Psychology Assignment
Rosi_226
moralawarenessandethicalleadership.pdf
ORIGINAL PAPER
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical Leadership’s Positive Impact on Workplace Deviance
Kubilay Gok1 • John J. Sumanth2 • William H. Bommer3 • Ozgur Demirtas4 •
Aykut Arslan5 • Jared Eberhard1 • Ali Ihsan Ozdemir6 • Ahmet Yigit7
Received: 21 February 2016 / Accepted: 26 July 2017 / Published online: 2 August 2017
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017
Abstract Although a growing body of research has shown
the positive impact of ethical leadership on workplace
deviance, questions remain as to whether its benefits are
consistent across all situations. In this investigation, we
explore an important boundary condition of ethical lead-
ership by exploring how employees’ moral awareness may
lessen the need for ethical leadership. Drawing on substi-
tutes for leadership theory, we suggest that when individ-
uals already possess a heightened level of moral awareness,
ethical leadership’s role in reducing deviant actions may be
reduced. However, when individuals lack this strong moral
disposition, ethical leadership may be instrumental in
inspiring them to reduce their deviant actions. To enhance
the external validity and generalizability of our findings,
the current research used two large field samples of
working professionals in both Turkey and the USA. Results
suggest that ethical leadership’s positive influence on
workplace deviance is dependent upon the individual’s
moral awareness—helpful for those employees whose
moral awareness is low, but not high. Thus, our investi-
gation helps to build theory around the contingencies of
ethical leadership and the specific audience for whom it
may be more (or less) influential.
Keywords Ethical leadership � Leadership � Workplace
deviance � Moral awareness � Substitutes for leadership � Social exchange theory � Social learning theory � Field study � Cross-cultural
Introduction
In recent years, ethical leadership (cf. Brown et al. 2005;
Brown and Treviño 2006) has become a ‘‘hot topic’’ in the
popular press, fueled in large part by the significant number
of ethical scandals that have negatively impacted the global
& Kubilay Gok
John J. Sumanth
William H. Bommer
Ozgur Demirtas
Aykut Arslan
Jared Eberhard
Ali Ihsan Ozdemir
Ahmet Yigit
1 College of Business Administration, Winona State
University, Winona, MN, USA
2 School of Business, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem,
NC, USA
3 Craig School of Business, California State University-Fresno,
Fresno, CA, USA
4 Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Inonu
University, Malatya, Turkey
5 Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Pirireis
University, İstanbul, Turkey
6 Faculty of Management Sciences, Abdullah Gul University,
Kayseri, Turkey
7 College of Engineering, Abdullah Gul University, Kayseri,
Turkey
123
J Bus Ethics (2017) 146:257–277
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3655-7
economy since the early 2000s. During this time, Enron,
Tyco, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, Wells Fargo, Volk-
swagen and Bernie Madoff, to name just a few, have
become infamous household names, synonymous with
egregious unethical and illegal behavior.
This heightened interest and focus on ethical leadership
(and the lack thereof) is similarly reflected in the academic
literature. In their recent meta-analysis exploring the
antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership, Bedi
and colleagues (2016) identified 134 independent samples
and nearly 55,000 employees that have taken part in this
growing research stream, serving to highlight the signifi-
cant time and energy scholars have invested in trying to
understand ethical leadership’s role within organizations.
Although leaders’ high-profile actions typically garner
most of the headlines and claim a significant portion of
scholars’ attention, employees’ (un)ethical behaviors have
also come under greater empirical scrutiny. Since the early
days of the ethical behavior literature, when most investi-
gations focused exclusively on identifying the drivers of
positive forms of employee behavior (e.g., organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and prosocial behavior),
scholars have broadened and expanded their focus to also
include the ‘‘dark side’’ of employee behavior (e.g.,
employee deviance and counterproductive work behaviors
or CWBs). This subtle, but important shift has been
motivated, in part, by a recognition of the significant costs
unethical behavior poses to industry, including shrinkage
due to employee theft, reduced productivity from abusive
treatment and negative publicity and its harmful impact
upon key stakeholders (Bennett and Robinson 2000; Tep-
per et al. 2008; van Gils et al. 2015).
Given the significant problem workplace deviance poses
to organizational effectiveness, scholars have sought to find
empirically driven remedies and, for valid reasons, have
touted ethical leadership as one of the most effective
solutions to this widespread and ongoing problem (Brown
and Treviño 2006; Den Hartog 2015; Treviño et al. 2014).
In fact, recent meta-analytic work by Hoch et al. (2016)
establishes ethical leadership as a useful remedy to the
problem of employee deviance, above and beyond other
leadership styles (e.g., transformational, authentic and
servant leadership). Furthermore, many organizational
scholars have continued to theorize about the benefits of
ethical leadership, further reinforcing the idea that ethical
leadership is useful across almost all situations (for recent
reviews, please see Bedi et al. 2016; Den Hartog 2015;
Hoch et al. 2016; Ng and Feldman 2015; Treviño et al.
2014).
Despite this recognition of ethical leadership as a
powerful contextual lever to effect positive change,
emerging research suggests that a more nuanced and con-
ditional view of ethical leadership’s role may be more
accurate. In recent years, studies have begun to show that
the direct influence of ethical leadership may be less
impactful across certain contexts (cf. Avey et al. 2011;
Chuang and Chiu 2017; Kalshoven et al. 2013; Taylor and
Pattie 2014). Additionally, long-standing theoretical per-
spectives suggest that substitutes for leadership frequently
exist (Kerr and Jermier 1978), serving to eliminate the need
for strong leadership across all situations (Babalola et al.
2017). Taken together, this research suggests that despite
the considerable evidence supporting ethical leadership as
a powerful deterrent against employee deviance (Avey
et al. 2011; Mayer et al. 2009); the positive impact of
ethical leadership may be conditional and dependent upon
other important factors, such as followers’ moral charac-
teristics. We base this argument on emerging research
highlighting the role of individuals’ moral dispositions as a
critical influence on how they respond to strong expres-
sions of ethical leadership (Babalola et al. 2017; Chuang
and Chiu 2017; Kalshoven et al. 2013; Sturm 2017).
To add to this growing body of work, we highlight here
the role of individuals’ moral awareness (Reynolds 2006)
as an important boundary condition of ethical leadership.
By identifying this contingency, we not only help to add
new insights and refine ethical leadership theory for
scholarly use, but also provide managers with practical
guidance about where to specifically target their expres-
sions of ethical leadership (i.e., those low in moral
awareness). As we will articulate in greater detail below,
we suggest that for individuals who are already highly
attuned to moral issues (i.e., possess a high level of moral
awareness), having a leader who works hard to communi-
cate and reinforce an ethics-first message may have little
effect in lowering their deviant conduct. However, for
individuals who lack this heightened level of moral
understanding, ethical leadership may play a pivotal role in
helping them see the importance of acting in an ethical
manner and thus, motivate them to reduce their own
deviant actions.
Through this investigation, we aim to make three
important contributions to the literature. First, we seek to
demonstrate how ethical leadership acts as a general
deterrent against deviant employee behavior directed at
both the organization and one’s supervisor. To do this, we
utilize two, large field samples of working professionals in
both Turkey and the USA, thus providing more general-
izable, cross-cultural evidence for how ethical leadership
functions. Second, we highlight an important, but to date,
unexplored boundary condition of ethical leadership—in-
dividuals’ moral awareness—that should be accounted for
when examining the impact of ethical leadership. Absent
such a perspective, our findings suggest both scholars and
practitioners alike may erroneously conclude that engaging
in ethical leadership is always beneficial or necessary.
258 K. Gok et al.
123
Third, we provide leaders with practical insights about
whom their acts of ethical leadership should target. By
providing leaders with clearer guidance into the types of
employees who are influenced most by their actions, we
seek to help leaders save valuable time, energy and
resources in their ongoing effort to lead others effectively.
We begin by briefly reviewing prior research on work-
place deviance and ethical leadership. Next, we discuss our
hypothesis linking ethical leadership to workplace
deviance, and how individuals’ moral awareness may
moderate this relationship. We then utilize hierarchical
moderated regression analysis to test our hypothesized
model across two large field samples of employees in both
Turkey and the USA. Finally, we discuss the implications
of our findings for both theory and practice, acknowledge
study limitations and offer avenues for future research.
Figure 1 depicts our hypothesized relationships.
Literature Review
Workplace Deviance
Acts of workplace deviance may be characterized as sins of
commission, as opposed to sins of omission, in that they
are voluntary behaviors intended to violate organizational
norms and harm organizational functioning (Bennett and
Robinson 2000; Robinson and Bennett 1995). Whether it
involves stealing from people and/or the organization,
damaging company property, arriving late to work, taking
unauthorized breaks, neglecting to follow instructions,
publicly embarrassing one’s supervisor, sharing confiden-
tial company information, gossiping or even violence
(Bennett and Robinson 2000; Berry et al. 2007; Ferris et al.
2009; Vardi and Wiener 1996), workplace deviance is
typically seen as egregious, willful behavior.
Although conceptualizations of workplace deviance
have varied over the years (Bennett and Robinson 2000;
Robinson and Bennett 1995), the deviance literature has
begun to distinguish between two primary targets when
individuals attempt to retaliate against perceived workplace
injustices—organization-directed deviance and supervisor-
directed deviance (Hershcovis et al. 2007; Mitchell and
Ambrose 2007). These two forms of counterproductive
seem to be driven by individuals’ motivations and ability to
retaliate. When individuals perceive their supervisor has
treated them unfairly, research suggests they may be more
likely to engage in supervisor-directed deviance that is
intended to undermine, ridicule or challenge their bosses
(Baron and Neuman 1998; Bies and Tripp 1998). Thus,
supervisor-directed deviance is borne of employees’ sense
of direct violation at the hands of their supervisor(s).
However, displaced aggression theory (Dollard et al. 1939)
and subsequent empirical work (Mitchell and Ambrose
2007) also suggest that negative forms of leadership and/or
supervision may encourage actors to engage in deviance
directed toward the organization (i.e., organizational-di-
rected deviance). When individuals fear further retaliation
at the hands of their perpetrator, or are limited in their
ability to retaliate directly against him/her, this displaced
form of aggression toward the organization may be the
chosen retaliatory avenue (Dollard et al. 1939). Thus, both
supervisor-directed and organization-directed deviance
may be appropriate targets for individuals to express their
displeasure with their leader(s).
Extant research has also documented many underlying
motives driving individuals’ deviant conduct. While some
scholars have proposed that individuals may engage in
deviant behavior, simply to experience the thrill of rebel-
ling against authority (Bennett and Robinson 2000), in
most cases, research points to workplace deviance stem-
ming from perceived injustices, dissatisfaction, poor role
modeling and mistreatment at the hands of one’s leader (cf.
Tepper et al. 2009). Research also suggests that both
contextual and individual factors are associated with
employees’ deviant conduct. Contextual factors may
Fig. 1 The moderating role of
moral awareness on the
relationship between ethical
leadership and workplace
deviance
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 259
123
include a hostile work climate (Mawritz et al. 2012), psy-
chological contract breaches (Bordia et al. 2008), abusive
supervision (Tepper et al. 2008, 2009; Mitchell and
Ambrose 2007; Martinko et al. 2013) and workplace
aggression (Hershcovis and Barling 2010), while individ-
ual factors may include negative emotions and a desire for
revenge (El Akremi et al. 2010). Together, these factors
make a compelling argument for considering both the
person and the context simultaneously (Treviño 1986)
when trying to predict whether individuals will engage in
deviant actions.
Ethical Leadership
At its core, leadership is about positively influencing others
(Hannah et al. 2014; Yukl 2002). Treviño et al. (2014)
postulated that leaders play a key role as authority fig-
ures and role models and have sizable influence on sub-
ordinates’ attitudes and behaviors. Ethical leadership, by
the way of its explicit moral focus, explains how leaders,
through their ethical conduct, can positively influence those
around them in the pursuit of broader organizational goals
and objectives (Brown et al. 2005; Sumanth and Hannah
2014).
Ethical leadership is defined as ‘‘the demonstration of
normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions
and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such
conduct to followers through two-way communication,
reinforcement, and decision-making’’ (Brown et al. 2005:
120). It is based on the view that ethical conduct is a central
aspect of leadership and encompasses the whole person,
not just ancillary dimensions (Mayer et al. 2009). For this
reason, Brown et al. (2005) described ethical leadership as
including both trait (i.e., the moral person) and behavior
(i.e., the moral manager) dimensions. They argued that
ethical leadership can be reflected by leader traits such as
integrity, social responsibility, fairness and the willingness
to think through the consequences of one’s actions. At the
same time, ethical leadership is also reflected by specific
behaviors, through which the leader promotes workplace
ethicality. Drawing from social learning theory (Bandura
1986), ethical leadership involves influencing individuals
to engage in ethical behaviors through behavioral modeling
of transactional leadership behaviors (e.g., rewarding,
communicating and punishing). In this way, ethical lead-
ership is based on the belief that ethics represent a critical
component of effective leadership and leaders are respon-
sible for promoting ethical climates and behavior (Brown
and Treviño 2006). This behavioral aspect is particularly
important when it comes to understanding the cascading
effects of leader behavior.
The accumulated evidence suggests that ethical lead-
ership is positively associated with numerous workplace
benefits. Whether it be improved employee attitudes (e.g.,
job satisfaction, affective commitment and work engage-
ment), reduced turnover intentions (Brown et al. 2005;
Kim and Brymer 2011, Neubert et al. 2009; Ruiz et al.
2011; Tanner et al. 2010), heightened citizenship behavior
(Avey et al. 2011; Kacmar et al. 2011; Piccolo et al.
2010), increased voice (Brown and Treviño 2006;
Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009), enhanced job per-
formance (Ahn et al. 2016; Piccolo et al. 2010;
Walumbwa et al. 2011) or reduced deviance and unethical
behavior at work (Mayer et al. 2009, 2012), ethical
leadership has been shown to drive a host of desirable
outcomes.
Hypothesis Development
Ethical Leadership and Workplace Deviance
To better understand the many benefits of ethical leader-
ship, scholars have looked to theories of social learning
(Bandura 1986) and social exchange (Blau 1964) as the
psychological mechanisms through which ethical leader-
ship may operate. To date, this work has offered three
useful explanations—(a) leaders’ role modeling, (b) lead-
ers’ effects on individuals’ attitudes and behaviors and
(c) social exchange/reciprocity norms of behavior—each of
which we describe below.
First, social learning theory posits that individuals look
to their social environment for cues as to the kinds of
behaviors that are expected, rewarded and punished
(Bandura 1986; Brown et al. 2005). Although individuals
may behave and learn through their own volition and self-
influence (Johns and Saks 2014), social learning theory
asserts that individuals primarily learn through observing
others’ behavior and the consequences such behavior
elicits (Davis and Luthans 1980). In many cases, individ-
uals learn what constitutes normative behavior from their
leaders. Through a process of social learning and obser-
vation, individuals learn their leaders’ values and norms
concerning ethical conduct and how to respond to moral
issues at work (Avolio et al. 2004; Sims and Brinkman
2002). In fact, research finds that leaders who act in
unethical ways can increase the likelihood that their
employees will engage in counterproductive work behav-
iors (CWB) such as theft, sabotage, withdrawal and pro-
duction deviance (Bennett and Robinson 2000; Ferris et al.
2009; Tepper et al. 2009). Numerous studies have also
shown that a leader’s ethical behavior has a cascading
effect on employees lower in the organizational hierarchy
through the mechanisms of social learning and role mod-
eling (Brown and Treviño 2006; Mayer et al. 2009;
Schaubroeck et al. 2012).
260 K. Gok et al.
123
Alternately, when leaders consistently demonstrate high
levels of integrity, they earn a reputation for being credible
and trustworthy sources of information and guidance
(Brown and Treviño 2006; Kouzes and Posner 2011). This
reputation, in turn, helps to build employees’ sense of
confidence in and commitment to their leaders and orga-
nizations (Ng and Feldman 2015). Such leaders are per-
ceived as positive role models that individuals look up to,
respect and model their behavior after (Bryan and Test
1967; Mayer et al. 2010; Piccolo et al. 2010). Research also
finds that leaders who possess high moral character and
consistently uphold ethical principles are more likely to be
emulated by subordinates (Mayer et al. 2012; Schaubroeck
et al. 2012; Schminke et al. 2005) and rated by them as
ethical leaders (Brown and Treviño 2014). Thus, leaders
who consistently engage in ethical behaviors can serve as
powerful moral examples for their employees.
Ethical leaders may also be able to prevent their
employees from engaging in deviant workplace actions by
improving their employees’ workplace attitudes (Treviño
and Brown 2005; van den Akker et al. 2009). When leaders
demonstrate consideration, support and trust in their
employees, employees tend to exhibit more favorable
attitudes and behaviors about their leaders and their
workplace environment (Chullen et al. 2010). These posi-
tive emotions, attitudes and beliefs employees have about
their leader(s) help to foster a stronger sense of attachment
to the organization (Brown and Treviño 2006; Neves and
Story 2015; Schminke et al. 2005). Importantly, these
improved employee opinions of the leader help to reduce
incidents of workplace misconduct. When employees
experience ethical leadership, they tend to have greater
affective commitment, which serves to reduce their orga-
nizational deviance, particularly when their supervisor has
a reputation as a high performer (Neves and Story 2015).
Thus, leaders who serve as strong ethical role models and
demonstrate high levels of competence can reduce the
frequency of workplace deviance by strengthening
employees’ attitudes, commitment and willingness to trust
those in positions of authority.
Employees may also be motivated to engage in less
deviant behavior because of a desire to reciprocate and give
back to their leaders in positive ways. One of the most
widely applied theories to issues of organizational life over
the last 50 years (cf. Dulebohn et al. 2012), social
exchange theory postulates that individuals follow a norm
of reciprocity that obligates them to respond in kind (Blau
1964; Homans 1961; Thibaut and Walker 1975). Research
shows that when leaders act in considerate ways toward
their employees, employees respond by engaging in more
frequent citizenship behaviors such as voicing helpful ideas
for organizational improvement (Wang et al. 2005; Van
Dyne et al. 2008).
However, social exchange can also operate in negative
ways, encouraging more destructive forms of reciprocity.
When leaders operate at the low end of the ethical lead-
ership spectrum, they foster employee perceptions of sus-
picion, distrust and discomfort that may give rise to
unethical follower conduct (Brown and Treviño 2004;
Tepper et al. 2009; Thau et al. 2009). When leaders con-
sistently and intentionally act in ways that demean, deni-
grate and disparage those around them, individuals are
more apt to retaliate to try and ‘‘get even’’ (Cropanzano and
Mitchell 2005; Gouldner 1960). This suggests that leaders
who engage in unethical behaviors create a context that
encourages negative reciprocity where employees imitate
the unethical conduct they see exhibited toward them
(Treviño and Brown 2004; Brown and Mitchell 2010).
Thus, while high ethical leadership motivates followers to
reciprocate with moral behavior, low ethical leadership
motivates followers to display negative behavior, either
through modeling, breaches in the exchange relationships,
or reduced identification (van Gils et al. 2015, p. 3).
In addition to the different ways in which employees
may respond to acts of (un)ethical leadership, the target of
employees’ retaliation (i.e., organization vs. supervisor)
may also vary. When employees feel powerless and inca-
pable of effecting meaningful change with their supervisor
directly, employees may decide to direct their aggression
more broadly toward the organization, rather than their
leaders (Tepper et al. 2009; Xu et al. 2012; Schyns and
Schilling 2013). Supporting this view, Hershcovis and
Barling (2010) found that supervisors’ aggression resulted
in not only negative employee attitudes (e.g., lower job
satisfaction, lower affective commitment and increased
turnover intention), but also high levels of deviance
directed at the organization. This is because retaliating
directly against one’s supervisor can be dangerous and
threatening to one’s career and has the potential to backfire
on the deviant actor (Rehg et al. 2008; Sumanth et al.
2011). For this reason, employees may choose retaliation
against the organization (e.g., engaging in deviant work
behavior, withholding and reducing effort, failing to be a
good corporate citizen), deeming it a safer way to get even
with their leaders.
In other cases, employees may choose to retaliate
directly against their supervisors. When leaders act in
abusive ways toward employees who are already intent on
leaving the organization, supervisor-directed deviance is
more likely (Tepper et al. 2009). Other studies also support
the view that negative leader behaviors serve as a powerful
trigger for supervisor-directed deviance (e.g., Mitchell and
Ambrose 2007; Tepper et al. 2008). In their meta-analysis
of destructive leadership and its outcomes, Schyns and
Schilling (2013) reported strong, positive correlations
between destructive leadership and employees’
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 261
123
counterproductive work behavior directed specifically at
the leader. These findings suggest that although employees
may choose subtler means of retaliating against their
supervisor’s unethical conduct (i.e., directing deviance at
the organization), in situations where employees perceive a
strong and direct injustice perpetrated against them by their
supervisor, employees may be more likely to retaliate
directly against their supervisors.
In sum, this evidence suggests that both high and low
levels of ethical leadership will directly influence how
employees respond attitudinally and behaviorally toward
their supervisors and organizations (Brown and Treviño
2006; Mayer et al. 2009). Through a combination of both
social learning and social exchange motives, individuals
may engage in more productive organizational actions
when supported by a leader who consistently exhibits
ethical leadership behaviors. Conversely, low levels of
ethical leadership may have the opposite effect on
employees and encourage them to retaliate against their
organizations and supervisors to restore a sense of justice
and equity to the relationship. Thus, we propose the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a Ethical leadership will be negatively
associated with employees’ deviance directed at the
organization.
Hypothesis 1b Ethical leadership will be negatively
associated with employees’ deviance directed at the
supervisor.
The Moderating Role of Moral Awareness
Our initial hypothesis that ethical leadership will be asso-
ciated with lower levels of deviance directed at both the
organization and supervisor is hardly provocative and has
been widely supported in prior research. The identification
of situations where ethical leadership may not be relevant,
or its consequences largely mitigated, however, offers
scholars and practitioners something different and inter-
esting to consider.
Moral awareness is ‘‘a person’s determination that a
situation contains moral content and legitimately can be
considered from a moral point of view’’ (Reynolds 2006:
233). In other words, moral awareness is the disposition of
some people to recognize situations that are likely to cause
moral wrong or harm to individuals and entities (VanSandt
et al. 2006). For this reason, moral awareness is an
important feature of individuals’ moral reasoning and
moral decision making (Rest 1986) and serves as a pre-
cursor to their incorporation of moral elements into situa-
tional judgments.
In a leadership context, we assert that employees who
have a high moral awareness will be less influenced by
their leader’s ethical behavior than employees who do
not already possess high moral awareness. In this way,
moral awareness behaves as a substitute for ethical
leadership, consistent with the substitutes for leadership
framework (Kerr and Jermier 1978) originally put forth
as an extension of House’s path-goal theory (House
1971). Kerr and Jermier (1978, p. 395) defined leadership
substitutes as ‘‘a person or thing acting or used in place
of another… [that] render(s)…leadership not only
impossible but also unnecessary.’’ In other words, ‘‘a
substitute is someone or something in the leader’s envi-
ronment that reduces the leader’s ability to influence
subordinate attitudes, perceptions, or behaviors, and, in
effect, replaces the impact of his or her behavior’’
(Podsakoff et al. 1993, p. 2).
In the case of ethical leadership, the leader’s behavior is
important because of the ethical model being displayed to
the employee. This model is then followed by the
employee based on social learning theory (Bandura 1986).
In cases where an employee’s moral awareness is already
high, however, the leader’s ethical model will be largely
redundant and only serve to reinforce the employee’s
existing beliefs. However, when an employee’s moral
awareness is low, a different response is likely. In such
instances, the leader’s (un)ethical behavior serves as the
employee’s primary ethical cue and model for ethical
action. Consequently, we would expect individuals with
low moral awareness to follow their leader’s ethical
example much more closely than those who have a high
level of moral awareness, since the latter already possess a
strong moral foundation for making ethical judgments.
Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2a Employees’ moral awareness will mod-
erate the negative relationship between ethical leadership
and organization-directed deviance, such that the relation-
ship will be more negative when employees’ moral
awareness is low.
Hypothesis 2b Employees’ moral awareness will mod-
erate the negative relationship between ethical leadership
and Supervisor-directed deviance, such that the relation-
ship will be more negative when employees’ moral
awareness is low.
Methods
In this section, we report the samples, procedures and
measures used to operationalize and test the proposed
theoretical model in Fig. 1. Further, we outline the proce-
dures used to discriminate our model variables and test our
hypotheses using both hierarchical regression analysis and
the PROCESS macro.
262 K. Gok et al.
123
Procedures and Samples
Procedures for Both Samples
To test our theoretical model, we collected multi-sourced,
lagged field data from 772 working professionals in Turkey
(Study 1) (n = 360) and the USA (Study 2) (n = 412). In
both the Turkish and US samples, data were collected at
two time periods (1 week apart) to minimize the likelihood
of common method variance exerting undue influence on
our results (Podsakoff et al. 2012). At Time 1, participants
provided basic demographic information (e.g., age, gender,
education and years of work experience) and ratings on the
ethical leadership, moral awareness and honesty/humility
measures. At Time 2, the same respondents were asked to
provide measures of organization-directed deviance and
supervisor-directed deviance.
To assist us in collecting the US sample data (Study 2),
one of the researchers, who worked more than 10 years in
the HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)
industry as a manager of supply chain management, con-
tacted his former employer to discuss the nature and pur-
pose of the study. This led to the signing of a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the HVAC company’s
human resources manager and two of the researchers. The
MOU was signed to ensure that the study team would not
disclose the company’s name in any resulting publications
and that survey participants’ identities would remain con-
fidential. With this confidentiality agreement in place, the
HVAC manufacturer gave the research team permission to
distribute and collect surveys at the company’s site in the
Midwestern United States.
During the data collection process, we implemented
several procedures to ensure anonymity and data confi-
dentiality of all US study participants, particularly since we
used both paper/pencil and online surveys1 to gather our
data. First, before administering any surveys, we informed
participants about the voluntary nature of the study and
assured them that their responses would be treated confi-
dentially. Moreover, study participants were advised that
all identifying information would be removed to preserve
anonymity. Second, all paper/pencil survey recipients were
given a return envelope for their survey so that none of
their colleagues (e.g., supervisors) would see their
responses. Participants were instructed to drop off their
completed survey in a sealed envelope at one of two box
locations—(a) the participants’ HVAC organization or
(b) the home institution of the lead researcher.
To ensure we could link participants’ anonymous survey
responses across two time periods, each participant was
given two raffle tickets that had the same, 6-digit random
number. During the first wave of data collection (i.e., Time
1), participants were instructed to staple one of the raffle
tickets to their questionnaire upon completion. Participants
were asked to save the second raffle ticket and staple it to
the second questionnaire upon completing it at Time 2.
This anonymous matching process enabled us to match 274
completed surveys from participants who completed the
two paper/pencil questionnaires. To further strengthen and
supplement this already robust sample, we also contacted a
group of respondents via email and invited them to take our
questionnaire via an anonymous, online survey tool. Online
survey participants were instructed to make up a 6-digit
identifier for themselves and to use it during both phases of
data collection to facilitate survey matching. At the end of
this process, we downloaded and matched 138 completed
surveys from the online survey platform. In sum, by
administering both paper/pencil and online surveys, our US
data collection efforts yielded 412 completed, usable
surveys.
We also implemented several procedures to ensure the
anonymity of study participants and confidentiality of data
collected in Turkey. Two members of the research team,
who were invited as co-authors midway through the pro-
ject, established contact with several human resources
(HR) managers at various businesses and public institutions
in a regional business and industrial hub located in central
Turkey. These researchers explained the purpose and nat-
ure of the study to obtain HR managers’ support for their
employees’ participation in the study. In addition, these
researchers assisted in identifying a volunteer from each
participating organization to distribute the data collection
instruments (i.e., questionnaires, envelopes, two raffle
tickets for survey matching) to their fellow employees.
Using the same survey matching procedure that we used
for the US sample, respondents were instructed to staple a
raffle ticket with a preprinted six-digit random number to
the questionnaire they completed at Time 1 and the second
raffle ticket to the questionnaire they completed at Time 2.
1 Research suggests there are no significant differences between print
and online participant groups on closed surveys, nor differences in
participant’s willingness to disclose personally revealing information
(Huang 2006; Knapp and Kirk 2003). For example, Hayslett and
Wildemuth (2004) examined the relative effectiveness of online vs.
paper surveys, paying special attention to response rates, response
time/quickness, sampling bias and response differences that could be
attributable to the choice of survey medium. Their study detected no
sampling bias or differences in content responses. Similarly, Hardré
et al. (2012) found no statistically significant differences between
paper-based and web-based surveys in terms of overall quality
(completeness, coherence, correctness). Finally, in a recent meta-
analysis, Dodou and de Winter (2014) compared social desirability
scores between paper and computer surveys across 51 studies that
included 62 independent samples and 16,700 unique participants.
Their findings show that there is no difference in social desirability
between paper-and-pencil surveys and computer surveys. Thus, we
felt justified in combining participants from both survey method
groups.
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 263
123
Respondents were then asked to place their completed
questionnaires in a sealed envelope and drop it off in a
researcher-provided box at their organization. Just as in
Study 1, participants were also given the option to partic-
ipate via an online survey tool. Those participants who
chose to take the survey online were instructed to make up
a 6-digit identifier and use it during both phases of data
collection to facilitate the matching of surveys completed
at Time 1 and Time 2.
Participants: Turkish Sample (Study 1)
Data for the first field study were obtained from a sample of
working professionals in Turkey. Participants were selec-
ted using a convenience sampling approach to reach as
many working professionals as possible in an industrial hub
located in central Turkey. About a quarter of respondents
had full-time employment at public organizations, while
the rest were full-time employees working at small- and
medium-sized enterprises in different industrial sectors,
such as energy, retail, manufacturing, construction, finan-
cial services, information services and telecommunica-
tions. Of the 393 paper/pencil, and online questionnaires
distributed during the first wave of data collection,
researchers collected 349 paper/pencil surveys and 20
online surveys. One week later, during the second wave of
data collection, 340 paper/pencil surveys were matched
with the surveys from Time 1, along with all 20 online
surveys. Thus, across the two waves of data collection, we
matched a total of 360 questionnaires, yielding a 91.6%
overall response rate. Of the 360 matched surveys, the
majority (94.4%) of respondents completed paper/pencil
surveys, while the remainder (5.6%) completed online
surveys. To more conservatively estimate model parame-
ters and other relevant statistics in our model, we used
listwise deletion in SPSS to eliminate cases with missing
data. This resulted in 339 observations being used to assess
organization-directed deviance and 340 observations being
used to assess supervisor-directed deviance.
Though only a small percentage of Study 1 participants
completed online surveys, we nevertheless assessed whether
responses to the four main study variables significantly dif-
fered between those participants who completed paper/
pencil surveys and those who completed online surveys.
Results from an independent two-samples test indicated that
the mean difference between paper/pencil survey partici-
pants and online survey participants did not differ signifi-
cantly from zero, since the 95% confidence intervals
included zero for all four study variables. Thus,we combined
responses from both the paper/pencil surveys (n = 340) and
online surveys (n = 20) into a single sample for Study 1.
Our final combined Turkish sample was primarily male
(66%), with an average age of 33.1 and 9.4 years of work
experience. Three percent of participants were in upper
management positions (e.g., Vice President, Chief Oper-
ating Officer and Chief Executive Officer), 10% in middle
management, 18% in lower management, 43% in clerical/
administrative roles and the rest (27%) in other positions.
Participants’ educational levels varied significantly, with
27% having a high school diploma or equivalent, 16%
possessing an associate’s degree, 43% having a bachelor’s
degree and 8% holding a graduate degree.
Participants: US Sample (Study 2)
The US data were collected from three separate target
groups, which together yielded a sample of 412 respondents.
The first group of respondents consisted of 183 employees
working for an HVAC manufacturing company in the Mid-
western United States. Participants in this sample subset
worked in assembly lines, specialized machine operations,
engineering, finance, purchasing and quality control. The
second group of respondents included 91 graduate business
administration students from a small, public university in the
Midwest who held part-time or full-time positions during the
data collection process. Each respondent had at least
6 months of work experience at either manufacturing or
service firms and worked in various jobs including assembly
lines, specialized machine operations, customer service,
finance, materials management and quality control. Students
who voluntarily participated in both phases of the data col-
lection process received course extra credit points as remu-
neration. The third and final group of respondents included
138 employees working in the Midwest who responded to
our email request (sent to 200 individuals) to participate in
our study. These respondents worked for various manufac-
turing companies in HVAC, aerospace, automobile and
heavy equipment industries. Subjects in this groupworked in
specialized machine operations, engineering, accounting,
finance, project management, purchasing and quality con-
trol. Unlike the first two groups of respondents who com-
pleted paper/pencil surveys, this third group of respondents
only completed an anonymous, online survey.
Since our Study 2 sample of US working professionals
came from three different participant sources, we considered
whether participant group membership might influence our
results and thus, should be included in subsequent analyses.
We therefore conducted a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to assess whether responses on our main study
variables significantly differed across the three sample
subsets (Lee et al. 2017). Results showed that the three
groups did not significantly differ from one another at con-
ventional significance levels (i.e., p\ .05) on either of our
predictors—moral awareness, F(2, 409) = 2.41, p = .09
or ethical leadership, F(2, 409) = 2.58, p = .08. Further,
subsequent post hoc analyses of the pairwise comparison of
264 K. Gok et al.
123
group means showed that all three pairwise comparisons
included zero in the 95% confidence intervals, providing
further evidence that participant responses for moral
awareness and ethical leadership did not significantly differ
across the three participant groups of the sample. Results
also revealed that there was no significant effect of group
membership on participant responses to organization-di-
rected deviance F(2, 409) = .90, p = .41 or supervisor-
directed deviance, F(2, 409) = .02, p = .98. Given the
results of this ANOVA and the lack of significant differences
across the three subsets of samples on four main study
variables, we chose to combine these participant groups into
a single sample for Study 2.
Across the three participant groups, 523 survey requests
were sent and 412 completed and usable questionnaires
were returned (a 79% response rate). Once again, we used
listwise deletion in SPSS to eliminate cases with missing
data, resulting in 409 observations as our final sample size.
Across this sample, participants were predominantly male
(55%), averaged 31.2 years of age and possessed nearly
11.2 years of work experience. Less than 1% of participants
held upper management positions, 9% were in middle
management, 26% in lower management and 27% in
administrative or clerical roles. The largest proportion of
participants (38%) self-identified as operations workers,
which included jobs operating specialized machinery and
manual assembly work. The educational mix of participants
included 66% with a high school diploma or equivalent,
30% with college degrees and 3% with graduate degrees.
Measures
Unless otherwise stated, all variables in both Study 1 and
Study 2 were measured using a 5-point Likert agreement
scale ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly
agree’’). Table 1 provides scale reliabilities (i.e., Cronbach’s
alphas) along the diagonal for measures used in the Turkish
sample (Study 1), while Table 4 presents reliability esti-
mates along the diagonal for the US sample (Study 2). Items
comprising each scale were averaged to create composite
measures for each variable, and items were coded such that
higher scores equated to higher levels of the construct of
interest.
Ethical leadership was measured using the ELS (Ethical
Leadership Scale) developed by Brown et al. (2005). This
scale consisted of ten items (e.g., ‘‘My supervisor disci-
plines employees who violate ethical standards’’) (Study 1
a = .91; Study 2 a = .90).
Moral Awareness was measured using the three-item
scale developed by Arnaud (2010) (e.g., ‘‘I am aware of
ethical issues in this organization’’) (Study 1 a = .83;
Study 2 a = .67).
Organization-directed deviance was measured using
Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) 12-item scale (e.g., ‘‘I spent
too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of
working’’) (Study 1 a = .95; Study 2 a = .87). This vari-
able was measured using a 5-point frequency scale where
1 = ‘‘Never’’ and 5 = ‘‘Very often.’’
Supervisor-directed deviance was measured using
Mitchell and Ambrose’s (2007) 10-item scale (e.g., ‘‘I
gossiped about my supervisor’’) (Study 1 a = .95; Study 2
a = .90). Like our measure of organization-directed
deviance, this variable was measured using a 5-point fre-
quency scale where 1 = ‘‘Never’’ and 5 = ‘‘Very often.’’
Control Variables
We controlled for various demographic variables in our
study, including the age, gender and work experience of
participants. We chose these variables based on prior
research showing significant relationships between these
demographic characteristics and ethical issues. Research
Table 1 Study 1: means, standard deviations and correlations (Turkey sample)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Ethical leadership 3.72 .75 (.91)
2. Moral awareness 3.94 .75 .20** (.83)
3. Honesty 2.92 .50 .05 .12* (.67)
4. Organization-directed deviance 1.56 .75 -.21** -.18** .19** (.95)
5. Supervisor-directed deviance 1.57 .80 -.16** -.13* .24** .63** (.95)
6. Age 33.08 8.09 .03 .09a .06 .02 .09
7. Gender 0.66 .47 -.03 .00 .13* -.02 .03 .00
8. Work experience (months) 112.29 97.38 .06 .06 -.01 -.06 .02 .78** .07
Cronbach’s alphas listed along the diagonal
Listwise N = 339
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) a Correlation is significant at the .05 level (one-tailed)
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 265
123
suggests moral awareness may covary with an individual’s
age (Kohlberg 1981), just as ethical behavior may vary as a
function of one’s expertise and knowledge accumulated
over time (Ford and Richardson 1994; van Gils et al. 2015).
Additionally, we controlled for individuals’ honesty and
humility using Lee and Ashton’s (2004) 16-item measure
(Study 1 a = .67; Study 2 a = .83), given the possibility
that individuals who are more honest and humble may
engage in less deviant behavior (Ashton et al. 2014; Zettler
and Hilbig 2010). Thus, by including each of these vari-
ables in our model, we account for several alternative
explanations that could challenge the validity of our find-
ings (cf. Spector and Brannick 2011).
To provide initial evidence of construct validity, and
consistent with prior recommendations from research
(Bagozzi et al. 1991), we conducted a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) of all survey items using AMOS version
22.0 with maximum likelihood estimation. To model the
CFA, each item was fit to its latent factor (e.g., all super-
visor-directed deviance items created a supervisor-directed
deviance factor). After allowing residuals to correlate (cf.
Cole et al., 2007), the expected four-factor solution dis-
played adequate fit across both studies: Study 1: (Chi-
square [502] = 1516.38, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .078,
SRMR = .056); Study 2: (Chi-square [466] = 1486.04,
CFI = .88, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .074). These ade-
quate fit indices, combined with the results of our relia-
bility analyses, provided robust support for the validity of
our study measures across both samples.
Analytical Strategy
We employed various statistical techniques to examine the
hypothesized relationships in our theoretical model (Fig. 1).
We used hierarchical linear regression to test Hypotheses 1a
and 1b, which proposed main effects of ethical leadership on
both organization-directed deviance and supervisor-di-
rected deviance. To examine these proposed main effects,
we first included our control variables (age, gender work
experience and honesty) in step 1 of the hierarchical
regression analysis. In step 2, ethical leadership was entered
along with the control variables. To test Hypotheses 2a and
2b, which proposed a moderating influence of moral
awareness on ethical leadership, we used Hayes’ (2014)
PROCESS macro (i.e., Model 1) and followed the proce-
dures for regression analysis recommended by Aiken and
West (1991), including mean centering the independent
(ethical leadership) and moderator (moral awareness) vari-
ables. Following the approach recommended by Stone and
Hollenbeck (1989) and Aiken and West (1991), we plotted
the interactions at ±1 standard deviation above/below the
mean to determine their form (see Figs. 2a, b, 3a, b).
Results
Study 1: Results (Turkey Sample)
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics, correlations and
coefficient alphas for all Study 1 variables. Ethical lead-
ership was positively associated with moral awareness
(r = .20; p\ .01), but negatively associated with organi-
zation-directed deviance (r = -.21; p\ .01) and super-
visor-directed deviance (r = -.16; p\ .01). Correlational
analysis also revealed a negative relationship between
moral awareness and organization-directed deviance
(r = -.18; p\ .01) and supervisor-directed deviance
(r = -.13; p\ .05), and a positive relationship between
moral awareness and honesty (r = .12; p\ .05). Finally,
age was significantly positively correlated with moral
awareness (r = .09; p\ .05) and work experience
(r = .78; p\ .01), while gender was positively correlated
with honesty (r = .13; p\ .05).
Fig. 2 a Study 1: the interaction of ethical leadership and moral
awareness on organization-directed deviance (Turkey sample).
b Study 1: the interaction of ethical leadership and moral awareness
on supervisor-directed deviance (Turkey sample)
266 K. Gok et al.
123
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1a predicted that ethical leadership would be
negatively associated with employees’ deviance directed at
the organization. Results from step 1 of the hierarchical
regression analysis reveal that control variables (age,
gender, work experience and honesty) accounted for only
5% of the variance in employees’ organization-directed
deviance behavior, with honesty being the only significant
predictor (b = .19; p B .001). However, when added to
these control variables, ethical leadership accounted for an
additional 4% of the variance in employees’ organization-
directed deviance behavior (see Table 2). Thus, since eth-
ical leadership is a strong, negative predictor of organiza-
tional-directed deviance (b = -.22; p\ .001), even after
controlling for various factors, including individuals’
honesty (b = .20; p\ .001), our results provide support
for Hypothesis 1a.
Hypothesis 1b predicted that ethical leadership would be
negatively associated with employees’ deviance directed at
the supervisor. To evaluate the impact of ethical leadership
on supervisor-directed deviance, we followed the same
procedure as above, changing only the dependent variable
in our regression model. Once again, honesty was the only
significant predictor (b = .23; p\ .001) of supervisor-di-
rected deviance in step 1 of the hierarchical regression
analysis, which explained 7% of the variance. After
including ethical leadership in step 2, an additional 2% of
the variance in supervisor-directed deviance was explained.
Overall, these results show that ethical leadership is a
significant negative predictor of supervisor-directed
deviance (b = -.17; p B .001), even after controlling for
individuals’ honesty (b = .24; p\ .001) and other demo-
graphic characteristics. Thus, Hypothesis 1b was also
supported.
Hypothesis 2a predicted that employees’ moral aware-
ness would moderate the negative relationship between
ethical leadership and organization-directed deviance, such
that the relationship would be more negative when
employees’ moral awareness was low. As shown in
Table 3, negative main effects of ethical leadership
(b = -.14; p\ .01) and moral awareness (b = -.19;
p\ .001) were found when predicting organizational-di-
rected deviance. Importantly, the interaction term was
significant for the moderating effect of moral awareness on
organization-directed deviance (b = .22; p\ .001). This
significant interaction accounted for an additional 7% of
the variance in organization-directed deviance, increasing
from 9% in Hypothesis 1a to 16% in Hypothesis 2a.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that employees’ moral aware-
ness would moderate the negative relationship between
ethical leadership and supervisor-directed deviance, such
that the relationship would be more negative when
employees’ moral awareness was low. While there was a
significant negative main effect of moral awareness on
supervisor-directed deviance (b = -.17; p\ .01), most
importantly a significant interaction between ethical lead-
ership and moral awareness was also found (b = .31;
p\ .001). This significant interaction term accounted for
an additional 9% of the variance in supervisor-directed
deviance, increasing from 9% in Hypothesis 1b to 18% in
Hypothesis 2b.
Following the approach recommended by Stone and
Hollenbeck (1989) and Aiken and West (1991), we plotted
the interactions at ±1 standard deviation above/below the
mean (see Fig. 2a, b). These graphs indicate that the
highest levels of deviance (i.e., both organization-directed
and supervisor-directed) were found at low levels of ethical
leadership for those individuals who were also low in
moral awareness.
Simple slopes analysis revealed that slopes were sig-
nificantly different from zero for low levels of moral
awareness when predicting both organization-directed
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Low Ethical leadership High Ethical leadership
O rg
an iz
at io
n- D
ir ec
te d
D ev
ia nc
e
Low Moral Awareness
High Moral Awareness
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Low Ethical leadership High Ethical leadership
Su pe
rv is
or -D
ir ec
te d
D ev
ia nc
e
Low Moral Awareness
High Moral Awareness
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3 a Study 2: the interaction of ethical leadership and moral
awareness on organization-directed deviance (US sample). b Study 2:
the interaction of ethical leadership and moral awareness on
supervisor-directed deviance (US sample)
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 267
123
(b = -.36, t = -5.12, p\ .001) and supervisor-directed
deviance (b = -.40, t = -5.49, p\ .001). In contrast, the
slope did not differ significantly from zero at high levels of
moral awareness when predicting organization-directed
deviance (b = .08, t = .95, p = .344), although it did
differ from zero when predicting supervisor-directed
deviance (b = .23, t = 2.485, p\ .05). Taken together,
this evidence suggests that the beneficial impact of ethical
leadership to reduce individuals’ organization- and super-
visor-directed deviance is strongest for those employees
who rate low in moral awareness. Thus, Hypotheses 2a and
2b were both supported.
Although these findings provide robust preliminary
support for our hypotheses and highlight the important role
individuals’ moral awareness plays in driving the effects of
ethical leadership, we sought to enhance the external
validity of our findings by examining whether these effects
held in a different national cultural context. For this reason,
we sought to constructively replicate the findings from
Study 1 with a different sample of working professionals in
another country (the USA).
Study 2: Results (US Sample)
Table 4 provides descriptive statistics, correlations and
coefficient alphas for all Study 2 variables. Results from
this sample of US working professionals indicate that
ethical leadership is negatively associated with moral
awareness (r = -.09; p\ .05), organization-directed
deviance (r = -.18; p\ .01), supervisor-directed
deviance (r = -.21; p\ .01), age (r = -.22; p\ .01) and
work experience (r = -.20; p\ .01). We found that moral
awareness was positively associated with honesty (r = .18;
p\ .01), age (r = .23; p\ .01) and work experience
(r = .23; p\ .01) and that honesty was negatively asso-
ciated with organization-directed deviance (r = -.31;
p\ .01), supervisor-directed deviance (r = -.16; p\ .01)
and gender (r = -.22; p\ .01) but positively associated
with age (r = .43; p\ .01) and work experience (r = 39;
p\ .01). A significant negative association between
organization-directed deviance and age (r = -.10;
p\ .05) was found but a positive one between gender and
organization-directed deviance (r = .38; p\ .01) and
supervisor-directed deviance (r = .27; p\ .01).
Table 2 Study 1: OLS
hierarchical regression results
(Turkey sample)
Organization-directed deviance (ODD) Supervisor-directed deviance (SDD)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Intercept 1.34 (.23) 1.37 (.22) 1.17 (.24) 1.20 (.24)
Age .13 (.01) .11 (.01) .15 (.01) .14 (.01)
Gender -.03 (.09) -.04 (.08) .00 (.09) -.01 (.09)
Work Experience -.15 (.00) -.12 (.00) -.09 (.00) -.07 (.00)
Honesty .19*** (.08) .20*** (.08) .23*** (.09) .24*** (.09)
Ethical leadership -.22*** (.05) -.17*** (.06)
R .22 .31 .26 .31
R2 .05 .09 .07 .09
DF 4.04** 17.01*** 5.86*** 10.57***
*** p\ .001; ** p\ .01; * p\ .05
N = 339 (ODD); N = 340 (SDD)
Standard errors are presented next to standardized coefficients in parentheses
Values in bold are relevant to the tests of the hypotheses
Table 3 Study 1: process model results for testing moderation
(Turkey sample)
Organization-directed
deviance (ODD)
Supervisor-directed
deviance (SDD)
Intercept 1.24 (.22) 1.05 (.23)
Age .01 (.01) .02 (.01)
Gender -.04 (.08) .02 (.09)
Work experience -.00 (.00) -.00 (.00)
Honesty .32 (.08) .40 (.08)
Ethical leadership -.14** (.05) -.09 (.06)
Moral awareness -.19*** (.05) -.17** (.06)
Ethical leadership 9
moral awareness
.22*** (.06) .31*** (.06)
R .40 .42
R2 .16 .18
ODD: F (7, 331);
SDD: F(7, 332)
8.87*** 10.40***
*** p\ .001; ** p\ .01; * p\ .05
N = 339 (ODD); N = 340 (SDD)
Standard errors are presented next to standardized coefficients in
parentheses
Values in bold are relevant to the tests of the hypotheses
268 K. Gok et al.
123
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1a predicted that ethical leadership would be
negatively associated with employees’ deviance directed at
the organization. Following the same analytical procedures
as in Study 1, we entered the control variables (age, gender
work experience and honesty) in Step 1 of the hierarchical
regression model. Compared to Study 1, the control vari-
ables in Study 2 explained a significantly larger proportion
of the variance (21%) in organization-directed deviance,
including a significant main effect of gender (0 = female,
1 = male) (b = .33, p\ .001) and a strong, negative
effect of honesty (b = -.23, p\ .001). Adding ethical
leadership into the model in Step 2 increased the variance
explained to 24%, suggesting ethical leadership
(b = -.20, p\ .001) accounted for an additional 3% of
the variance after accounting for individuals’ honesty
(b = -.23; p\ .001). Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported.
Hypothesis 1b predicted that ethical leadership would be
negatively associated with employees’ deviance directed at
their supervisor. Main effects of gender (b = .23, p\ .001),
work experience (b = .19, p = .05) and honesty (b = -.13,
p\ .05) were significant predictors of supervisor-directed
deviance in Step 1 of the regression model, accounting for
9% of the variance in supervisor-directed deviance behavior.
In Step 2, ethical leadershipwas added to themodel, resulting
in work experience no longer being a significant predictor of
supervisor-directed deviance at conventional significance
levels (b = .18, p = .058), while gender (b = .23,
p\ .001) and honesty (b = -.13, p\ .05) remained sig-
nificant. Adding ethical leadership (b = -.22, p\ .001) in
Step 2 contributed an additional 5% of the total variance,
resulting in 14% of the total variance in employees’ super-
visor-directed deviance behavior being explained by our
model. Thus, Hypothesis 1b was also supported (Table 5).
Next, we examined the moderating role of moral
awareness on the relationship between ethical leadership
and organization-directed deviance (i.e., Hypothesis 2a).
Once again, we used Hayes’ (2014) PROCESS macro
(Model 1) and mean centered the independent and mod-
erator variables (cf., Aiken & West 1991). As shown in
Table 6, we found significant negative main effects of
ethical leadership (b = -.16; p\ .001), moral awareness
(b = -.11; p\ .01), honesty (b = -.24, p\ .001) and
gender (b = .35, p\ .001) on organizational-directed
deviance. Results also revealed a significant interaction
between ethical leadership and moral awareness (b = .18,
p\ .01), which accounted for an additional 2% of the total
variance in organizational-directed deviance.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that employees’ moral aware-
ness would moderate the negative relationship between
ethical leadership and supervisor-directed deviance, such
that this relationship would be more negative when
employees’ moral awareness was low. As shown in
Table 6, we found significant negative main effects of
ethical leadership (b = -.18; p\ .001), honesty
(b = -.15, p\ .01) and gender (b = .25, p\ .001). More
importantly, our findings also uncovered a significant
interaction between ethical leadership and moral awareness
(b = .17, p\ .01), which accounted for an additional 2%
of the total model variance (15%).
Plotting these significant interactions at ±1 standard
deviation above/below the mean (see Fig. 3a, b) revealed
once again that the highest levels of deviance occurred at
low levels of ethical leadership when individuals were low
in moral awareness.
Analysis of simple slopes indicated that at low levels of
moral awareness, the slope of the line differed significantly
from zero when predicting both organization-directed
deviance (b = -.34, t = -5.14, p\ .001) and supervisor-
Table 4 Study 2: means, standard deviations and correlations (US Sample)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Ethical leadership 3.52 .69 (.90)
2. Moral awareness 3.70 .62 -.09a (.67)
3. Honesty 3.54 .54 -.07 .18** (.83)
4. Organization-directed deviance 1.76 .54 -.18** -.15** -.31** (.87)
5. Supervisor-directed deviance 1.62 .56 -.21** -.06 -.16** .60** (.90)
6. Age 31.16 12.04 -.22** .23** .43** -.10a .01
7. Gender .55 .50 -.03 -.07 -.22** .38** .27** .10a
8. Work experience (months) 134.36 126.07 -.20** .23** .39** -.05 .06 .87** .10*
Cronbach’s alphas listed along the diagonal
Listwise N = 409
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) a Correlation is significant at the .05 level (one-tailed)
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 269
123
directed deviance (b = -.34, t = -4.73, p\ .001).
However, the slope did not differ significantly from zero at
high levels of moral awareness when predicting organiza-
tion-directed deviance (b = .02, t = .31, p = .757) or
supervisor-directed deviance (b = -.01, t = -.081,
p = .935). This evidence again suggests that ethical lead-
ership wields its benefits by reducing organization- and
supervisor-directed deviance in those individuals whose
moral awareness is low, not high. Thus, Hypotheses 2a and
2b were once again both supported.
Discussion
As organizations continue to seek solutions to ongoing
ethical violations and deviant workplace behavior, under-
standing how leaders can help to minimize and eliminate
such occurrences is of vital importance. To date, organi-
zational scholars have presented ethical leadership as one
potentially useful remedy to this problem, repeatedly
arguing for its capacity to simultaneously enhance orga-
nizational functioning and reduce unethical workplace
conduct (Brown and Treviño 2006; Mo and Shi 2017).
Despite this recognition that ethical leadership has the
potential to reduce the frequency of unethical acts, few
studies have examined the specific conditions under which
ethical leadership is effective at reducing workplace
deviance, and those where it is less so (Babalola et al.
2017; Chuang and Chiu 2017).
In this investigation, we sought to contribute to this
discussion by introducing the role of individuals’ moral
awareness as an important boundary condition of ethical
leadership. Results from two large field studies of working
professionals in Turkey (Study 1) and the USA (Study 2),
provide robust and consistent support for the view that
ethical leadership is most effective in reducing both orga-
nization-directed and supervisor-directed deviance, partic-
ularly for those employees lacking high levels of moral
awareness. This suggests that leaders who attempt to alter
employees’ behavior by engaging in ethical leadership
practices with all of them, irrespective of their moral
characteristics, may be wasting their time by misallocating
valuable cognitive, affective and leadership resources. As a
result, leaders may need to seek other alternatives or ways
to reduce deviant conduct when employees already possess
high levels of moral awareness.
Table 5 Study 2: OLS
hierarchical regression results
(US sample)
Organization-directed deviance (ODD) Supervisor-directed deviance (SDD)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Intercept 1.68 (.10) 1.74 (.09) 1.53 (.10) 1.60 (.10)
Age -.14 (.00) -.18 (.00) -.12 (.01) -.16 (.01)
Gender .33*** (.05) .33*** (.05) .23*** (.06) .23*** (.05)
Work experience .13 (.00) .12 (.00) .19 (.00) .18 (.00)
Honesty -.23*** (.05) -.23*** (.05) -.13* (.06) -.13* (.06)
Ethical leadership -.20*** (.04) -.22*** (.04)
R .45 .49 .31 .37
R2 .21 .24 .09 .14
DF 25.97*** 20.37*** 10.26*** 20.80***
*** p\ .001; ** p\ .01; * p\ .05
N = 339 (ODD); N = 340 (SDD)
Standard errors are presented next to standardized coefficients in parentheses
Values in bold are relevant to the tests of the hypotheses
Table 6 Study 2: process model results for testing moderation (US
sample)
Organization-directed
deviance (ODD)
Supervisor-directed
deviance (SDD)
Intercept 1.70 (.09) 1.57 (.10)
Age -.01 (.00) -.01 (.00)
Gender .35*** (.05) .25*** (.05)
Work experience .00 (.00) .00 (.00)
Honesty -.24*** (.05) -.15** (.06)
Ethical leadership -.16*** (.03) -.18*** (.04)
Moral awareness -.11** (.04) -.06 (.04)
Ethical leadership 9
moral awareness
.18** (.06) .17** (.06)
R .52 .39
R2 .27 .15
F (7, 401) 21.31*** 10.46***
*** p\ .001; ** p\ .01; * p\ .05
N = 409
Standard errors are presented next to standardized coefficients in
parentheses
Values in bold are relevant to the tests of the hypotheses
270 K. Gok et al.
123
Theoretical Contributions
This paper seeks to make several important theoretical
contributions to the ethical leadership, moral awareness
and employee deviance literature. First, through this
investigation we reinforce the power of ethical leaders to
shape and positively influence their organizations. Con-
sistent with prior work (Avey et al. 2011; Mayer et al.
2009) and predicted by social learning theory (Bandura
1986), our findings suggest that leaders who engage in
ethical leadership behaviors play a critical role in reducing
workplace deviance by serving as strong, moral examples
for employees to emulate (Chen et al. 2013; Greenbaum
et al. 2013; Taylor and Pattie 2014). In this way, our
research reinforces the importance of ethical leaders as
moral role models who set the tone for organizational
expectations and norms around ethical conduct and deci-
sion making (Mayer et al. 2009; Neves and Story 2015).
Importantly, our investigation also paints a more
nuanced picture of when ethical leadership is most likely to
be an effective tool in reducing employees’ deviant
behavior. We provide insight into how an important con-
textual force (i.e., ethical leadership) interacts with a key
individual difference (i.e., moral awareness) to yield valued
organizational outcomes (i.e., lower organization-directed
and supervisor-directed deviance). Although a fair amount
of work has already examined how individuals’ personality
traits impact their responses to ethical leadership behaviors
(Berry et al. 2007; Mayer et al. 2012), research exploring
the role of individuals’ moral dispositions on this rela-
tionship is still in its infancy. Thus, this paper addresses
calls for researchers to simultaneously explore the role of
ethical leadership (Brown and Treviño 2006) and ethical
predispositions as joint influencers on individuals’ work-
place conduct (van Gils et al. 2015). We do so by identi-
fying a new boundary condition—low levels of moral
awareness (cf. Arnaud 2010; Kalshoven et al. 2013)—un-
der which ethical leadership exerts a significant influence
in reducing employees’ organizational-directed and super-
visor-directed deviance. Importantly, we find that this
negative relationship between ethical leadership and
deviance behavior may be strengthened when employees
lack a high level of awareness and understanding around
how ethical issues may impact organizational decision
making. In situations where employees lack this moral
understanding, having a leader who a) communicates an
ethics-first message at work, b) helps employees aspire to
higher levels of moral achievement and c) consistently acts
with integrity in his/her personal and professional life can
provide followers with a guiding moral influence they seek
to emulate. In this way, ethical leadership is a crucial
strategic lever leaders can use to positively influence their
less morally aware followers. Through these efforts,
leaders not only equip employees to abide by ethical norms
of conduct, but also limit the damage done to individual-
and organizational reputations that can accrue from
employees’ deviant actions (Fehr et al. 2015; Treviño et al.
2000a, b).
This finding, while potentially provocative, is nonethe-
less consistent with substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr
and Jermier 1978). While ethical leadership has been
shown as valuable for enhancing organizational function-
ing and effectiveness (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009),
our findings suggest it is not always critical to ensuring
positive ethical outcomes. To the contrary, our research
shows that high levels of ethical leadership do little to
reduce employees’ deviant actions when they are already
predisposed toward understanding issues of moral impor-
tance. From a theory-building standpoint, this insight helps
to advance the ethical leadership literature by highlighting
the construct’s inherent limitations and boundary condi-
tions. By recognizing that individuals have wide and dif-
fering perspectives on morality and use different evaluation
criteria to assess leader behavior (Giessner and Van
Quaquebeke 2010; Henle 2005), we believe researchers
can better advance ethical leadership’s conceptual and
practical utility by applying it more specifically to certain
individuals (e.g., the less morally aware) and/or situations
(e.g., where an ethical climate is non-existent) where its
influence may be more valuable. In this way, the utility and
precision of our leadership theories is enhanced, providing
greater value for scholars and practitioners seeking to
employ these different leadership behaviors in their work.
Practical Implications
In addition to advancing theory on ethical leadership,
moral awareness and deviance, our findings also provide
important, practical insights for managers seeking to build
more ethical organizations. First, our research indicates
that leaders who engage in ethical leadership practices are
more likely to see a potential reduction in followers’
deviant conduct, given the strong negative relationship that
exists between ethical leadership and employees’ deviance.
However, we caution that such an approach is akin to using
the proverbial hammer for anything that looks like a nail.
As noted above, ethical leadership, despite its numerous
purported benefits, is not a ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution to
reducing deviant behavior at work. Rather, our findings
suggest its influence is conditional, dependent as much on
employees’ moral characteristics as it is on leaders’ own
behaviors.
We recommend, therefore, that leaders take a more
personalized, tailored approach when deciding to whom to
exhibit ethical leadership practices. By understanding and
being aware that employees’ ethical tendencies, much like
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 271
123
their motivations, are unique (van Gils et al. 2015), leaders
are better equipped to see a greater return on their invest-
ment in ethical leadership practices. Rather than relying
upon ethical leadership with all their employees, our
findings suggest leaders are better served by being more
judicious in how they allocate and expend their leadership
resources. Taking the time to understand and appreciate
their employees’ personalities, moral dispositions and
tendencies can only serve to enhance leaders’ ability to
manage them effectively. Whether it be through a battery
of personality and behavioral integrity assessments, formal
ethics training seminars or other ways of capturing
knowledge about their employees’ moral dispositions,
leaders would be well served by identifying early on which
of their employees would benefit from more intense,
focused ethical leadership practices (e.g., continually
communicating and reinforcing an ethics-first message)
and which of them only need intermittent, infrequent
reminders. Doing so can alleviate the burden upon leaders
to be all things to all people and free them to be more
strategic and targeted in their leadership approach.
A second important practical implication of this work is
highlighting the critical role leaders play in selecting and
hiring employees who possess the proper levels of moral
awareness. Building a culture of ethicality takes time, and
hiring the right people who fit the desired culture is one
way to minimize acts of workplace deviance (Appelbaum
et al. 2005). When leaders begin to include individuals’
moral awareness as a relevant and important selection
criterion for employment and/or promotion, this not only
increases the likelihood of hiring ethical individuals,
thereby lowering deviance in the process, but also com-
municates and demonstrates to interested observers the
organization’s commitment to ethical values. This helps to
reinforce and build a healthy ethical climate and culture,
while also reducing the ‘‘ethical burden’’ on current and
future managers to actively manage ethical missteps.
Yet, if leaders cannot find highly morally aware indi-
viduals who also satisfy specific job and/or role require-
ments, then it becomes incumbent upon leaders to
proactively raise their employees’ level of moral aware-
ness, particularly if one of their objectives is to lower the
frequency of deviant behavior. Leaders who purposefully
seek ways to increase their employees’ understanding of
and sensitivity to ethical issues at work can potentially
insure themselves against widespread deviant behavior. By
helping their employees understand the ways in which
ethical dilemmas may present themselves during day-to-
day business interactions, leaders can help to foster a more
ethical work environment, creating a culture of trans-
parency, honesty and virtue (Arnaud 2010). Thus, looking
for creative and engaging ways to raise the collective moral
awareness of employees should be a top strategic priority
of both senior- and mid-level leaders tasked with setting
and executing the organization’s vision.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
While this investigation makes several important contri-
butions to both theory and practice, like any research
endeavor, it is not without limitations, thus reflecting
opportunities for future research. While our two studies on
two different continents established moral awareness as a
significant moderator of the relationship between ethical
leadership and employees’ organization-directed and
supervisor-directed deviance, our findings are also consis-
tent with prior work which raises the possibility that other
specific moral dispositions, such as honesty and humility,
may play a role in shaping individuals’ deviant behavior
(O’Neill and Hastings 2011). Although ethical leadership
exhibited a strong negative impact on deviance for those
low in moral awareness across both studies, in Study 1
(Turkish working professionals), we also observed a sur-
prisingly positive trend in deviance among those individ-
uals who rated themselves highly on moral awareness and
honesty. Here, we offer three potential explanations for
these counterintuitive results and encourage future research
to consider their merits.
First, higher levels of honesty may be associated with
higher levels of deviance, in part, due to a lack of antici-
pation or foresight about how their dishonest actions might
affect themselves and others. Recent research by Sheldon
and Fishbach (2015) and Ariely (2012) suggests that when
individuals fail to anticipate temptation or how they might
respond to it, even ‘‘honest’’ individuals are highly sus-
ceptible to engaging in unethical behavior. Second, indi-
viduals who rated themselves highly on honesty and moral
awareness may have over reported and/or overestimated
their deviant conduct to further magnify their honesty, even
if it was about undesirable things, such as workplace
deviance. In self-reporting deviant behavior that their less
honesty peers may be more inclined to hide or underreport,
highly honest individuals may be trying to reinforce their
social and moral identities as ethical persons, consistent
with established prior research (Aquino et al. 2009). A
third potential explanation we offer here is that national
culture, organizational culture and/or other unique sample
differences may have had an impact, particularly since in
the US sample (Study 2), self-reported deviance behaviors
were negatively associated with both honesty and moral
awareness. Thus, norms of behavior and ethicality may
have differed across samples, as could have receptivity to
an ethical form of leadership (Eisenbeiß and Brodbeck
2014). We therefore encourage researchers to further
explore the antecedents and outcomes of ethical leadership
across various national cultures, samples and working
272 K. Gok et al.
123
environments to better inform our understanding of how
ethical leadership operates. Although the current investi-
gation limits our ability to test these various explanations,
future research should consider these interesting
alternatives.
A second limitation worth noting is the cross-sectional
nature of our data. Although the data for these studies
admittedly represent employees’ attitudes and behaviors at
a moment in time, we attempted to enhance the rigor of our
measurement by using established scales and collecting
independent and dependent variables at two distinct points
in time, thus minimizing the potential for common method
variance (CMV) (cf. Podsakoff et al. 2012). Further, the
consistent and significant interactions we found across both
field samples strongly suggest our findings are not spurious
or caused by CMV, consistent with prior research on the
nature of interactions (Siemsen et al. 2010). However, we
acknowledge the need for more robust approaches to
measurement and encourage future research to utilize more
longitudinal designs that can help to illuminate how per-
ceptions of ethical leadership develop over time and whe-
ther employee deviance occurs in response to a specific
triggering event, a compilation of actions or some combi-
nation thereof.
While our study identified an important boundary con-
dition of ethical leadership as it relates to supervisor-di-
rected and organization-directed deviance (i.e., moral
awareness), we admittedly did not test additional modera-
tors that may also help to strengthen this association, nor
did we directly measure the causal mechanism driving
individuals to engage in less deviant conduct. Going for-
ward, it will be important for researchers to examine the
underlying psychological mechanisms driving individuals
to engage in less deviant behavior and how ethical lead-
ership influences these psychological conditions. In addi-
tion, we encourage scholars to explore how other newer-
genre forms of leadership (e.g., transformational and
authentic leadership) (Hannah et al. 2014) may influence
other forms of workplace deviance and whether they
operate through the same or different causal channels.
A final limitation worth noting is the conceptualization
and operationalization of deviance we employed in this
research effort. To date, a central effort of the behavioral
ethics literature has been to distinguish between unethical
behavior and deviant behavior. However, to be able to call
a given behavior deviant requires intimate knowledge of
individuals’ intentions and motives (Wilks 2011). Whereas
unethical behavior is characterized by a breaking of soci-
etal rules, deviant behavior focuses on the violation of
organizational norms (Spreitzer and Sonenshein 2004).
Given this distinction, exploring whether individuals’ level
of moral awareness might predict whether they engage in
unethical or deviant behaviors would add much needed
clarity to the literature. Additionally, future research might
also consider investigating the underlying psychological
differences between individuals possessing high and low
levels of moral awareness. Studies have shown that
employees often react to perceived injustices and dissatis-
faction (Bennett and Robinson 2000), unfair treatment (El
Akremi et al. 2010) or mistreatments (Tepper et al. 2009)
quite differently. Understanding the moral and psycho-
logical makeup of individuals who respond in these various
ways to a lack of ethical leadership would prove valuable.
Conclusion
Ethical leadership is a powerful lever leaders can use to
enhance their organizations. Yet, despite the widespread
recognition that ethical leaders have the power to influence
their organizations in positive and meaningful ways, very
little research has been devoted to exploring how certain
individual moral factors (e.g., moral awareness) interact
with various contextual factors (e.g., ethical leadership) to
predict workplace deviance. Our research takes an impor-
tant step in advancing the literature by focusing on the
moderating role of moral awareness as an important
boundary condition of ethical leadership. In demonstrating
that ethical leadership helps to reduce deviance primarily
among those lacking in moral awareness, we contribute to
a growing body of work demonstrating that followers’
actions are dependent upon both their moral characteristics
(Reynolds 2008; Moore et al. 2012; Chuang and Chiu
2017) and the context under which leadership occurs
(Mitchell and Ambrose 2012; Michel et al. 2016; Wang
et al. 2015). Looking ahead, it will be important for both
scholars and practitioners to recognize that ethical leader-
ship, while beneficial in many ways, is neither a panacea
nor a one size fits all solution. Only through its judicious
application can organizations reap its many benefits.
Acknowledgements For trustworthy feedback on previous drafts we
are grateful to our action editor, Tobias Goessling and two anony-
mous reviewers. We would also like to thank Sean Hannah and Scott
Reynolds for their insightful conversations, encouragement and
guidance.
References
Ahn, J., Lee, S., & Yun, S. (2016). Leaders’ core self-evaluation,
ethical leadership, and employees’ job performance: The mod-
erating role of employees’ exchange ideology. Journal of
Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3030-0.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions Sage. CA: Newbury Park.
Appelbaum, S.H., Deguire, K.J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship
of ethical climate to deviant workplace behavior. Corporate
Governance, 5(4), 43–56.
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 273
123
Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., II, Lim, V. K., & Felps, W.
(2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: the
interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141.
Ariely, D. (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty. New York:
Harper Audio.
Arnaud, A. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring ethical work
climate development and validation of the ethical climate index.
Business and Society, 49(2), 345–358.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO
Honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A
review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review, 18(2), 139–152.
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.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May,
D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by
which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.
The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823.
Babalola, M. T., Stouten, J., Camps, J., & Euwema, M. (2017). When
do ethical leaders become less effective? The moderating role of
perceived leader ethical conviction on employee discretionary
reactions to ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics.
doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3472-z.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct
validity in organizational research. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1998). Workplace aggression—The
iceberg beneath the tip of workplace violence: Evidence on its
forms, frequency, and targets. Public Administration Quarterly,
21, 446–464.
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.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3),
349–363.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal
deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates:
A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
410–424.
Bies,R. J.,&Tripp,T.M. (1998).Revenge inorganizations:Thegood, the
bad, and the ugly. InR.W.Griffin,A.O’Leary-Kelly,& J.M.Collins
(Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-violent dys-
functional behavior (pp. 49–67). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Piscataway,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees
strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psy-
chological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1104–1117.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical
leadership. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-
ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97, 117–134.
Bryan, J. H., & Test, M. A. (1967). Models and helping: naturalistic
studies in aiding behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 6(4p1), 400.
Chen, C. C., Chen, M. Y., & Liu, Y. C. (2013). Negative affectivity
and workplace deviance: The moderating role of ethical climate.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24(15), 2894–2910.
Chullen, C. L., Dunford, B. B., Angermeier, I., Boss, R. W., & Boss,
A. D. (2010). Minimizing deviant behavior in healthcare
organizations: The effects of supportive leadership and job
design. Journal of Healthcare Management, 55(6), 381–397.
Chuang, P., & Chiu, S. (2017). When moral personality and moral
ideology meet ethical leadership: A three-way interaction model.
Ethics and Behavior. doi:10.1080/10508422.2016.1229604.
Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious
effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in
latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological
Methods, 12(4), 381.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory:
An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31,
874–900.
Davis, T. R., & Luthans, F. (1980). A social learning approach to
organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 5(2),
281–290.
Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). Ethical leadership. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology & Organizational Behavior, 2(1),
409–434.
Dodou, D., & de Winter, J. C. (2014). Social desirability is the same
in offline, online, and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Comput-
ers in Human Behavior, 36, 487–495.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R.
(1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., &
Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and
consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past
with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6),
1715–1759.
Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Brodbeck, F. (2014). Ethical and unethical
leadership: A cross-cultural and cross-sectoral analysis. Journal
of Business Ethics, 122(2), 343–359.
El Akremi, A., Vandenberghe, C., & Camerman, J. (2010). The role
of justice and social exchange relationships in workplace
deviance: Test of a mediated model. Human Relations, 63(11),
1687–1717.
Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., & Dang, C. (2015). Moralized leadership: The
construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions.
Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 182–209.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2009). Organizational
supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of
organization-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 279–286.
Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision-making: A
review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics,
13(3), 205–221.
Giessner, S., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2010). Using a relational
models perspective to understand normatively appropriate con-
duct in ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1),
43–55.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161–178.
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., & Priesemuth, M.
(2013). To act out, to withdraw, or to constructively resist?
Employee reactions to supervisor abuse of customers and the
moderating role of employee moral identity. Human Relations,
66(7), 925–950.
Hannah, S. T., Sumanth, J. J., Lester, P., & Cavarretta, F. (2014).
Debunking the false dichotomy of leadership idealism and
pragmatism: Critical evaluation and support of newer genre
274 K. Gok et al.
123
leadership theories. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5),
598–621.
Hardré, P. L., Crowson, H. M., & Xie, K. (2012). Examining
contexts-of-use for web-based and paper-based questionnaires.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(6),
1015–1038.
Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the
interaction between organizational justice and personality.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2), 247–263.
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci
approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of
outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal Organizational
Behavior, 31, 24–44.
Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K.
E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2016). Do
ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above
and beyond transformational leadership?: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Management, first published online August 31, 2016.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–339.
Huang, H. M. (2006). Do print and Web surveys provide the same
results? Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 334–350.
Johns, G., & Saks, A. M. (2014). Organizational behavior at work:
Understanding and managing life at work. Toronto: Pearson
Canada Inc.
Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011).
Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: exploring
the moderating role of gender and organizational politics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 633.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2013). Ethical
leadership and follower helping and courtesy: Moral awareness
and empathic concern as moderators. Applied Psychology, 62(2),
211–235.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their
meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 22, 375–403.
Kim, W. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2011). The effects of ethical leadership
on manager job satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes,
and firm performance. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 30(4), 1020–1026.
Knapp, H., & Kirk, S. A. (2003). Using pencil and paper, Internet and
touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: Does method-
ology matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 117–134.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development. The philosophy of
moral development (Vol. I). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain
and lose it, why people demand it (Vol. 244). New York: Wiley.
Lee, D., Choi, Y., Youn, S., & Chun, J. U. (2017). Ethical leadership
and employee moral voice: The mediating role of moral efficacy
and the moderating role of leader–follower value congruence.
Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 47–57.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A
review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 34, 120–137.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., &
Marinova, S. V. (2012). A Trickle-down model of abusive
supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357.
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, 151–171.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2010). Examining the link between ethical leadership and employee misconduct:
The mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of Business
Ethics, 95(1), 7–16.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,
R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a
trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.
Michel, J. S., Newness, K., & Duniewicz, K. (2016). How Abusive
Supervision affects workplace deviance: A moderated-mediation
examination of aggressiveness and work-related negative affect.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(1), 1–22.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and
workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative
reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4),
1159–1174.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral
reactions to supervisor aggression: An examination of individual
and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6),
1148.
Mo, S., & Shi, J. (2017). Linking ethical leadership to employees’
organizational citizenship behavior: Testing the multilevel
mediation role of organizational concern. Journal of Business
Ethics, 141(1), 151–162.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M.
(2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement
and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology,
65, 1–48.
Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., &
Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical
leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(2), 157–170.
Neves, P., & Story, J. (2015). Ethical leadership and reputation:
combined indirect effects on organizational deviance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 27, 165–176.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). Ethical leadership: Meta-
analytic evidence of criterion-related and incremental validity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 948–965.
O’Neill, T. A., & Hastings, S. E. (2011). Explaining workplace
deviance behavior with more than just the ‘‘Big Five’’.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 268–273.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. N. D., & Folger, R. (2010).
The relationship between ethical leadership and core job
characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3),
259–278.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on
how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569.
Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. P., MacKenzie, S. B., & Williams, M.
L. (1993). Do substitutes for leadership really substitute for
leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s
situational leadership model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 54, 1–44.
Rehg, M. T., Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Van Scotter, J. R. (2008).
Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against whistleblowers:
Gender differences and power relationships. Organization
Science, 19(2), 221–240.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and
theory. New York: Praeger.
Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions:
Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition
of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233.
Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the
moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5),
1027–1039.
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 275
123
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant
workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martı́nez, R. (2011). Improving the ‘‘leader–
follower’’ relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical
leadership trickle-down effect on follower job response. Journal
of Business Ethics, 99(4), 587–608.
Schaubroeck, J., Hannah, S., Avolio, B., Kozlowski, S., Lord, R.,
Treviño, L., et al. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within
and across organization levels. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 55(5), 1053–1078.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Neubaum, D. O. (2005). The effect
of leader moral development on ethical climate and employee
attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 97(2), 135–151.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad
leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its
outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.
Sheldon, O. J., & Fishbach, A. (2015). Anticipating and resisting the
temptation to behave unethically. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 41(7), 962–975.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in
regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects.
Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.
Sims, R. R., & Brinkman, J. (2002). Leaders as moral role models:
The case of John Gutfreund at Salomon Brothers. Journal of
Business Ethics, 35(4), 327–339.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban
legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct
definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist,
47(6), 828–847.
Stone, E. F., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1989). Clarifying some controver-
sial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting
moderator variables: Empirical evidence and related matters.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 3–10.
Sturm, R. E. (2017). Decreasing unethical decisions: The role of
morality-based individual differences. Journal of Business
Ethics, 142, 37–57.
Sumanth, J. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2014). Developing leadership
capacity: An integration and exploration of ethical and authentic
leadership antecedents. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim
(Eds.), Advances in authentic and ethical leadership. (Research
in management, vol. 10) (pp. 25–74). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing, Inc.
Sumanth, J. J., Mayer, D. M., & Kay, V. S. (2011). Why good guys
finish last: The role of justification motives, cognition, and
emotion in predicting retaliation against whistleblowers. Orga-
nizational Psychology Review, 1(2), 165–184.
Tanner, C., Brügger, A., van Schie, S., & Lebherz, C. (2010). Actions
speak louder than words. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of
Psychology, 218(4), 225–233.
Taylor, S. G., & Pattie, M. W. (2014). When does ethical leadership
affect workplace incivility? The moderating role of follower
personality, Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), 595–616.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua,
W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employ-
ees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2),
156–167.
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., &
Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4),
721–732.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How
management style moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty manage-
ment theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108(1), 79–92.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A
psychological analysis. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A
person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management
Review, 11(3), 601–617.
Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical:
Debunking five business ethics myths. The Academy of Man-
agement Executive, 18(2), 69–81.
Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2005). The role of leaders in
influencing unethical behavior in the workplace. In R. E. Kidwell
Jr. & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance
(pp. 69–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014).
(Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 65, 635–660.
Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000a). Moral person
and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for
ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4),
128–142.
Treviño, L. K., Webster, J., & Stein, E. W. (2000b). Making
connections: Complementary influences on communication
media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science, 11(2),
163–182.
van den Akker, L., Heres, L., Lasthuizen, K., & Six, F. (2009). Ethical
Leadership and trust: It is all about meeting expectations.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 102–122.
Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role perceptions
buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance
the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(6), 1195–1207.
van Gils, S., van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke,
M., & de Cremer, D. (2015). Ethical leadership and follower
organizational deviance: The moderating role of follower moral
attentiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 190–203.
VanSandt, C. V., Shepard, J. M. & Zappe, S. M. (2006). An
examination of the relationship between ethical work climate
and moral awareness. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(4),
409–432.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A
motivational framework. Organization Science, 7, 151–165.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K.,
& Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to
employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange,
self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits
and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical
leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.
Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2015). Does it take two to
tangle? Subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive
supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 487–503.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X.
(2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relation-
ship between transformational leadership and followers’ perfor-
mance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(3), 420–432.
Wilks, D. C. (2011). Attitudes towards unethical behaviors in
organizational settings: An empirical study. Ethics in Progress
Quarterly, 2(2), 9–22.
276 K. Gok et al.
123
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive
supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531–543.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations, Englewood Cliffs
(5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. (2010). Honesty-humility and a person-
situation interaction at work. European Journal of Personality,
24, 569–582.
You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical… 277
123
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
- You May Not Reap What You Sow: How Employees’ Moral Awareness Minimizes Ethical Leadership’s Positive Impact on Workplace Deviance
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Literature Review
- Workplace Deviance
- Ethical Leadership
- Hypothesis Development
- Ethical Leadership and Workplace Deviance
- The Moderating Role of Moral Awareness
- Methods
- Procedures and Samples
- Procedures for Both Samples
- Participants: Turkish Sample (Study 1)
- Participants: US Sample (Study 2)
- Measures
- Control Variables
- Analytical Strategy
- Results
- Study 1: Results (Turkey Sample)
- Hypothesis Testing
- Study 2: Results (US Sample)
- Hypothesis Testing
- Discussion
- Theoretical Contributions
- Practical Implications
- Limitations and Future Research Directions
- Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- References
