture affects its CSR policies and

practices (Galbreath 2010; Wood 1991; Yu and Choi

2016). In organizations with clan culture, emphasis is

laid on the maintenance of cordial relationships; mem-

bers are expected to be cooperative and other-oriented

(Cameron and Quinn 2006). According to Galbreath

(2010, p. 515), members’ other orientation in organiza-

tions with humanistic cultures is likely to extend beyond

the needs and interests of immediate internal members to

those of external stakeholders. So they are expected to

endeavor to act in response to stakeholder demands for

CSR; hence, such cultures are predicted to have a posi-

tive effect on the organization’s ability to demonstrate

CSR. Furthermore, clan organizations per se value

decentralized decision making, open communication, and

transparency, collaborate with customers (Cameron and

Quinn 2006), and tend to adopt a firm stand on issues of

business ethics (Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010). These

attributes promote effective organization-wide informa-

tion sharing and processing, which in turn enables such

organizations to promptly respond to the ever-evolving

needs of customers (Wei et al. 2014). Therefore, it

appears that clan culture positively affects the organiza-

tion’s CSR practices.

Hypothesis H4 Clan culture has a positive effect on CSR

practices.

Organizations enriched with an adhocracy culture, per

se value creativity and innovation, and hold an external

orientation (Cameron and Quinn 2006), which motivates

them to go beyond the existing standards and devise novel

alternative solutions in response to the external dynamism

(Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Wei et al. 2014). They show a

strong propensity for proactiveness, risk taking, experi-

mentation, and innovation (Cameron and Quinn 2006).

Such an entrepreneurial orientation enables the adhocracy

organization to seize new opportunities and devote its

resources to pursuits that respond to these opportunities,

and simultaneously offers the organization the key to

broader stakeholder satisfaction (Lumpkin and Dess 1996).

In addition, adhocracy organizations encourage the for-

mation of solution-focused ad hoc task teams to address

complex challenges (Cameron and Quinn 2006); this

approach ensures that environmental, social, and economic

considerations are taken into account in management and

decision making, and thus promotes the implementation of

social responsibility (Zilberg and Galli 2012, p. 213).

Moreover, such organizations are mainly involved in

introducing new and improved products, processes, and

services. Earlier research (Padgett and Galán 2010) has

shown that high intensity of these activities positively

affects the organization’s prowess to exhibit CSR. There-

fore, it appears that adhocracy culture positively affects the

organization’s CSR practices.

Hypothesis H5 Adhocracy culture has a positive effect

on CSR practices.

Since, hypotheses H2 and H4 suggest that ethical lead-

ership favors the development of clan culture, and clan

culture positively affects the organization’s CSR practices,

it is expected that ethical leadership has an indirect effect

on CSR practices through the clan culture. Empirical

studies have substantiated the mediating effect of organi-

zational culture on the ethical leadership–CSR relationship

(Wu et al. 2015). Therefore, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis H6 Clan culture mediates the relationship

between ethical leadership and CSR practices.

This mediation hypothesis is theoretically novel and

needed for completeness of the model so as to fill the gap

in focus. Hence, it is a necessary part of the hypotheses.

As hypotheses H3 and H5 suggest that ethical leadership

favors the development of adhocracy culture, and adhoc-

racy culture positively affects the organization’s CSR

practices, it is expected that:

Hypothesis H7 Adhocracy culture mediates the rela-

tionship between ethical leadership and CSR practices.

All the above-formulated hypotheses are shown in

Fig. 1.

Methodology

Sample

The sample for this study was comprised of organizations

constituting the health care sector of the Indian social

enterprise sphere. Of late, this sector has emerged as a

946 P. Pasricha et al.

123

tremendously growing segment within the multi-sectoral

social enterprise spectrum (Intellecap 2013). Organizations

in this sector are performing yeomen service aimed at

catering to the needs of individuals deprived of decent

health standards. Further, the awe inspiring leadership in

these enterprises is credited with promotion of ethics and

adoption of strategies that facilitate optimization of the

available talent and technology with the aim of ensuring

social responsiveness (Intellecap 2013).

For the purpose of this study, select healthcare organi-

zations were taken up from the social enterprise database

available at the Web site of the Department of Empower-

ment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Jus-

tice and Empowerment, Government of India (List of

registered NGO 2014). These organizations are registered

as per the registration laws governing social enterprises in

India and are situated in the Northern region of the country.

In order to ensure the efficacy of the questionnaire, a pilot

study was first conducted, eliciting responses from 102

individuals occupying managerial positions (middle and

top levels) in these organizations. Subsequent to this, the

final data collection was carried out in the time period

January, 2015 to June, 2015, through a questionnaire sur-

vey, the respondents for which were each organization’s

middle- and top-level managers. Given that managers at

these levels work in close proximity to the organization’s

Chief Executive, they are regarded apt informants of the

executive’s leadership behavior (Tsui et al. 2006). Also,

keeping in view the designation of these managers, it is

surmised that they can provide an insightful analysis of the

organization’s culture and CSR. A survey packet was

comprised of a cover letter (consisting of the study

objectives, the confidentiality certitude, and the request for

participation), and the questionnaire was handed over to

each participant. This on-site administration of

questionnaires facilitated by face-to-face interaction aided

elimination of the possibility of inaccurate responses. The

respondents provided information regarding: their demo-

graphics, the CEO’s ethical leadership behavior, and the

organization’s culture and CSR practices.

A total of 32 organizations were approached, out of

which 28 were enthusiastic about the study and extended

their cooperation in data collection. In total, 410 ques-

tionnaires were distributed in these 28 organizations. Out

of the 410 questionnaires, 362 were returned, resulting

into an 88.29% response rate. Each organization had

multiple respondents ranging from ten to fifteen. Twelve

incomplete responses were removed. Hence, 350 usable

responses were subjected to analysis. Table 1 provides a

comprehensive view of the respondents’ demographic

information.

Measures

For the study measures, standard scales as furnished by the

existing literature were employed. Items constituting these

measures were anchored along a 7-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Brown et al.’s (2005) ten-item instrument, the ethical

leadership scale (ELS) was used to measure ethical lead-

ership. The measures, clan culture and adhocracy culture,

each included six items based on Cameron and Quinn’s

(2006) Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

(OCAI). These culture types are expounded on the basis of

the organization’s characteristics, organizational leader-

ship, management of employees, organizational glue,

strategic emphasis, and the criteria of success (Cameron

and Quinn 2006). The measure, corporate social respon-

sibility, was assessed using eighteen items. These items are

Table 1 Demographic profile of respondents (total number of

respondents = 350)

Managers’ attribute Value Frequency/number Percentage (%)

Gender Male 239 68.29

Female 111 31.71

Age (years) 30 or under 52 14.86

31–50 221 63.14

51 or over 77 22.00

Education Graduate 125 35.71

Postgraduate 173 49.43

Others 52 14.86

Experience level (years) 5 or under 76 21.71

6–10 123 35.14

11–15 85 24.29

16 or over 66 18.86

Position Middle level 232 66.29

Top level 118 33.71

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An… 947

123

based on the work of Torugsa et al. (2013), that employed a

twenty-seven item CSR construct. In concordance with the

suggestions of ten experts (five industry experts and five

subject experts), out of the twenty-seven items, eighteen

items were retained as most appropriate for the current

study. Table 3 presents an elaborated view of the items

corresponding to all of the above measures. Additionally,

organization size and age, the most commonly studied

contextual variables, were incorporated in the model so as

to control for their potential effects on CSR. Organization

size was measured by the logarithm of the number of

employees, and years of establishment of the organization

provided the organization age.

Empirical Analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 20 and

AMOS version 21. At the outset, the data were subjected to

an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Then, Structural

Equation Modeling (SEM) (Anderson and Gerbing 1988)

comprised of: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for

validating the basic structure of the constructs in the pro-

posed model, and path analysis for examining the study

hypotheses illustrated in the model, was utilized as the

analytic approach. That is, the approach encompassed:

(a) the measurement model evaluation and (b) the struc-

tural model evaluation (Schreiber et al. 2006).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Factor Identification

The EFA results reported a .920 Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, which being

above 0.6 is not only acceptable, but is also excellent as

per Kaiser’s recommendations (Hair et al. 2010; Kaiser

1974); also, the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was ascer-

tained to be significant at p \ 0.001. Principal component analysis in unison with varimax rotation resulted into

identification of four components with Eigen values

greater than 1, and reported a 73.662% cumulative vari-

ance explained (Hair et al. 2010; Kaiser 1974). The

rotated component matrix as well yielded four compo-

nents comprised of items with factor loadings above .7

(Hair et al. 2010) (see Table 3).

Common Method Bias Check

To control for the common method variance problem that

might arise due to data collection using same-source self-

reports, the Harman’s one-factor test was employed (Pod-

sakoff and Organ 1986). The first factor exhibited 43.432%

variance (\50%). Thus, common method bias was eluci- dated as not an issue in the current work.

Measurement Model Evaluation

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 conveys the means, standard deviations and cor-

relations of the study constructs. Means and standard

deviations of the constructs ranged from 4.3908 to 5.0553

and 1.23543 to 1.67821, respectively. With regard to cor-

relations between the constructs, the correlation coeffi-

cients revealed that all taken up constructs are distinct and

the highest correlation exists between clan culture and CSR

(r = .631, p \ 0.01).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Before proceeding to the testing of study hypotheses, CFA

was employed to examine the model fit and assess the

reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of

the multi-item constructs.

Assessment of Measurement Model Fit

Maximum likelihood estimation was utilized for testing

each construct’s measurement model. The standardized

factor loadings of items constituting various constructs

were found to be significant and greater than 0.70. Model

fitness was determined using the ensuing fit indices: v2/ degrees of freedom; goodness-of-fit index (GFI); root mean

square error of approximation (RMSEA); adjusted GFI

(AGFI); normed fit index (NFI); comparative fit index

(CFI); parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI); parsimo-

nious normed fit index (PNFI). Values obtained corre-

sponding to the indices related to individual construct’s

measurement model met the statistical standards recom-

mended in the literature (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Bentler and

Bonett 1980; Hu and Bentler 1995; Jöreskog and Sörbom

1984). The overall measurement model capturing all of the

study constructs also very well met the goodness-of-fit

norms as indicated by its fit indices (v2/df = 2.286, GFI = .82, RMSEA = .073, AGFI = .78, NFI = .895,

CFI = .933, PGFI = .674, PNFI = .798).

Assessment of Reliability

Examining the statistical scale reliability of all constructs is

essential for determining the quality of the internal struc-

ture of the proposed model. The criteria for establishing

scale reliability involve inspecting: (a) the factor loadings

of individual items of each construct (C0.7), (b) CR, i.e.,

the composite reliability of each construct (C0.6), and

948 P. Pasricha et al.

123

(c) C-a, i.e., the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of each construct (C0.6) (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Fornell and Lar-

cker 1981; Hair et al. 2010). Table 3 evinces the satisfac-

tion of these criteria in that (a) the factor loadings of all

items ranged from .712 to .908 and were statistically sig-

nificant (p \ 0.001), (b) the Composite Reliabilities of all constructs ranged from 0.915 to 0.978, and (c) the values of

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of all constructs ranged from

0.914 to 0.978.

Assessment of Validity

Results provided in Table 4 indicate the convergent and

discriminant validity of the taken up constructs.

Convergent Validity

The above-mentioned reliability analysis that exhibits

significant factor loadings of individual items and satis-

factory values of construct reliabilities endorses the con-

vergent validity of the constructs (Anderson and Gerbing

1988; Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Furthermore, in accordance

with the approach of Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair

et al. (2010), the convergent validity of the constructs was

established by their Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

values, which ranged from 0.645 to 0.715 and were found

to be higher than the threshold value of 0.5 and lower than

their CR values.

Discriminant Validity

The correction coefficients among the study constructs

(ranged from 0.210 to 0.603) were lower than the squared

root of the AVE value of each of the constructs (the

squared root of the AVE of the constructs ranged from

0.803 to 0.846); also the Average Shared Variance (ASV)

and Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) values of each

construct were lower than its AVE value; this being com-

mensurate with the discriminant validity criteria put forth

by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair et al. (2010)

established the constructs’ discriminant validity.

Structural Model Evaluation

Having accomplished the validation of the measurement

model, the structural model was estimated using path

analysis to evaluate the hypothesized relationships among

the constructs in the study model.

Assessment of Structural Model Fit

The structural path model (see Fig. 2) contains hypothe-

sized paths among ethical leadership, clan culture, adhoc-

racy culture, and CSR. It shows the values of the path

estimates. The fit indices obtained corresponding to this

model (v2/df = 2.291, GFI = .872, RMSEA = .069, AGFI = .831, NFI = .90, CFI = .95, PGFI = .694,

PNFI = .814) meet the model fit benchmarks mentioned in

the preceding subsection and demonstrate the path model’s

satisfactory fit to the data.

Assessment of the Hypothesized Paths

Tables 5 and 6 report the results of the SEM analysis

applied to examine the study hypotheses. These are elab-

orated below:

Evaluation of direct effects (see Table 5): The SEM

results substantiated the significant and positive impact of

ethical leadership on CSR as is demonstrated by b = .276 at p \ 0.001. Hence, hypothesis H1 was supported. Next, hypothesis H2 is concerned with the association between

ethical leadership and clan culture. It was supported in its

entirety as ethical leadership was shown to have a signifi-

cant and positive impact on clan culture (b = .22, p \ 0.001). Hypothesis H3 concerned with the association between ethical leadership and adhocracy culture was

supported as ethical leadership was shown to have a sig-

nificant and positive impact on adhocracy culture (b = .37, p \ 0.001). In the hypothesis H4, it is postulated that clan culture positively relates to CSR. Full support was found

for this hypothesis. In cognizance with b = .58, p \ 0.001, a strong and significant association between clan culture

and CSR was established. The hypothesis H5 proposed that

adhocracy culture positively relates to CSR. As shown in

Table 2 Results of descriptive analysis

n = 350 Mean SD Correlation between constructs

1 2 3 4

1. Ethical leadership 5.0553 1.23543 1

2. Clan culture 4.5307 1.50321 .220** 1

3. Adhocracy

culture

4.3908 1.67821 .369** .329** 1

4. CSR 4.8714 1.41152 .314** .631** .417** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An… 949

123

Table 3 Results of reliability analysis

Construct and items Factor

loading

Cronbach’s

a/CR

Ethical leadership 0.965/0.954

My organization’s CEO conducts personal life in an ethical manner .844

My organization’s CEO defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained .825

My organization’s CEO listens to what employees have to say .837

My organization’s CEO disciplines employees who violate ethical standards .908

My organization’s CEO makes fair and balanced decisions .849

My organization’s CEO can be trusted .872

My organization’s CEO discusses business ethics or values with employees .851

My organization’s CEO sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics .865

My organization’s CEO has the best interests of employees in mind .906

My organization’s CEO when making decisions, asks ‘‘what is the right thing to do?’’ .860

Clan culture 0.914/0.915

My organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves .728

The leadership in my organization is generally considered to exemplify mentoring, facilitating or nurturing .719

The management style in my organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus, and participation .774

The glue that holds my organization together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to the organization runs high .784

My organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness, and participation persist .864

My organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee

commitment, and concern for people

.726

Adhocracy culture 0.936/0.936

My organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to take risks. .761

The leadership in my organization is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking. .858

The management style in my organization is characterized by individual risk taking, innovation, freedom, and

uniqueness.

.827

The glue that holds my organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis

on being the cutting edge

.815

My organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and

prospecting for opportunities are valued

.850

My organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader and

innovator

.849

CSR 0.978/0.978

My organization works with government officials to protect its interest .879

My organization adopts a long-term perspective in decision making in order to guarantee sufficient cash flow and

produce a persistent superior return to shareholders/owners

.712

My organization differentiates products/processes by marketing of their social and environmental performance .760

My organization uses certification on quality aspects, e.g., ISO 9000 .788

My organization encourages employee participation in decision making process .795

My organization encourages creation of good work-life balance and family friendly employment .838

My organization invests in people, e.g., training and employee development .871

My organization provides equal opportunities in workplace, e.g., employs disabled people and/or promotes women

to senior management positions

.874

My organization engages in improving employee health and safety .836

My organization engages in philanthropic activities, e.g., charitable donation .840

My organization sponsors local community initiatives .838

My organization considers interests of stakeholders in investment decisions by creating a formal social dialogue .819

My organization engages in periodic natural environment audits .806

My organization engages in environmental training for employees .759

My organization uses filters and controls on emissions and discharges .756

950 P. Pasricha et al.

123

Table 5, adhocracy culture has a strong and significant

association with CSR (b = .29, p \ 0.001), supporting Hypothesis H5.

Evaluation of indirect effects (see Table 6): It involved

performing the mediation analysis in accordance with the

approach recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). This

Table 4 Results of validity analysis (convergent validity and discriminant validity)

CR AVE MSV ASV Ethical leadership Clan culture Adhocracy culture CSR

Ethical leadership 0.954 0.683 0.126 0.089 0.826

Clan culture 0.915 0.645 0.364 0.168 0.210 0.803

Adhocracy culture 0.936 0.710 0.161 0.127 0.355 0.308 0.843

CSR 0.978 0.715 0.364 0.207 0.309 0.603 0.401 0.846

CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted, ASV average shared variance, MSV maximum shared variance

Fig. 2 Structural model depicting the path estimates.

Note *p \ 0.05; ***p \ 0.001

Table 5 Results obtained on analyzing direct effects’

hypothesized paths via SEM

analysis

Hypothesis Relationship Estimates p Remarks

H1 Ethical leadership–CSR .276 \0.001 Supported H2 Ethical leadership–clan culture .22 \0.001 Supported H3 Ethical leadership–adhocracy culture .37 \0.001 Supported H4 Clan culture–CSR .58 \0.001 Supported H5 Adhocracy culture–CSR .29 \0.001 Supported

Table 3 continued

Construct and items Factor loading Cronbach’s

a/CR

My organization engages in program for water and/or waste recycling/reuse .855

My organization engages in increasing energy efficiency .824

My organization uses certifications on environmental aspects, e.g., ISO 14000 .823

CR composite reliability

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An… 951

123

approach suggests that the independent variable must be

associated with the dependent variable, the independent

variable must be associated with the mediator, the mediator

must be associated with the dependent variable, and

inclusion of the mediator should either lower (partial

mediation) or lend insignificance to (full mediation) the

prior direct association of the independent variable with the

dependent variable.

Hypotheses H6 and H7 deal with the impact of ethical

leadership on CSR via the clan culture and the adhocracy

culture, respectively. In line with Baron and Kenny’s rec-

ommendations, support to hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 and

H5 substantiated the first three conditions. The next key

step was to examine the impact of inclusion of clan culture

and adhocracy culture on the relationship between ethical

leadership and CSR.

On introducing clan culture and controlling for the effect

of adhocracy culture, a decrease in the value of the path

estimate corresponding to the impact of ethical leadership

on CSR was observed, however it remains significant

(b = .15, p \ 0.001). This implies that there is a reduction in the direct influence of ethical leadership on CSR in the

presence of clan culture, and demonstrates the partially

mediating role of clan culture in the ethical leadership–

CSR linkage. Next, on introducing adhocracy culture and

controlling for the effect of clan culture, a decrease in the

value of the path estimate corresponding to the impact of

ethical leadership on CSR was observed, however it

remains significant (b = .13, p \ 0.001). This implies that there is a reduction in the direct influence of ethical lead-

ership on CSR in the presence of adhocracy culture, and

demonstrates the partially mediating role of adhocracy

culture in the ethical leadership–CSR linkage.

An added endeavor consisting of an analysis of the

simultaneous impact of clan and adhocracy cultures on the

ethical leadership–CSR linkage was made. The structural

model depicting this is shown in Fig. 2.

Since on introduction of the mediating variables, a

reduction in the effect of ethical leadership on CSR was

observed, it is deduced that clan culture and adhocracy

culture partially mediate the impact of ethical leadership on

CSR. Thus, hypotheses H6 and H7 were empirically

endorsed. Finally, the impact of control variables on the

dependent variable proved insignificant, therefore, they

were not included in the results.

Furthermore, to ensure robustness of mediation, Boot-

strap analysis using AMOS was performed with 95% CI

(confidence interval). Estimate obtained corresponding to

the direct impact of ethical leadership on CSR was .276;

estimate obtained corresponding to the indirect impact of

ethical leadership on CSR via clan culture was .159; esti-

mate obtained corresponding to the indirect impact of

ethical leadership on CSR via adhocracy culture was .264.

Thus, the Bootstrap results (see Table 7) comprising of

direct, indirect, and total effects substantiated the deduction

made above with regard to the partial mediating effect of

the two organic cultures.

In addition to the above analysis, application of the

SPSS macro, PROCESS (Hayes 2013) for examining the

indirect effect of ethical leadership on CSR provided sig-

nificant information. Table 8 presents the results obtained

on analyzing the hypothesized relationships via PROCESS.

The numbers obtained were highly convincing with regards

to the partial mediation of the two cultures between ethical

leadership and CSR. This backed hypotheses H6 and H7.

Hence, ethical leadership significantly influences CSR

directly, as well as indirectly through its influence on the

clan culture and the adhocracy culture, both of which in

turn influence CSR.

Discussion

This empirical study adds to our understanding of the

association of ethical leadership with CSR, and the

potential mechanisms underlying this association. In con-

sistency with the upper echelons theory, it establishes that

organic organizational cultures serve as mediators in the

ethical leadership–CSR linkage. The study results offered

support for all hypotheses depicted in the proposed model.

They demonstrate that the direct effect of ethical leadership

on CSR is significant, and so is the indirect effect of ethical

leadership on CSR via organic cultures. Findings pertain-

ing to the indirect effect of ethical leadership through clan

and adhocracy cultures yield deeper insights into the rela-

tionship between ethical leadership and CSR. Both, the

internally oriented clan culture and the externally oriented

adhocracy culture were found to partially mediate the

ethical leadership–CSR relationship. This mediating role of

organizational culture reiterates the upper echelons

Table 6 Results obtained on introduction of the mediating variables

Hypothesis and relationship Direct effect Effect after introducing mediator

H6: ethical leadership—clan culture—CSR .276 .15 Significant

H7: ethical leadership—adhocracy culture—CSR .276 .13 Significant

952 P. Pasricha et al.

123

theorization, that is, organizational culture contributes

significantly toward bridging leadership and organizational

outcomes (Berson et al. 2008). The study findings can be

grounded on the rationalization that the behavior of ethical

leaders is inclined toward a concern for both internal and

external stakeholders (Treviño et al. 2000), and by the

same token, internal and external orientation is reflected by

the clan and adhocracy cultures, respectively (Cameron and

Quinn 2006).

Importantly, this study elaborates on the interaction

among ethical leadership, organic organizational cultures,

and CSR, specifically in the context of social enterprise, an

earlier unexplored sector. It offers initial corroboration of

the key role of organic cultures in augmenting the prowess

of ethical leadership as a driver of CSR in social enter-

prises. In doing so, it intends to benefit social enterprise

leaders by enhancing their understanding on the type of

cultures that are crucial and need to be encouraged in order

to manage the organization’s responsiveness to its

stakeholders, and so facilitate organizational effectiveness.

Besides this, the study extends understanding of the non-

existence of mutual exclusiveness between different forms

of organic cultures (Deshpandé et al. 1993; Hartnell et al.

2011). By demonstrating the co-existence of organic clan

and adhocracy cultures as supportive in the ethical lead-

ership–CSR link, it emphasizes that the complementarity of

cultures is crucial for the realization of desirable organi-

zational outcomes.

Additionally, the study results are consistent with pre-

vious studies linking leadership and CSR (Waldman and

Siegel 2008; Waldman et al. 2006b, Wu et al. 2015; Yukl

2001). Specifically, they empirically support Siegel’s per-

spective on values-driven CSR in demonstrating ethical

leadership marked by the leader’s morality as instrumental

in driving CSR (Waldman and Siegel 2008). The present

research holds that this driving effect is pronounced in

social enterprises, since leaders in these organizations are

primarily accountable to the wide array of stakeholders and

are concerned with achievement of the organization’s

social mission. Hence, in accordance with prior studies, an

organization’s leadership does impact organizational out-

comes in the form of CSR. Extending this, the research

maintains that organizational culture is instrumental in this

impact, since in accordance with the findings, the leader’s

behavior determines the organization’s culture which in

turn determines the organization’s CSR.

Implications

Looking at the pertinence of CSR in terms of effectiveness

of social enterprises, this study has major implications for

such organizations. As per the study results, social enter-

prise leaders aspiring for the realization of organizational

effectiveness through social responsiveness are encouraged

to follow an ethical course of action, since ethical leader-

ship behavior is found to be associated with the organiza-

tion’s high propensity to engage in CSR activities. Having

and communicating a code of ethics is something cus-

tomary in the social enterprise scenario; what matters is

that enterprise leaders need to walk the talk (Ciulla 1999)

by themselves resorting to ethical and pro social behavior.

Table 7 Results obtained on analyzing mediation effects via bootstrapping

Hypothesis and relationship Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect Remark

H6: ethical leadership–clan culture–CSR .276 .159 .435 Partial mediation

Supported

H7: ethical leadership–adhocracy culture–CSR .276 .264 .540 Partial mediation

Supported

n = 350; Bootstrap sample size = 1000

Table 8 Results obtained on analyzing the hypothesized relation- ships via PROCESS

Total effect of X on Y

Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI

.6990 .1131 6.1779 .0000 .4764 .9215

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI

.2756 .0950 2.9000 .0040 .0887 .4626

Indirect effect of X on Y

Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

TOTAL .4233 .0890 .2342 .5875

AC .1590 .0448 .0822 .2602

CC .2643 .0706 .1203 .4031

X ethical leadership, Y CSR, AC adhocracy culture, CC clan culture,

SE standard error, t t value, p the significance level, LLCI lower-limit

confidence interval, ULCI upper-limit confidence interval

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An… 953

123

This walk the talk of ethics by the upper echelon leaders

would facilitate successful management of responsiveness,

and would progressively channelize their efforts to guide

their organizations to socially productive outcomes; since

when executives on account of their cordial characteristics

and ethical values exhibit ethical behavior, they are able to

subsequently nurture humane and enterprising cultures,

which give an impetus to CSR practices and hence are of

great import in leveraging the organization’s resources

toward the attainment of its social objective.

Furthermore, in accordance with the current study

findings, there is high likelihood of demonstration of CSR

by organizations wherein clan and adhocracy cultures are

encouraged. Therefore, social enterprise leaders in their

endeavors to enhance social impact should pay attention to

their organizations’ culture, since culture could act as a key

factor that may heighten the pursuit of socially responsible

practices. It is crucial for them to comprehend the cultures

of their organizations and work toward advancing cultures

that are supportive of CSR.

Next, this study has implications with respect to the

executive hiring criteria in social enterprises. Since top

executives are mainly held responsible for the overall

organizational success, organizations in the social enter-

prise ambit are encouraged to set quality hiring standards

that take into account ethicality in addition to assessing

other leadership qualities of prospective CEOs (Wu et al.

2015). Study findings point out that the effectiveness of

managerial appointments in such organizations would

depend on the assessment of individuals’ abilities to nur-

ture CSR favorable organizational cultures so as to facili-

tate the creation of a CSR enabling environment, and

further realization of the organization’s social objectives.

By and by, key implications are offered to HR practitioners

therein, as they are encouraged to include ethics as an

indispensable element of the leadership appraisal and

development processes (Groves and LaRocca 2011) so as

to gravitate ethical individuals to executive appointments.

Further, they are advised to embed social responsibility

programs in the leadership development agenda, since

doing so can develop individuals’ abilities to foster CSR

supportive values in the organization. Also, this would

have an added benefit in terms of a positive influence on

employee performance and hence overall organizational

performance, as found by a recent global study conducted

by the Korn Ferry Hay Group (Basu 2016).

Implications with Regard to Recent Developments

in India’s Social Enterprise Landscape

An examination of the current scenario prevailing in

India’s Social Enterprise Landscape reveals a ‘bubble

building’ situation constituted by a sharp drop in funding

and impact investment (Karunakaran 2013). Such dire state

of affairs envisages a situation where in social enterprise

leaders would be entangled in commercial concerns, and

social enterprises would be exposed to the risk of mission

drift (Karunakaran 2013). Therefore, the current scenario

has ramifications not only for social enterprises, but also

the complete social setup of the country as it is deterio-

rating the capability of the social enterprise system to

deliver social value. Amid tough financial conditions,

social enterprise leaders have begun to face catch-22 situ-

ations demanding realization of competing objectives:

maximizing returns and creating social impact. Social

enterprises are coping with the mammoth challenge of

sustaining their socially responsible stance. Adding to this,

the internal ethos of these organizations is also being

marred by the existing dynamics. Practices focused on

employee development, employee participation in decision

making, transparency are diminishing in terms of being

managerial priorities (Dart 2004; Eikenberry 2009; Ohana

et al. 2012). Effective management of social enterprises is

becoming an uphill task. But, for dealing with the disorder

prevailing in the social economy, sound social enterprise

management is a sine qua non. Herein, the findings

established by the present study are of worth for social

enterprises.

Governance is a key facet of social enterprise manage-

ment (Low 2006). Good governance is an absolute neces-

sity to deal with the existing dynamics (Bakker et al. 2014).

Ethical leadership as substantiated by the current study

holds tremendous potential for ensuring that the socially

responsible stand of the organization be nurtured and sus-

tained, and hence warrants good governance for avoiding

mission drift. Social enterprise leaders are therefore sug-

gested to resort to ethical behavior; doing so, they can

shape an organizational milieu that is conducive to the

resolution of accountability issues arising from multifari-

ous stakeholders’ expectations. By nurturing clan and

adhocracy cultures in the organization, leaders in social

enterprises can elicit positive outcomes in terms of social

impact maximization. They can further these organic cul-

tures by endorsing employee management practices such as

participative decision making, autonomy, employee

development, encouraging teamwork and employee voice.

Such practices would enable the leader commit the avail-

able human and financial resources toward achievement of

the enterprise’s mission. Since leaders by being ethical can

provide a moral compass to the organization and succeed in

taking the organization in the right direction, they can

ensure the organization’s sustainability in the long run.

Thus, the study findings by facilitating an enhanced

understanding on social enterprise management provide

crucial inputs to practitioners in the country’s social sector.

Since India is a developing economy, the authors opine that

954 P. Pasricha et al.

123

these findings and their implications hold importance for

other developing economies as well.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current study has some limitations. First, as it absolutely

attends to the effect of organic cultures, studying the impact

of mechanistic cultures on the leadership–CSR association is

an important avenue for future research and will provide

additional insights into when and how leadership influences

the organization’s ability to demonstrate CSR.

Second limitation of this work is its cross-sectional

research design restricting causal elucidation of the

examined relationships among the key study variables. The

inferred directionality of relationships is grounded on

backing by the contemporary literature. Further, it might be

that the predominance of a specific type of culture actuates

a particular type of CSR practices which may either be

socially concentrated, or economic, or environment related.

It might as well be that cultural consensus around specific

organizational values effects the leadership–outcomes

relationship in unexpected ways (Jaskyte 2004). Therefore,

the possibility of intricate causal relationships among the

worked upon variables cannot be ruled out. To address this

limitation, future studies utilizing a longitudinal research

design are encouraged.

Third, this study utilized the same source, i.e., middle-

and top-level managers for rating CEO ethical leadership,

organic organizational cultures, and CSR. Ratings of

organizational culture from the CEO, and those of CEO

ethical leadership and CSR from multiple TMT members

other than the CEO (Wu et al. 2015), i.e., data collection

from multiple informants, would aid in enrichment of the

validity of various findings. Additionally, it would be really

interesting and value adding that a multilevel approach

encompassing aggregation of data from one level to

another be followed in subsequent research, for instance,

by aggregating information at an organizational level such

that it reflects the average assessment on CEOs ethical

leadership and CSR.

Fourth, the current work is limited with regard to gen-

eralizability as it was carried out in the healthcare orga-

nizations constituting a particular category of social

enterprises; also, the possibility of a selection bias cannot

be ruled out since the participant organizations were those

that were quite keen to provide their input for the study.

Therefore, future studies may seek to substantiate the study

findings on a wider sample.

Finally, the moderating effects of certain variables on

the leadership–CSR association can be further studied. For

instance, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is a

single study that demonstrates moderation by exploring the

role of managerial discretion as the moderator in the

‘ethical leadership–social responsibility’ relationship (Wu

et al. 2015). The authors echo the call of Wu et al. (2015) to

examine the role of boundary conditions of leadership

(Mumford and Barrett 2012) that may have an impact on

the organization’s CSR.

Conclusion

Putting in a nutshell, this empirical study elaborates on the

mediation mechanism that sheds light on how ethical

leadership influences CSR practices, which hold extreme

importance in the light of effectiveness of particularly the

social enterprises. It demonstrates that ethical leadership

positively affects CSR; also, ethical leadership favors the

development of clan and adhocracy organizational cultures,

which in turn have a positive effect on CSR practices.

Conclusively, it provides significant insights for social

enterprises in their endeavors to become socially respon-

sive and develop their potential for creating a positive

social impact.

Acknowledgements We would like to humbly acknowledge Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Roorkee, for providing us the unique

opportunity of carrying out research in this topic.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of

the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964

Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable

ethical standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants included in the study.

References

Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and

doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know

about corporate social responsibility: A review and research

agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

Alvesson, M., & Lindkvist, L. (1993). Transaction costs, clans and

corporate culture. Journal of Management Studies, 30(3), 427–452.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J.

(2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativ-

ity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1),

5–32.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation

modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(5), 411–423.

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An… 955

123

Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles

and CSR practice: An examination of sensemaking, institutional

drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2),

189–213.

Appiah-Adu, K., & Blankson, C. (1998). Business strategy, organi-

zational culture, and market orientation. Thunderbird Interna-

tional Business Review, 40(3), 235–256.

Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When

leadership goes unnoticed: The moderating role of follower self-

esteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and

follower behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 573–582.

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

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

74–94.

Bakker, A., Schaveling, J., & Nijhof, A. (2014). Governance and

microfinance institutions. Corporate Governance, 14(5), 637–652.

Balser, D., & McClusky, J. (2005). Managing stakeholder relation-

ships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Man-

agement & Leadership, 15(3), 295–315.

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

Prentice-Hall.

Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of

sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management

Review, 11(3), 656–665.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator

variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,

strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta-

tions. New York: Basic Books.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and

organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1),

112–121.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic

transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly,

10(2), 181–217.

Basu, S. (2016, March 31). Social responsibility programs have

positive impact: Study. The Economic Times. Retrieved from

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/social-responsibility-

programs-have-positive-impact-study/articleshow/51630699.cms

Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic

review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal

of Business Ethics, 139(3), 517–536.

Bennis, W. (1986). Leaders and visions: Orchestrating the corporate

culture. In M. A. Berman (Ed.), Corporate culture and change.

New York: The Conference Board Inc.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and

goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.

Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational

culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

29(5), 615–633.

Bhalla, N. (2014, April 10). Social entrepreneurs battle bureaucracy,

need help to expand. Reuters. Retrieved from http://in.reuters.

com/article/2014/04/10/india-entrepreneurs-

idINDEEA3909420140410

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New

York: Harper & Row.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review

and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.

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

leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-

ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 97(2), 117–134.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation.

London: Tavistock.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing

organizational culture: Based on the competing values frame-

work (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of

corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4),

497–505.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:

Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.

Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a

definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and

organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices,

and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1062–1081.

Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship. International

Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5–26.

Chell, E., Nicolopoulou, K., & Karataş-Özkan, M. (2010). Social

entrepreneurship and enterprise: International and innovation

perspectives. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6),

485–493.

Christensen, L. J., Mackey, A., & Whetten, D. (2014). Taking

responsibility for corporate social responsibility: The role of

leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding

socially responsible firm behaviors. The Academy of Manage-

ment Perspectives, 28(2), 164–178.

Chughtai, A. A. (2014). Can ethical leaders enhance their followers’

creativity? Leadership, 12(2), 230–249.

Ciulla, J. B. (1999). The importance of leadership in shaping business

values. Long Range Planning, 32(2), 166–172.

Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Woods, A., & Wallace,

J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the social enter-

prise. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 355–370.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small

firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management

Journal, 10(1), 75–87.

Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit

Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.

Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibil-

ities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70–76.

Davis, S. M. (1984). Managing corporate culture. New York:

Ballinger.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and

despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsi-

bility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’

optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly,

19(3), 297–311.

Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational

effectiveness. New York: Wiley.

Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E. (1993). Corporate

culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese

firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1),

23–37.

Di Domenico, M. L., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social

bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703.

Eikenberry, A. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse

for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Volun-

tary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–596.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation

models with unobservable variables and measurement error.

Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The

Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727.

956 P. Pasricha et al.

123

Galbreath, J. (2010). Drivers of corporate social responsibility: The

role of formal strategic planning and firm culture. British Journal

of Management, 21(2), 511–525.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa,

F. O. (2005). ‘‘Can you see the real me?’’ A self-based model of

authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quar-

terly, 16(3), 343–372.

Giberson, T. G., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K.,

Randall, K. R., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Leadership and

organizational culture: Linking CEO characteristics to cultural

values. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 123–137.

Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of leader

ethical values, transformational and transactional leadership, and

follower attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. Journal

of Business Ethics, 103(4), 511–528.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate

data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The

organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of

Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational

culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic inves-

tigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical

suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–694.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and

conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the

social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 185–206.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and

organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Hsu, A., Hou, S., & Fan, H. (2011). Creative self-efficacy and

innovative behavior in a service setting: Optimism as a

moderator. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(4), 258–272.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R.

H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues,

and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Intellecap. (2012). Understanding human resource challenges in the

indian social enterprise sector. Hyderabad: Intellecap.

Intellecap. (2013). Pathways to progress a sectoral study of indian

social enterprises. Hyderabad: Intellecap.

International Monetary Fund. (2014, October). World Economic

Outlook (WEO): legacies, clouds, uncertainties. Retrieved

November 18, 2014, from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/

weo/2014/02/pdf/text.pdf.

Jaskyte, K. (2004). Transformational leadership, organizational

culture, and innovativeness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit

Management & Leadership, 15(2), 153–168.

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.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). Lisrel VI. Analysis of linear

structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental

variables, and least squares methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific

Software.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika,

39(1), 31–36.

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

Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transforma-

tional leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4),

257–265.

Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karunakaran, N. (2013, July 23). Social Enterprises: Bubble building

within the space, creating fissures in the sector. The Economic

Times. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.

com/2013-07-23/news/40749657_1_social-entrepreneurs-social-

enterprises-social-sector

Khuntia, R., & Suar, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leadership of

Indian private and public sector managers. Journal of Business

Ethics, 49(1), 13–26.

Kumar, R., & Uzkurt, C. (2011). Investigating the effects of self

efficacy on innovativeness and the moderating impact of cultural

dimensions. Journal of International Business and Cultural

Studies, 4(1), 1–15.

Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability

and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4),

357–366.

List of registered NGO. (2014). In Department of empowerment of

persons with disabilities. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from

http://disabilityaffairs.gov.in/content/page/list-of-registered-ngo.

php

Low, C. (2006). A framework for the governance of social enterprise.

International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 376–385.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial

orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of

Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

Ma, Y., Cheng, W., Ribbens, B. A., & Zhou, J. (2013). Linking

ethical leadership to employee creativity: Knowledge sharing

and self-efficacy as mediators. Social Behavior and Personality:

An International Journal, 41(9), 1409–1419.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a

stakeholder society—A relational perspective. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 66(1), 99–115.

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.

Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2013).

Extending corporate social responsibility research to the human

resource management and organizational behavior domains: A

look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 805–824.

Mumford, M. D., & Barrett, J. D. (2012). Leader effectiveness: Who

really is the leader? In M. G. Rumsey (Ed.), The Oxford

handbook of leadership. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398793.

013.0025.

Ohana, M., Meyer, M., & Swaton, S. (2012). Decision-making in

social enterprises: Exploring the link between employee partic-

ipation and organizational commitment. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1092–1110.

Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific

Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administra-

tive Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129–141.

Padgett, R. C., & Galán, J. I. (2010). The effect of R&D intensity on

corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3),

407–418.

Pastoriza, D., Ariño, M. A., & Ricart, J. E. (2008). Ethical managerial

behavior as antecedent of organizational social capital. Journal

of Business Ethics, 78(3), 329–341.

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R.

(2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job

characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3),

259–278.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organiza-

tional research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Manage-

ment, 12(4), 531–544.

Ethical Leadership, Organic Organizational Cultures and Corporate Social Responsibility: An… 957

123

Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K.

(2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of

ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345–359.

Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical

leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace

behavior. Human Relations, 66(7), 951–972.

Resick, C. J., Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Dickson, M. W., Kwan,

H. K., & Peng, C. (2011). What ethical leadership means to me:

Asian, American, and European perspectives. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 101(3), 435–457.

Ridley-Duff, R. (2008). Social enterprise as a socially rational

business. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &

Research, 14(5), 291–312.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Assessing organizational culture: The case

for multiple methods. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational

climate and culture (pp. 153–192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,

40(3), 437–453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x.

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J.

(2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory

factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational

Research, 99(6), 323–337.

Swanson, D. L. (2008). Top managers as drivers for corporate social

responsibility. In A. Crane et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of

corporate social responsibility (pp. 227–248). Norfolk: Oxford

University Press.

Tierney, P. A., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its

potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.

Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the

relationships with full range leadership model, employee

outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business

Ethics, 90(4), 533–547. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0059-3.

Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., & Hecker, R. (2013). Proactive

CSR: An empirical analysis of the role of its economic, social

and environmental dimensions on the association between

capabilities and performance. Journal of Business Ethics,

115(2), 383–402.

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

and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for

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

128–142.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral

ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management,

32(6), 951–990. doi:10.1177/0149206306294258.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work

organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Z.-X., Want, H., Xin, K. R., & Wu, J. B. (2006).

Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behavior

and organizational culture. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2),

113–137.

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Professional ethical stan-

dards, corporate social responsibility, and the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,

82(3), 657–666. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9584-0.

Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and

the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society

Review, 109(1), 5–42.

Waldman, D. A., de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., House, R. J., et al.

(2006a). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social

responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15

countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6),

823–837.

Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially

responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 117–131.

Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006b). Components of

CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibil-

ity. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1703–1725.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits

and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical

leadership and workgroup psychological safety. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.

Wei, Y., Samiee, S., & Lee, R. P. (2014). The influence of organic

organizational cultures, market responsiveness, and product

strategy on firm performance in an emerging market. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 49–70. doi:10.1007/

s11747-013-0337-6.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy

of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.

Wu, L. Z., Ho, K. K., Yim, F. H., Chiu, R., & He, X. (2015). CEO

ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility: A moder-

ated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4),

819–831. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2108-9.

Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influence

employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic

motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 441–455.

Yu, Y., & Choi, Y. (2016). Stakeholder pressure and CSR adoption:

The mediating role of organizational culture for Chinese

companies. The Social Science Journal, 53(2), 226–235.

Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical

leadership behavior on employee outcomes: The roles of

psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Lead-

ership and Organizational Studies, 11(1), 16–26.

Zhu, Y., Sun, L., & Leung, A. (2014). Corporate social responsibility,

firm reputation, and firm performance: The role of ethical

leadership. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(4),

925–947. doi:10.1007/s10490-013-9369-1.

Zilberg, T., & Galli, Y. (2012). The role of solution-focused teams in

social responsibility implementation. In Managerial Challenges of

the Contemporary Society. Proceedings, (Vol. 4, pp. 213–218).

Cluj-Napoca: Babes Bolyai University. Retrieved from http://

search.proquest.com/docview/1287025511?accountid=27544

958 P. Pasricha et al.

123

Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved.