Week 2

Ethics Matter: Moderating Leaders’ Power Use and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors

Peter J. Reiley • Rick R. Jacobs

Received: 15 November 2013 / Accepted: 2 October 2014 / Published online: 11 October 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethics

have the potential to impact the way they react to the influence

of these leaders. The present study of 365 U.S. Air Force

Academy Cadets examined how followers’ perceptions of their

leaders’ ethics moderated the relationships found between the

leaders’ use of power, as conceptualized by French and Raven

(Studies in social power, 1959), and the followers’ contextual

performance. Our results indicated that leaders’ use of expert,

referent, and reward power was associated with higher levels of

organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) among their fol-

lowers when the followers perceived these leaders to be more

ethical. Moreover, when followers perceived their leaders to be

less ethical, these followers reported lower levels of OCBs

when their leaders’ utilized referent power. Practical implica-

tions, limitations, and future research are also discussed.

Keywords Coercive power � Ethical leadership � Ethics � Expert power � Follower � Leader’s power use � Legitimate power � Military � Organizational citizenship behavior � Perception � Performance � Power bases � Referent power � Reward power � Social influence

Ethics Matter: Moderating Leaders’ Power Use

and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors

Power has a bad reputation—but power is a fundamental

element of the leadership process (Hollander 1985). Lord

Acton’s oft-quoted notion that ‘‘power tends to corrupt, and

absolute power corrupts absolutely,’’ captures a seemingly

common concern associated with those who wield great

power. The nineteenth-century politician’s belief that

power carries a negative, and even corrupt, connotation is

echoed in the modern day by many scholars and practi-

tioners alike. In his aptly titled bestseller, The No Asshole

Rule, Stanford University Professor Robert Sutton (2007)

underscored the negative corollaries of power:

A huge body of research—hundreds of studies—

shows that when people are put in positions of power,

they start talking more, taking what they want for

themselves, ignoring what other people say or want,

ignoring how less-powerful people react to their

behaviors, acting more rudely, and generally treating

any situation or person as a means for satisfying their

own needs. (p. 70)

Although some researchers have argued that a person

who uses power and authority in this manner cannot truly

be considered a ‘‘leader’’ (e.g., Howell and Avolio 1992;

Kellerman 2004; Yukl 1999; Yukl and Van Fleet 1992),

several theories have been developed to better recognize

and understand the influence of these powerful individuals

in the leadership process. Ashforth (1994) characterized

‘‘petty tyrants’’ who use their power in oppressive, vin-

dictive, and seemingly unpredictable ways. Relatedly,

others have identified behaviors or conditions associated

with abusive supervision (Tepper 2000), manipulative

Machiavellianism (Wilson et al. 1996), destructive lead-

ership (Einarsen et al. 2007; Thoroughgood et al. 2012),

and the contributing incubators that enable ‘‘negative

leadership’’ found in the toxic triangle of leadership (Pa-

dilla et al. 2007). This research trend, and perhaps the

negative perception of power, is invigorated by the

P. J. Reiley (&) United States Air Force, USAF Academy, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

R. R. Jacobs

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2016) 134:69–81

DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2416-0

prominent exemplars found in many businesses and orga-

nizations today. Business magnates, CEOs, military gen-

erals, and even presidents have famously used their power

and influence in ways that have led many of their subor-

dinates to brand them as ‘‘jerks’’…or worse! Farmer and Aguinis (2005) noted that an immense gap

in the power literature exists in our understanding of how

followers’ perceptions surrounding power lead to particular

subordinate outcomes. Moreover, researchers have also

noted that the power literature largely fails to account for

interaction effects which may explain important outcomes

(e.g., Podsakoff and Schriesheim 1985). From this stand-

point, leadership researchers have called for a more robust

investigation of how followers’ perceptions of their leaders

affect the outcomes associated with the leaders’ power and

behavior (e.g., Avolio 2007; Barbuto 2000; Padilla 2012).

This study sought to address these shortcomings by

examining how followers’ perceptions of their leaders

relate to their contextual performance relative to the lead-

ers’ power use.

In spite of its reputation, power itself is a neutral force.

Although Rahim (1989) defined power as ‘‘the ability of

one party to change or control the behavior, attitudes,

opinions, objectives, needs, and values of another party’’

(p. 545), this limited conceptualization of power follows a

basic, leader-centric definition of leadership as ‘‘a process

whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to

achieve a common goal’’ (Northouse 2012, p. 5). While it

is clear that effective leaders must be able to utilize power

to motivate subordinates, gain support from peers, and

influence their superiors to provide resources (Falbe and

Yukl 1992), the myriad of classic ‘‘positive’’ leadership

theories and more recent ‘‘negative’’ theories have dem-

onstrated that ‘‘leaders’’ have different approaches to their

use of power, and that these methods and their associated

outcomes are affected by a broader mix of factors in the

leadership process. This leads us to an important question:

Why are some leaders labeled as ‘‘jerks’’ by some fol-

lowers, while these same individuals are praised by many

other followers as some of the most influential people of

their generation, idolized for their successes, and even

revered as role models and bestselling authors of autobi-

ographies and leadership ‘‘how-to’’ books?

These juxtaposed perspectives represent a significant

duality in the dynamics of leadership and encourage us to

consider more than simple, reductionist-based, black and

white interactions and examine the confounding ‘‘shades

of gray’’ that affect the power–performance relationship.

However, contemporary leadership research has taken a

primarily leader-centric approach with an aim of identi-

fying effective leader behaviors (Bligh 2010; Hunter et al.

2007; Vroom and Jago 2007). While this has built an

important foundation for our understanding of the field, it

assumes that all followers recognize and respond to the

same types of influence and underrates the importance of

followers’ individual perceptions and perspectives in the

leadership dynamic. Consequently, researchers have begun

to conceptualize the leadership process as an interaction

between the leader, the followers, and the situation, rather

than being purely leader driven (Yukl 2005). Padilla

(2012) suggested that researchers extend their focus to

also account for the effects of followers’ perceptions and

other contextual elements that shape the leadership pro-

cess. Like leadership, power use is more than a leader’s

behavior; its application and effects rely on a broader

interaction of elements which also include the followers

and the situation. For example, Barbuto (2000) outlined a

framework for understanding the underlying mechanisms

that trigger a follower’s willingness to be influenced by

leaders. He proposed that the probability that these trig-

gers will lead to a follower’s compliance is determined by

the leader’s perceived bases of power, the follower’s

sources of motivation, and the follower’s level of resis-

tance to the influence. Drawing from these foundational

perspectives, the positive or negative effects of a leader’s

power may be shaped largely by the predilections and

acuities surrounding its use. Specifically, how followers

perceive the leader using the power, and the power itself,

may change the way followers respond to the leader’s

influence.

Followers’ perceptions of their leader and their leader’s

motives are key elements of the leadership dynamic. As in

the case of power use, different leaders may rely on the

same personal attributes or techniques with divergent per-

sonal motives. For example, Howell and Avolio (1992)

described the influential power of charisma and the

importance of recognizing its potential ‘‘dark side.’’

Drawing from the results of an interview study as well as

popular management literature, they noted that personal-

ized charismatic leaders, who are unethical and motivated

by self-centered power objectives, can be destructive to an

organization and its followers when compared to socialized

charismatic leaders who use their influence for the common

good. In a later study, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) dis-

tinguished between two types of transformational leaders:

authentic transformational leaders, who are ethical, gen-

uine, and use power toward noble ends, legitimate means,

and fair consequences, and pseudo-transformational lead-

ers, who are self-interested, lack morality, and who seek

and use power at the expense of others. While these

approaches may seem to rely on similar types of power and

abilities on the surface, followers’ perceptions of their

leader’s motives may affect the resultant behaviors of these

followers. Recent findings by Den Hartog and Belschak

(2012) provide some evidence that followers are able to

distinguish between authentic and inauthentic displays of

70 P. J. Reiley, R. R. Jacobs

123

ethical leadership and that these perceptions of inauthen-

ticity were associated with reduced work engagement,

lower personal initiative, and increased counter-work

behaviors. Given that followers assess the motives behind

leaders’ behavior, beyond the surface characteristics of

their influence techniques, followers’ perceptions of

authentic ethical leadership may affect the way these fol-

lowers respond to leaders’ power use in terms of contextual

performance behavior.

The current study sought to contribute to the literature

and our understanding of leadership by (1) investigating

the importance of ethics by identifying how followers’

perceptions of their leaders’ ethics moderated the rela-

tionships found between the leaders’ use of power and the

followers’ contextual performance behaviors; (2) address-

ing previously identified gaps in the power literature by

examining followers’ perceptions and their relationships to

behavioral outcomes; and (3) exploring a broader concep-

tualization of leadership as a process, beyond the leader’s

behavior. In the following section, we provide a theoretical

review of the current study’s key constructs (i.e., bases of

leader’s power, followers’ organizational citizenship

behaviors, and followers’ perceptions of their leaders’

ethics) and expand on the current study’s theoretical

foundation. Next, we describe the methodology utilized in

the current study and present the results. Finally, we dis-

cuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications

of our findings.

Theoretical Review and Hypotheses Development

Bases of Leaders’ Power

Leadership scholars and practitioners have been fascinated

with the idea of power and the resonating impact of its use.

As a result, several taxonomies of power have emerged

(e.g., Kipnis et al. 1980; Mudler 1971; Patchen 1974;

Peabody 1961; Shukla 1982; Yukl and Falbe 1991).

However, French and Raven’s (1959) original classifica-

tion of power types remains the most popular and widely

utilized model (Cobb 1980; Rahim et al. 2000; Rahim and

Magner 1996).

French and Raven (1959) categorized five bases of

power which agents (e.g., leaders) use to influence the

behavior of targets (e.g., followers): legitimate, reward,

coercive, expert, and referent power. Legitimate power is

the formal authority derived from the leader’s position or

followers’ belief that the leader has a right to influence

them and that they are obligated to accept this influence.

Reward power is based on the leader’s ability to remu-

nerate followers for obedience. Coercive power comes

from the follower’s expectation that he or she will be

punished for failing to obey or achieve the leader’s goals.

Expert power is derived from the task-relevant knowledge

or abilities the leader possesses. Referent power stems from

the admiration and attraction followers have toward the

leader.

Bass (1960) and Etzioni (1975) classified legitimate,

reward, and coercive powers as position powers which are

organizationally based and originate from a leader’s formal

role, without regard for the personal attributes of the

individual filling that position. They further distinguished

referent and expert powers as personal powers drawn from

the way followers perceive a particular leader’s attributes,

irrespective of the position that leader may hold. Rahim’s

(1988) exploratory factor analysis of data from 476 man-

agers and employees, and Yukl and Falbe’s (1991) sub-

sequent examination of three large companies provided

further empirical support for these categorical distinctions.

While power, at least in part, does derive from the

positions and behaviors of individuals, it extends well

beyond the ability of an individual to influence others.

Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) recognized this limitation

of French and Raven’s (1959) original typology and re-

conceptualized French and Raven’s power forms from the

perceiver’s (e.g., the follower’s) perspective. This view

acknowledges that power is at least partly derived from the

target’s perceptions as well (see also Barbuto 2000). For

example, certain behaviors may be ‘‘coercive’’ to one tar-

get (i.e., the influencer has coercive ability from that tar-

get’s perspective), but not ‘‘coercive’’ to another target.

Much of what we know about the effects of leaders’

power use has focused on the direct relationships of these

power classifications on subordinate outcomes. Social

power studies have indicated that person-based powers

(i.e., expert and referent powers) are generally related

positively to several principal indicators of subordinates’

effectiveness, such as task performance (e.g., Slocum 1970;

Student 1968), citizenship behavior (e.g., Jain et al. 2010),

productivity (e.g., Fiorelli 1988), job satisfaction (e.g.,

Bachman 1968; Rahim 1989), satisfaction with supervision

(e.g., Bachman et al. 1966; Busch 1980), commitment

(e.g., Yukl and Falbe 1991), compliance (e.g., Bachman

et al. 1968), reduced turnover, and diminished absenteeism

(e.g., Sheridan and Vredenburgh 1978). Conversely, posi-

tion-based powers (i.e., reward, coercive, and legitimate

powers) are generally related negatively to these same

outcomes. However, in spite of these overarching trends,

legitimate and coercive powers have sometimes been

shown to be unrelated to follower outcomes and reward

power has been associated with both positive and negative

outcomes (Carson et al. 1993; Jain et al. 2010; Podsakoff

and Schriesheim 1985). In their review and critique of

power research based on French and Raven’s (1959)

model, Podsakoff and Schriesheim (1985) warned that

Moderating Power Use and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors 71

123

most studies did not attempt to develop or test theory to

explain exactly how or why social power impacted fol-

lower outcomes. Instead, these studies focused primarily on

correlating the five bases of power with various dependent

variables, and offered little empirical, or even conceptual,

consideration of moderating factors which alter the nature

of the power–outcome relationship. To date, there has been

a scant response to Podsakoff and Schriesheim’s (1985)

call for more empirical research of these types of rela-

tionships. Our review of the power literature yielded few

investigations of moderating variables that affected the

outcomes associated with French and Raven’s (1959)

power taxonomy. One exception was Elangovan and Xie’s

(1999) work which suggested that subordinates’ self-

esteem and perceived locus of control may impact the

relationships found between their leader’s power use and

the subordinates’ levels of stress and motivation. However,

little attention has been paid to the factors that moderate

the critical link between leaders’ power use and followers’

contextual performance behaviors.

Followers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Borman and Montowidlo’s (1993) model of performance

categorized two types of performance behaviors: task

performance (the core technical requirements of a job) and

contextual performance (support activities and conscien-

tious initiative). Among these contextual performance

behaviors, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is

one of the most researched (Dyne et al. 1995). Organ

(1988) defined OCB as ‘‘contributions individuals make to

their employing organization in ways not captured by their

job description’’ (p. ix). OCBs differ from task activities in

that they support the social and psychological environment

in which task performance occurs (Borman and Motowidlo

1993). OCBs are considered discretionary, ‘‘extra-role’’

behaviors that are conceptually and (to some extent)

empirically distinct from task performance, which is rec-

ognized and defined more clearly as part of the individual’s

duties (Bateman and Organ 1983; Hoffman et al. 2007).

Compared to task performance, OCBs are less affected by

the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the individual and are

related more closely to work attitudes and perceptions

(Bateman and Organ 1983; Hoffman et al. 2007; Organ and

Ryan 1995). In addition, followers’ willingness to engage

in OCBs has also been linked to other determinant vari-

ables beyond leaders’ actual behavior, such as perceptions

of leaders’ charisma (Awamleh and Gardner 1999). Given

these characteristics, OCBs may be a more appropriate

focus for exploring the interaction effect of followers’

perceptions of leaders’ ethics on leaders’ power use and

followers’ performance across a range of positions and

ability levels.

Followers’ Perceptions of their Leaders’ Ethics

Followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ honesty, integrity,

and trustworthiness have been associated with their lead-

ers’ perceived effectiveness (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1991;

Kouzes and Posner 1993). Treviño et al. (2003) built on

this premise and characterized ethical leaders as honest and

trustworthy individuals who are perceived as principled,

fair, and caring people who conducted themselves in an

ethical manner in both their personal and professional lives.

From this, Brown et al. (2005) came to define ethical

leadership as ‘‘the demonstration of normatively appro-

priate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal

relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to fol-

lowers through two-way communication, reinforcement,

and decision making’’ (p. 120).

Perceptions of Ethics and the Personal Power—OCB

Relationship

Leaders who engage in ethical behavior strengthen inter-

personal relationships (Walumbwa et al. 2011), which may

reinforce the mechanisms that encourage followers to

recognize and accept leaders’ personal influence. Treviño

et al. (2006) reasoned that, ‘‘because ethical leaders are

caring and fair, relationships with ethical leaders are built

upon social exchange and norms of reciprocity’’ (p. 967).

These social-exchange-based relationships may increase

the likelihood that followers will respond to leaders’ power

use with supportive OCBs. Konovsky and Pugh’s (1994)

social exchange model provides support to suggest that

trust, fairness, and considerate decision making (key ele-

ments associated with ethical leaders) contribute to

OCBs. Furthermore, Brown and Treviño (2006) noted that

followers are likely to admire ethical leaders, identify with

their vision and values, and wish to be like them. This

admiration and identification may make these followers

more receptive to their leaders’ referent power use. Fol-

lowers who have positive views of their leaders’ vision and

values may see them as more competent and thoughtful,

which may support the leaders’ use of expert power.

Conversely, followers who perceive their leader as less

ethical, or ethically neutral, may be less receptive to their

leader’s use of these person-based powers, hindering the

normally positive effects of these power types on OCBs.

Therefore, followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethics

are hypothesized to moderate the relationships found

between their leaders’ expert and referent power use and

the followers’ OCBs.

Hypothesis 1 Followers’ perceptions of their leaders’

ethics will moderate the effects of these leaders’ expert

power use on the followers’ OCBs.

72 P. J. Reiley, R. R. Jacobs

123

Hypothesis 2 Followers’ perceptions of their leaders’

ethics will moderate the effects of these leaders’ referent

power use on the followers’ OCBs.

Perceptions of Ethics and the Position Power—OCB

Relationship

Ethical leaders utilize their power and influence with the

best interests of followers in mind and avoid unduly

harming others by respecting the rights of all parties (Gini

1998; Kanungo 2001). Since the core motivation of ethical

leaders is based on altruistic intentions (Kanungo and

Mendonca 1996), followers may perceive ethical leaders’

power use as well intentioned and ultimately beneficial for

the followers, the organization, and other stakeholders. As

a result, followers may be more likely to accept the use of a

broader range of power types from leaders they perceive to

be ethical. Therefore, the traditionally negative effects of

position-based power use on OCBs may also be affected by

followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethical intentions.

When unethical leaders use reward power, it may be

interpreted as manipulative, their use of coercive power

may be seen as malicious, and their reliance on legitimate

power may be received as impersonal or inconsiderate.

Alternatively, followers who see their leaders as ethical

may trust that these types of power use are well intentioned

and necessary to achieve the followers’ best interests,

resulting in followers’ willingness to engage in OCBs to

support their leader and the organization. Therefore, fol-

lowers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethics are hypothe-

sized to moderate the relationships found between their

leaders’ reward, coercive, and legitimate power use and the

followers’ OCBs.

Hypothesis 3 Followers’ perceptions of their leaders’

ethics will moderate the effects of these leaders’ reward

power use on the followers’ OCBs.

Hypothesis 4 Followers’ perceptions of their leaders’

ethics will moderate the effects of these leaders’ coercive

power use on the followers’ OCBs.

Hypothesis 5 Followers’ perceptions of their leaders’

ethics will moderate the effects of these leaders’ legitimate

power use on the followers’ OCBs.

Theoretical Model

Followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethics are hypoth-

esized to moderate the effects of these leaders’ power use

on followers’ OCBs across the range of power types. These

proposed relationships are depicted in Fig. 1.

Method

Sample

The current study’s sample consisted of 365 cadets at the

U.S. Air Force Academy (referred to hereafter as the

Academy). Of these cadets, 72 % were male, and 28 %

were female. The ethnic composition of the sample was

71 % Caucasian, 9.5 % Hispanic, 6.6 % Asian/Pacific

Islander, 6 % African-American/Black, 0.9 % Native

American, and 6 % other. The mean age for the sample

was 20.15 years. In addition, 55 % of participants were

freshmen, 1 % were sophomores, 43 % were juniors, and

1 % were seniors. Since the subject pool was composed of

students in freshmen- and junior-level courses, this distri-

bution was to be expected. The Academy is a four-year

college and a principal provider of officers for the U.S.

Armed Forces. In addition to their academic responsibili-

ties, cadets serve in job positions which provide a structure

for military training and administrative duties similar to a

traditional top-down, military hierarchy.

Procedure

All participants gave their informed consent prior to their

inclusion in the study, and any details that might disclose

the identity of the individuals under study were omitted.

Participation requests were emailed from the research

subject pool coordinator to 998 cadets enrolled in the two

core psychology courses required for all academic majors

at the Academy. In exchange for their participation in the

online survey, cadets received extra credit in their respec-

tive courses. We received a total of 405 survey responses

and excluded 32 participants due to incomplete or missing

data. In addition, the majority of participants required at

least 30 min to complete the survey; due to the length of

the assessment and the median completion time, we

excluded eight responses completed in less than 10 min to

Fig. 1 Leader’s perceived ethics moderating the effects of power use on followers’ OCB

Moderating Power Use and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors 73

123

avoid potentially erroneous or careless data. These

adjustments garnered the final sample of 365 participants

and represented a final response rate of 36.6 %.

To address the proposed Hypotheses, analyses were

performed to determine whether the strength of the rela-

tionships found between each base of power and followers’

OCB engagement were moderated by the followers’ per-

ceptions of their leaders’ level of ethics. A conventional

moderated regression based on hierarchical regression

analysis was used (Stone and Hollenbeck 1984). This

evaluation builds on a bivariate regression of the inde-

pendent and dependent variables (i.e., power base and

OCB), and then adds the moderating variable (i.e., leader’s

ethics) and the interaction term (the product of the inde-

pendent variable and moderator, i.e., power base 9

leader’s ethics) to the regression model (centered scores

were utilized to guard against multicollinearity). The cri-

terion for establishing the variable as a moderator is the

achievement of a significant interaction effect.

Measures

Power

The five bases of power were measured with an adapted

form of the Rahim Leader Power Inventory (Rahim 1988).

The original instrument measured subordinates’ percep-

tions regarding how much of each power base their supe-

rior possessed. These 29 items were adapted to the

Academy environment and slightly altered to assess fol-

lowers’ perceptions of their leader’s power use. Prior to the

study, all adapted items were evaluated by subject matter

experts and Academy graduates not associated with the

study for clarity and understanding to maintain nomologi-

cal expectations (see Hinkin and Schriesheim 1989). Using

these items, participants reported the power that their

immediate cadet leader in their organizational hierarchy

utilized on a Likert-type scale, ranging from ‘‘1’’ (Very

Rarely) to ‘‘5’’ (Very Often). Expert power’s (six items)

a = 0.80 (sample item: ‘‘My leader uses his/her consider- able experience to help subordinates do work’’). Referent

power’s (six items) a = 0.82 (sample item: ‘‘My leader uses his/her pleasing personality to influence subordi-

nates’’). Reward power’s (six items) a = 0.89 (sample item: ‘‘My leader recommends a subordinate for merit

recognition if the subordinate’s performance is especially

good’’). Coercive power’s (five items) a = 0.86 (sample item: ‘‘My leader takes disciplinary action against subor-

dinates for insubordination’’). Legitimate power’s (six

items) a = 0.70 (sample item: ‘‘My leader uses his/her authority to change the procedures of subordinates’

work’’).

Ethical Leadership

The ethical leadership construct was measured using ten

items taken from Brown et al. (2005). Participants rated

their immediate cadet leader’s likely behavior on a Likert-

type scale, ranging from ‘‘1’’ (Highly Unlikely) to ‘‘7’’

(Highly Likely). Ethical leadership’s (ten items) a = 0.92 (sample item: ‘‘Defines success not just by results but also

the way that they are obtained’’).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

The OCB dimension was measured using 16 items taken

from Lee and Allen (2002) that were adapted to the

Academy environment. Participants reported their behavior

over the past semester under their immediate cadet leader

on a Likert-type scale, ranging from ‘‘1’’ (Never) to ‘‘7’’

(Always). OCB’s (16 items) a = 0.90 (sample item: ‘‘I go out of the way to make newer members feel welcome in the

Squadron’’).

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, reliability esti-

mates, and bivariate correlations among all variables.

Followers’ perceptions of expert power use were related

highly to their perceptions of both referent (r = 0.70,

p \ 0.01) and reward (r = 0.66, p \ 0.01) power use. Followers’ perceptions of reward power use were also

related highly to their perceptions of referent power use

(r = 0.62, p \ 0.01). The high degree of intercorrelations among followers’ perceptions of expert, referent, and

reward power use may indicate that any outcomes associ-

ated with these three power bases are potentially replica-

tions of the same phenomenon.

Results indicated that followers’ perceptions of their

leaders’ use of expert (r = 0.17, p \ 0.01), referent (r = 0.12, p \ 0.05), and reward (r = 0.15, p \ 0.01) power were related positively to followers’ OCB. How-

ever, coercive (r = 0.06, p [ 0.05) and legitimate (r = 0.06, p [ 0.05) power use were not significantly related to followers’ OCB.

Leaders’ use of each of the five bases of power were

related significantly to followers’ perceptions of ethical

leadership. Expert (r = 0.68, p \ 0.01), referent (r = 0.67, p \ 0.01), reward (r = 0.60, p \ 0.01), and, to a much smaller extent, coercive (r = 0.16, p \ 0.01) power were related positively to followers’ perceptions of ethical

leadership. Conversely, legitimate power was related neg-

atively to followers’ perceptions of their leader’s ethics

(r = -0.17, p \ 0.01).

74 P. J. Reiley, R. R. Jacobs

123

To determine if followers’ perceptions of leaders’ eth-

ics, power use, or OCBs varied as a function of partici-

pants’ academic class, simple t test analyses were also

performed. Results revealed no significant differences

between lower-division cadets (i.e., freshmen- and sopho-

more-level cadets) and upper-division cadets (i.e., junior-

and senior-level cadets). An additional consideration is that

individuals in both groups had worked with their respective

leaders for at least 4 months which may have been long

enough to nullify significant differences in exposure to

leadership dynamics or other influential factors.

The results of the hierarchical regression analyses con-

ducted to test the moderating effects of followers’ per-

ceptions of ethical leadership between the five power bases

and followers’ OCB are presented in Table 2. The first step

in the test for moderation is shown by the R 2

relationships

presented for the bivariate regression analyses of each

power base on followers’ OCB. The results for the second

step, the regression effects of the separate, independent

predictors (i.e., each power base and followers’ perceptions

of their leader’s ethics) on the dependent variable (i.e.,

OCB) are shown. Results of the third step in the modera-

tion test, the regression of the interaction term on the

dependent variable, are shown next, followed by the stan-

dardized coefficients between the interaction term and the

dependent variable.

Results indicated that followers’ perceptions of their

leaders’ levels of ethics moderated the effects of these

leaders’ expert (b = 0.16, p \ 0.001; DR2 = 0.03, p \ 0.001), referent (b = 0.10, p \ 0.05; DR2 = 0.02, p \ 0.05), and reward (b = 0.17, p \ 0.001; DR2 = 0.04, p \ 0.001) power use on the followers’ OCB. Figure 2 illustrates the moderating effects of leaders’ perceived

ethics on the leaders’ expert power use and followers’

OCB. Simple slope analysis (Aiken and West 1991) indi-

cated that when followers’ perceptions of their leader’s

ethics were ?1 SD above the mean, the simple slope of

expert power use on followers’ OCB = 0.293, t(363) =

2.851, p \ 0.01. When followers’ perceptions of their leader’s ethics were -1 SD below the mean, the simple

slope of expert power use on followers’ OCB = -0.074,

t(363) = -0.799, p [ 0.05. Followers who perceived their leaders to be more ethical reported higher levels of OCB

when their leaders utilized more expert power; however,

lower perceptions of leader’s ethics did not appear to

moderate the relationship between these leaders’ expert

power use and followers’ OCB at a statistically significant

level.

Figure 3 illustrates the moderating effects of leaders’

perceived levels of ethics on these leaders’ referent power

use and followers’ OCB. Simple slope analysis indicated

that when followers’ perceptions of their leader’s

Table 1 Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and

correlations for all variables

N = 365. Cronbach’s Alphas

appear underlined on the

diagonal for multiple item

measures

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Expert power 3.53 0.69 0.80

2. Referent power 3.78 0.78 0.70** 0.82

3. Reward power 3.55 0.72 0.66** 0.62** 0.89

4. Coercive power 2.90 0.61 0.28** 0.06 0.26** 0.86

5. Legitimate power 3.07 0.64 -0.07 -0.18** -0.09 0.30** 0.70

6. Ethical leadership 5.60 0.93 0.68** 0.67** 0.60** 0.16** -0.17** 0.92

7. OCB 4.91 0.80 0.17** 0.12* 0.15** 0.06 0.06 0.20** 0.90

Table 2 Hierarchical regressions for direct and interaction effects on OCB

Power used OCB

Model 1 R 2

Model 2 (power ? ethics) R 2

Model 3 (power 9 ethics) R 2 ba

Expert power 0.03** 0.04** 0.07*** 0.16***

Referent power 0.01* 0.03** 0.05* 0.10*

Reward power 0.02* 0.04** 0.08*** 0.17***

Coercive power 0.00 0.04** 0.04 0.04

Legitimate power 0.00 0.05*** 0.06 ?

-0.07 ?

N = 365 ?

p \ 0.10, * p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01, *** p \ 0.001 a

Standardized coefficients for interaction term; for example, the standardized b weight for expert power is the standardized regression weight for the expert power 9 ethics interaction term

Moderating Power Use and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors 75

123

ethics were ?1 SD above the mean, the simple slope of

referent power use on the followers’ OCB = 0.216,

t(363) = 1.717, p \ 0.10. When followers’ perceptions of their leader’s ethics were -1 SD below the mean, the

simple slope of referent power use on followers’ OCB =

-0.214, t(363) = -2.017, p \ 0.05. Followers who per- ceived their leaders to be more ethical reported higher

levels of OCB, when their leaders utilized more referent

power, at a level approaching statistical significance. In

addition, followers who perceived their leaders to be less

ethical reported lower levels of OCB when their leaders

utilized more referent power.

Figure 4 illustrates the moderating effects of leaders’

perceived levels of ethics on these leaders’ reward power

use and followers’ OCB. Simple slope analysis indicated

that when followers’ perceptions of their leader’s eth-

ics were ?1 SD above the mean, the simple slope of

reward power use on followers’ OCB = 0.287,

t(363) = 3.103, p \ 0.01. When followers’ perceptions of their leader’s ethics were -1 SD below the mean, the

simple slope of reward power use on followers’ OCB =

-0.096, t(363) = -1.207, p [ 0.05. Followers who per- ceived their leaders to be more ethical reported higher

levels of OCB when their leaders utilized more reward

power; however, lower perceptions of leader’s ethics did

not appear to affect the relationship between the leaders’

reward power use and followers’ OCB at a statistically

significant level.

The significant moderating effects of leaders’ ethics on

the relationships found between the leaders’ expert, refer-

ent, and reward power use and the followers’ OCB pro-

vided support for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. However,

followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethics did not sig-

nificantly moderate the relationships between their leaders’

use of coercive or legitimate power and the followers’

OCB (b = 0.04, p [ 0.05; DR2 = 0.00, p [ 0.05; and b = -0.07, p [ 0.05; DR2 = 0.01, p [ 0.05 respectively); therefore, Hypotheses 4 and 5 were not supported.

Discussion

The analyses described in the previous section met the

goals of the current study and contributed to the leadership

and power literature. First, results support the notion that

followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethics matter. When

followers perceived their leader to be ethical, these fol-

lowers reported higher levels of OCBs when their leader

utilized expert, referent, or reward power. Moreover, when

followers perceived their leader to be less ethical, these

followers reported lower levels of OCBs when their leader

employed referent power. These relationships may support

Walumbwa et al.’s (2011) assertion that leaders who

engage in ethical behavior strengthen interpersonal rela-

tionships, which may also reinforce their ability to utilize

personal powers (i.e., expert and referent power) to influ-

ence followers. Alternatively, followers may be less likely

to respect or relate to leaders who are perceived to be less

ethical; this may explain their diminished alacrity to

engage in supportive, extra-role citizenship behaviors

when their leaders utilized referent power. Extending Ko-

novsky and Pugh’s (1994) conceptualization of OCBs as a

product of trusting and considerate social-exchanges,

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Expert Power High Expert Power

O C B

High Ethical Leadership

Low Ethical Leadership

Fig. 2 Followers’ perceptions of their leader’s ethics moderating expert power use and OCB

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Referent Power High Referent Power

O C B

High Ethical Leadership

Low Ethical Leadership

Fig. 3 Followers’ perceptions of their leader’s ethics moderating referent power use and OCB

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Reward Power High Reward Power

O C B

High Ethical Leadership

Low Ethical Leadership

Fig. 4 Followers’ perceptions of their leader’s ethics moderating reward power use and OCB

76 P. J. Reiley, R. R. Jacobs

123

followers who perceive their leaders as ethical may also

trust that rewards will be administered in a well-intentioned

and just manner (as opposed to being a form of unscru-

pulous manipulation), and this perception may account for

higher levels of citizenship behaviors among these

followers.

Second, this study addressed previously identified gaps

in the power literature (e.g., Farmer and Aguinis 2005) by

providing empirical insight into how followers’ perceptions

of their leaders, and their power use, relate to the followers’

behavioral outcomes. These results provide a better

understanding of the boundary conditions which influence

the effects of leaders’ power use. Specifically, these find-

ings help to explain some of the inconsistent performance

outcomes associated with the use of power noted in

reviews of previous power research (e.g., Carson et al.

1993; Podsakoff and Schriesheim 1985). This is particu-

larly notable for the effects of reward power, since this

form of power has yielded both positive and negative

outcomes in previous research. In the case of OCBs, this

volatile relationship may be better explained by accounting

for followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethics.

Third, this study contributes to our expanded under-

standing of the leadership dynamic. The approach of the

current study accounted for contributing factors in the

leadership process beyond a leader-centric perspective and

answered researchers’ call for increased attention to the

broader relationships found in the Leader–Follower–Situ-

ational perspective of leadership (e.g., Avolio 2007;

Barbuto 2000; Uhl-Bien et al. 2007). Findings indicated

that followers’ perceptions of their leaders and their lead-

ers’ perceived power to influence these followers all relate

to the followers’ behavioral outcomes. This supports the

notion that leadership, and power use, are not purely top-

down behaviors that view followers as passive recipients in

a non-descript vacuum. Instead, this study provides evi-

dence of a more complex interplay of factors that shape the

outcomes associated with the leadership dynamic.

Practical Implications

The current study highlights the critical importance of

ethical leadership in the eyes of followers. Organizations

may benefit from the knowledge that followers are more

likely to engage in behaviors that support the organization

and its members in ways that surpass the followers’ spe-

cific job duties when their leaders are perceived to be

ethical and these leaders rely on relevant knowledge, per-

sonal admiration, or the use of rewards to influence others.

Unethical leaders may compromise followers’ willingness

to perform above and beyond their job descriptions since

followers’ perceptions of unethical leaders were related to

lower levels of citizenship behaviors when these leaders

employed power that relies on followers’ identification

with and admiration of the leader.

This knowledge may also inform and enrich the devel-

opment of new leaders, and enhance the effectiveness of

organizations overall. For example, new leaders are

immediately authorized to use certain types of position-

based powers inherent to the role they play within their

organizational hierarchy, but they may need to develop

their person-based power individually and through personal

interactions over time. By recognizing the importance of

ethics early on, leaders will better understand followers’

perceptions in the leadership process and may improve the

acceptance and effectiveness of their power use. Personal

powers are traditionally related more positively to a range

of outcomes, but may not always be immediately available

or fully employable by novice leaders or those in new

leadership dynamics. Some personal power elements might

take time to develop, and new relationships must be forged

(e.g., novice leaders may not have task-relevant expertise;

followers may not relate to or admire leaders with whom

they are not familiar). In the meantime, organizations can

still benefit from the knowledge that followers recognize

ethical leaders and are more likely to respond to an ethical

leader’s position-based power use (specifically rewards).

As nascent personal powers are honed or recognized,

leaders may also benefit from the knowledge that followers

are more likely to respond to ethical leaders’ person-based

forms of power in the form of greater contextual perfor-

mance. Followers’ willingness to accept the influence of

ethical leaders, as well as the related prevalence of the

followers’ OCBs, may support and sustain the new leader

and the development of the leadership process. This will

ultimately lead to more positive organizational outcomes

overall.

Limitations

As with any research, the current study was subject to

certain limitations that must be considered. First, given the

cross-sectional research design of this study, the results

presented are correlational in nature. Because of this,

inferences of causality among the variables must be inter-

preted with caution.

Second, the design of this study relied on self-report

survey measures which may be susceptible to common

method bias. Common method bias refers to the condition

in which variance observed is a result of the method of the

data collection rather than what the measurement is

intended to assess (Podsakoff et al. 2003). A noted limi-

tation of the self-report survey design is that data are not

only collected using the same method, but all measures of

both predictors and criteria are administered at the same

time, in the same context, and are obtained from a single

Moderating Power Use and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors 77

123

source. Although this study utilized a self-report survey

design, it followed Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) recommen-

dations for controlling potential method bias; the design

followed good measurement practice by implementing

procedural remedies related to questionnaire and item

design, e.g., eliminating item ambiguity and counterbal-

ancing question order. Also related to Podsakoff et al.’s

(2003) considerations for guarding against common

method variance, this study employed a more complex

analytic design that examined the interaction effects of

these variables, which is less likely to be inflated by

common method bias (Evans 1985; Lin et al. 2009;

McClelland and Judd 1993). While serious problems with

common method variance are less likely in this case, post

hoc analyses assessed the extent to which the results of this

study could have been contaminated by common method or

source bias, given the study’s data collection methodology.

In an attempt to further account for potential method

variance, Harman’s single-factor test (e.g., Schriesheim

1979) was used to examine the extent to which a common

or single method factor existed that would account for the

variance in these findings. Following this widely used

method, we first performed an exploratory factor analysis

(EFA) by entering all seven of the scales assessed (i.e.,

expert, referent, reward, coercive, and legitimate powers;

leader’s ethics; and followers’ OCBs). Results indicated

that more than one factor emerged and the general factor

explained only 20.48 % of the total variance. Next, a

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of these seven scales

showed that the goodness-of-fit indices of the hypothesized

model (i.e., seven separate factors) exhibited a much better

fit to the data [v2 = 12184.65, df = 2278, p \ 0.01, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, Tucker–Lewis index

(TLI) = 0.94, root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) = 0.03] than did the one factor model

(v2 = 2098.23, df = 1178, p \ 0.01, CFI = 0.76, TLI = 0.75, RMSEA = 0.08). These analyses provided further

support to suggest that common method or source variance

was likely not a serious problem in this study.

In addition, the self-report approach was deemed to be

an appropriate data collection methodology, given that the

current study’s focus was on followers’ perceptions and

extra-role performance. Chan (2009) noted that using

reports from others for self-referral respondent perception

constructs is problematic for at least three reasons: (1) the

individual’s perceptions may not translate into observable

behaviors; (2) even if these perceptions were translated into

observable behaviors, others may not have the opportunity

to observe these relevant behaviors; and (3) valid mea-

surement by other reports requires the reporter to accu-

rately infer the individual’s specific value on that

perception from the observation of the individual’s

behavior. Based on the current study’s data collection

approach, followers’ self-reports were believed to be more

aligned with their true perceptions of their leader and each

follower’s OCBs, elements which others may not be able to

glean or observe fully.

According to the dilemmatic approach described by

McGrath et al. (1982), the sample survey method offered

additional benefits to the current study’s design. This

research method is designed to be a relatively unobtrusive

approach and is more universally applicable to a range of

behavioral systems. This was particularly useful in

obtaining data from our field-study sample without detri-

mentally affecting the organization’s operations. The use of

sample surveys also provides a method to guard partici-

pant’s privacy and maintain anonymity allowing them to

more freely comment on their leader’s behavior (Podsakoff

et al. 2003; Rahim 1988). Because of the anonymity pre-

served in this study, respondents were less likely to engage

in faking or be swayed by motives of social desirability

(Podsakoff et al. 2003).

Finally, the current study utilized a population of mili-

tary cadets based in a western organizational culture to

assess leadership dynamic factors and contextual perfor-

mance. These factors may limit the generalizability of

these findings to other types of organizations (e.g., civilian

companies) and cultural contexts.

Future Research

In a review of the relevant literature, the most prevalent

research strategy utilized in empirical articles dealing with

the general topic of power and influence in leadership was

the self-report, sample survey (Carson et al. 1993; Hunter

et al. 2007). Admittedly, the regular reliance on studying

power and influence in leadership through survey studies

may make it particularly susceptible to method bias. We

recommend that future studies incorporate multiperspec-

tive evaluations of the independent and dependent vari-

ables. In addition, longitudinal research designs should be

incorporated to determine the direction of causality and

other temporal effects on the leadership dynamic.

Second, future studies could examine whether the rela-

tionships identified in this study can be applied to other

industries and in a cross-cultural context. Because this

study relied on a military cadet sample, it is important to

evaluate whether these results will replicate and can be

generalized to other organizations or to other types of

employees. In either case, further research should be con-

ducted to determine whether these results are idiosyncratic

to this sample or generalizable to other types of organiza-

tions and employees. In addition, because this study

focused on subjects in a western-based culture in the

United States, more research is needed to test the gener-

alizability of these findings to other cultural contexts such

78 P. J. Reiley, R. R. Jacobs

123

as the Middle East, China, Southern Asia, Africa, as well as

Middle and South America (Erez 2011).

Lastly, future research should explore other contextual

factors inherent to distinctive situations which may affect

the leadership dynamic. For example, military personnel,

firefighters, police officers, and other types of first

responders and crisis leaders would benefit from studies

which evaluate followers’ leadership dynamic preferences

and behavioral reactions to leaders’ influence methods in

volatile situations that carry life and death stakes and an

imminent threat of danger. Stouffer et al. (1949) found that

when the mortality salience (i.e., individuals’ focus on the

fear of imminent death) among inexperienced soldiers was

high, they became desperate for almost any type of leader

that would keep them alive. More recently, Cohen et al.

(2004) found that individuals who were experiencing high

mortality salience demonstrated a preference for charis-

matic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders. In

spite of its tremendous importance, this area has received

little attention from leadership researchers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study contributes to the field of lead-

ership theory and practice by empirically identifying how

followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethics relate to their

willingness to engage in extra-role performance behaviors

relative to the power these leaders exert. These individual

ethical perceptions may account for some of the dramati-

cally different opinions individuals hold about the leaders

they work for and, ultimately, the associated outcomes of

the leadership dynamic. Practitioners may leverage this

understanding to promote the importance of ethics and

more successfully influence followers to perform above

and beyond their job descriptions. Future studies should

build on these findings and inform our understanding of

individual follower differences and the boundary condi-

tions which impact the effects of ethical leadership and

power use beyond a leader-centric focus.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human

Relations, 47, 755–778. doi:10.1177/001872679404700701.

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for

leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25.

Awamleh, R. A., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader

charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content,

delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly,

10, 345–373. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00022-3.

Bachman, J. G. (1968). Faculty satisfaction and the dean’s influence:

An organizational study of twelve liberal arts colleges. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 52, 55–61.

Bachman, J. G., Bowers, D. G., & Marcus, P. M. (1968). Bases of

supervisory power: A comparative study in five organizational

settings. In A. S. Tannenbaum (Ed.), Control in organizations

(pp. 229–238). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bachman, J. G., Smith, C. G., & Slesinger, J. A. (1966). Control,

performance, and job satisfaction: An analysis of structural and

individual effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

52, 55–61.

Barbuto, J. E, Jr. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework for

understanding follower compliance. The Leadership Quarterly,

11(3), 365–387. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00045-X.

Bass, B. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behav-

ior. New York: Harper.

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

transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly,

10(2), 181–217.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good

soldier: The relationship between affect and employee ‘‘citizen-

ship’’. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.

Bligh, M. C. (2010). Followership and follower-centered approaches.

In A. Bryman, K. Grint, B. Jackson, M. Uhl-Bien, & D.

Collinson (Eds.), Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 1180–1216).

London: Sage.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion

domain to include elements of extrarole performance. In N.

Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in

organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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

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

595–616. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.

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.

Busch, P. (1980). The sales manager’s bases of social power and

influence upon the sales force. Journal of Marketing, 44(4),

91–101.

Carson, P. P., Carson, K. D., & Roe, W. (1993). Social power bases:

A meta-analytic examination of interrelationships and outcomes.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(14), 1150–1169.

Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad.

In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and

methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and

fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309–336).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Cobb, A. T. (1980). Informal influence in the formal organization:

Perceived sources of power among work unit peers. Academy of

Management Journal, 23, 155–161.

Cohen, F., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg,

J. (2004). The effects of mortality salience on evaluations of

charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders.

Psychological Science, 15, 846–851.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagement and

Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal of

Business Ethics, 107(1), 1–13.

Dyne, V., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role

behaviors: In pursuit of a construct and definitional clarity (a

bridge over mudded waters). In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 43–72).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Moderating Power Use and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors 79

123

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive

leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The

Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.

Elangovan, A. R., & Xie, J. L. (1999). Effects of perceived power of

supervisor on subordinate stress and motivation: The moderating

role of subordinate characteristics. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 20(3), 359–373.

Erez, M. (2011). Cross-cultural and global issues in organizational

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

organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 807–854). Washington,

DC: APA.

Etzioni, A. (1975). A Comparative analysis of complex organizations:

On power, involvement, and their correlates. New York, NY:

Free Press.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated

method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36,

305–323.

Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using

single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of

Management Journal, 35, 638–652.

Farmer, S. M., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Accounting for subordinate

perceptions of supervisor power: An identity-dependence model.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1069–1083.

Fiorelli, J. S. (1988). Power in work groups: Team member’s

perspectives. Human Relations, 41(1), 1–12.

French, J. R. P, Jr, & Raven, B. R. (1959). The bases of social power.

In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI:

Institute for Social Research.

Gini, A. (1998). Moral leadership and business ethics. In J. B. Ciulla

(Ed.), Ethics, the heart of leadership (pp. 27–45). Westport, CT:

Quorum Books.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and

application of new scales to measure the French and Raven

(1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology,

74(4), 561. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.561.

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007).

Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the

OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 555.

Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E.

Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2).

New York: Random House.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic

leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management

Executive, 6, 43–54.

Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The

typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and poten-

tial remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435–446.

Jain, A. K., Giga, D. S. I., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Social power as a

means of increasing personal and organizational effectiveness:

The mediating role of organizational citizenship behaviour.

Journal of Management & Organization, 17(3), 412–432.

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

mational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,

18, 257–265.

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

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why

it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganiza-

tionaI influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits

matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5, 48–60.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and

social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),

656–669.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain

and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior

and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.

Lin, X. W., Che, H. S., & Leung, K. (2009). The role of leader

morality in the interaction effect of procedural justice and

outcome favorability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39,

1536–1561.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of

detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological

Bulletin, 114, 376–390.

McGrath, J. E., Martin, J., & Kulka, R. A. (1982). Judgment calls in

research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mudler, M. (1971). Power equalization through participation. Admin-

istrative Science Quarterly, 16, 31–38.

Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good

soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of

attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizen-

ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.

Padilla, A. (2012). Leadership: The leaders, the followers, and the

environments. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle:

Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive envi-

ronments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194.

Patchen, M. (1974). The locus and basis of influence on organiza-

tional decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-

mance, 11, 195–221.

Peabody, R. L. (1961). Perceptions of organizational authority: A

comparative analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(4),

463–482.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Field studies of French

and Raven’s bases of power critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for

future research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 387–411.

Rahim, M. A. (1988). The development of a leader power inventory.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 491–503.

Rahim, M. A. (1989). Relationships of leader power to compliance

and satisfaction with supervision: Evidence from a national

sample of managers. Journal of Management, 15, 545–556.

Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., Krumov, K., & Illieva, S. (2000). Power,

conflict, and effectiveness: A cross-cultural study in the United

States and Bulgaria. European Psychologist, 5(10), 28–33.

Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis

of the bases of leader power: First-order factor model and its

invariance across groups. Multivariate Behavioral Research,

31(4), 495–516.

Schriesheim, C. (1979). The similarity of individual directed and

group directed leader behavior descriptions. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 22, 345–355.

Sheridan, J. E., & Vredenburgh, D. J. (1978). Usefulness of leadership

behavior and social power variables in predicting job tension,

performance, and turnover of nursing employees. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 63, 89–95.

80 P. J. Reiley, R. R. Jacobs

123

Shukla, R. K. (1982). Influence of power bases in organizational

decision making: A contingency model. Decision Sciences, 13,

450–470.

Slocum, J. W. (1970). Supervisory influence and the professional

employee. Personnel Journal, 49, 484–488.

Stone, B. P., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1984). Some issues associated with

the use of moderated regression. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 34, 195–213.

Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., &

Williams, R. M, Jr. (1949). The American Soldier: Adjustment

during army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence and work-group

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 188–194.

Sutton, R. I. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized

workplace and surviving one that isn’t. New York, NY: Business

Plus.

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

of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R.

(2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring

destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership and Organi-

zational Studies, 1, 1–26.

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, 55, 5–37.

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

ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32,

951–990. doi:10.1177/0149206306294258.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity

leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to

the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in

leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 17–24.

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.

Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A

synthesis of evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 119(2), 285–299.

Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in

transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Lead-

ership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

Yukl, G. A. (2005). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power

sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76, 416–423.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on

leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunette & L. E. Hough

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3

(pp. 147–197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moderating Power Use and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors 81

123

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.