DISCUSSION POSTS

Being ‘‘in Control’’ May Make You Lose Control: The Role of Self-Regulation in Unethical Leadership Behavior

Anne Joosten • Marius van Dijke • Alain Van Hiel •

David De Cremer

Received: 14 May 2012 / Accepted: 16 March 2013 / Published online: 25 March 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract In the present article, we argue that the constant

pressure that leaders face may limit the willpower required

to behave according to ethical norms and standards and may

therefore lead to unethical behavior. Drawing upon the ego

depletion and moral self-regulation literatures, we examined

whether self-regulatory depletion that is contingent upon

the moral identity of leaders may promote unethical lead-

ership behavior. A laboratory experiment and a multisource

field study revealed that regulatory resource depletion pro-

motes unethical leader behaviors among leaders who are low

in moral identity. No such effect was found among leaders

with a high moral identity. This study extends our knowledge

on why organizational leaders do not always conform to

organizational goals. Specifically, we argue that the hectic

and fragmented workdays of leaders may increase the like-

lihood that they violate ethical norms. This highlights the

necessity to carefully schedule tasks that may have ethical

implications. Similarly, organizations should be aware that

overloading their managers with work may increase the

likelihood of their leaders transgressing ethical norms.

Keywords Unethical leadership � Ego depletion � Moral identity

One critical challenge that organizational leaders face is to

remain focused on the display of ethical behavior during

the course of their fragmented, hectic, and disorderly work

days. In fact, the many ethical failures within organizations

that have emerged in the media over the past decade, such

as fraud and corruption, clearly highlight the need for

organizational leaders to act in an ethical manner. Indeed,

if leaders focus on behaving ethically, then they will serve

as an important source of ethical guidance for their

employees (Brown et al. 2005; Walumbwa et al. 2011).

Conversely, when leaders act unethically, employees will

usually follow suit (Mayer et al. 2009). Yet, acting in

ethical ways is not necessarily easy for leaders because

they often have busy and demanding work schedules.

Leaders are responsible for a great variety of complex

decisions and actions that range from multi-million dollar

decisions to more trivial ones; thus, they must constantly

decide which decisions are worthy of their attention and

which are not (e.g., Ganster 2005; Hambrick et al. 2005;

Mintzberg 1973).

In the present paper, we argue that the constant pressure

that organizational leaders face can limit the willpower that

is required to act ethically. This lack of mental energy can

potentially result in negative consequences, such as dis-

criminating against employees based on gender or race,

discussing confidential company information with unau-

thorized others, and theft of company property. Following

the ego depletion literature, we argue that when leaders

have to make multiple decisions and function in demanding

situations, they are less likely to maintain the mental

energy (i.e., cognitive resources) needed for other con-

trolled, energy-requiring processes (Muraven and Bau-

meister 2000; Vohs et al. 2008). Furthermore, because

ethical behaviors may depend on cognitive resources

(Usoof-Thowfeek et al. 2011), ego depletion (i.e., as

A. Joosten (&) � A. Van Hiel Department of Developmental, Personality and Social

Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent,

Belgium

e-mail: [email protected]

M. van Dijke

Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,

Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands

D. De Cremer

CEIBS, 699 Hongfeng Road, Shanghai 201206, Pudong, China

123

J Bus Ethics (2014) 121:1–14

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1686-2

resulting from the hectic leader role) may increase the

likelihood of leaders displaying unethical behavior.

We further postulate, however, that this proposed effect

of ego depletion on unethical leader behavior may have

boundary conditions. One important limit may be the

extent to which people assign value and importance to

morality. This variable is likely relevant because it may

influence the amount of cognitive resources that leaders

need to behave in an ethical manner. Specifically, moral

identity refers to the extent to which people consider being

a moral person as an important part of their self-definition

(Aquino and Reed 2002; Blasi 1980). For those who define

themselves in terms of morality, the display of ethical

behavior will be more frequently implemented and, con-

sequently, more internalized and automatic; as such, they

will consume fewer cognitive resources and maintain their

self-control (cf. Aquino et al. 2009; Aquino and Reed

2002; Reynolds and Ceranic 2007). One can therefore

expect that leaders who are high in moral identity are less

vulnerable than leaders low in moral identity to the effects

of ego depletion on their display of ethical behaviors.

Ego Depletion and Self-Control

Self-control refers to an individual’s capacity to inhibit,

override, or refrain from acting upon his/her impulses and

desires (Baumeister et al. 1994; Mischel 1974; Muraven

and Baumeister 2000; Tangney et al. 2004). Successful

self-control has been linked to numerous positive outcomes

such as success at school and at work, increased concen-

tration, an improved ability to cope with stress, and even

lower divorce rates. Self-control failure, on the other hand,

has been linked to negative actions such as theft, assault,

and aggression, and various negative outcomes such as

obesity, depression, and obsessive thoughts, (Hagger et al.

2010; Muraven et al. 1998; Tangney et al. 2004). It is thus

clear that self-control plays a highly important role in a

many aspects of our lives.

Baumeister and colleagues (e.g., Baumeister et al. 1998;

Baumeister and Heatherton 1996; Baumeister et al. 2007;

Muraven and Baumeister 2000; Muraven et al. 1998)

proposed a limited-strength model of self-control to

explain self-control failures. The idea behind this model is

that self-control requires mental energy that is limited in its

availability (Baumeister et al. 1998; Muraven et al. 1998).

More specifically, all acts of self-control, such as repress-

ing habitual responses, draw from the same limited

resource, which can become depleted with repeated use

(Muraven and Baumeister 2000). Baumeister and col-

leagues compared self-control to a muscle, which requires

strength and energy to exert force over a period of time

(Hagger et al. 2010). Just as muscles get tired from

exertion, self-control performance also deteriorates after

repeated use (Baumeister et al. 2007).

The state of diminished resources following exertion of

self-control is usually referred to as ego depletion (Bau-

meister et al. 1998). In support of the idea that different

acts of self-control draw on a limited and shared resource,

research shows that various acts of self-control (e.g.,

resisting tempting foods, suppressing emotions, performing

counter-attitudinal behaviors) impair performance on a

subsequent completely unrelated act that requires self-

control (for an overview, see Hagger et al. 2010). Partic-

ularly important for the present purposes, research has

shown that after an act of self-control, people are less

willing to help others (DeWall et al. 2008), are more likely

to cheat (Gino et al. 2011; Mead et al. 2009), and more

likely to act aggressively (DeWall et al. 2007).

Research has identified several causes of resource

depletion, including lack of sleep (Barnes et al. 2011),

having to resist temptation (Baumeister et al. 1998; Vohs

and Heatherton 2000), and stress (Muraven and Baumeister

2000). Interestingly, one prime determinant of ego deple-

tion is having to make multiple choices and decisions

(Vohs et al. 2008). As noted, most organizational leaders

experience heavy workloads and have to make numerous

choices and decisions each day. These specific character-

istics of the leadership role seem to form a source of

resource depletion, which might make leaders especially

prone to self-control failure.

Awareness of the ethical dimension of many complex

business decisions is an active and attention-consuming

process that requires cognitive resources (Usoof-Thowfeek

et al. 2011). Moreover, resisting the temptation to act in

unethical ways is also likely to draw on these resources;

this temptation may be especially pronounced for leaders

because of their position of power (see, e.g., Fiske 1993;

Georgesen and Harris 1998; Rusbult and Van Lange 2003).

The assumption that ethical leadership draws from the

same regulatory resources as the other aspects of the

leadership role (e.g., decision making, number of choices,

high workload) thus leads us to expect that depletion of

self-regulatory resources can lead to higher levels of

unethical leadership behavior.

However, there may be important boundary conditions

for the link between ego depletion and unethical leader

behavior. Specifically, the extent to which people assign

value and importance to morality is likely to influence the

amount of cognitive resources that leaders need to behave

in an ethical manner. That is, leaders who define them-

selves in terms of morality will require fewer cognitive

resources to inhibit impulses and will be able to buffer

the effects of ego depletion on their ethical behaviors

(cf. Aquino et al. 2009; Aquino and Reed 2002; Reynolds

and Ceranic 2007). We explicitly test this argument by

2 A. Joosten et al.

123

focusing on the role of moral identity as a variable that

limits the effects of ego depletion on unethical leader

behaviors.

Moral Identity as a Buffer

Moral identity reflects the importance of morality to one’s

self-concept (Aquino and Reed 2002; Shao et al. 2008).

Moral identity is usually conceptualized as a cognitive

representation or schema of moral values, goals, traits, and

behavioral scripts (Aquino et al. 2009; Lapsley and Nar-

vaez 2004; Shao et al. 2008). For people high in moral

identity, this moral self-schema is more readily accessible

and available for use than for people low in moral identity.

Moral values and ideals (such as being a good person,

being helpful) are more central to someone’s self-concept

for people high in moral identity (Narvaez et al. 2006; Shao

et al. 2008). When activated, moral identity should influ-

ence one’s cognition and behavior as people have a strong

tendency to maintain self-consistency (Aquino and Reed

2002; Blasi 1980, 1983).

In line with the idea that moral identity is an important

source of motivation to behave in an ethical manner, pre-

vious studies have revealed a positive relationship between

moral identity and moral behavior as reflected in self-

reported volunteering (Aquino and Reed 2002), the actual

likelihood of making a donation (Aquino and Reed 2002;

Reed and Aquino 2003), and charitable giving (Reynolds

and Ceranic 2007). Additionally, moral identity has been

associated with decreased levels of immoral conduct, such

as lying in business negotiations (Shao et al. 2008), low-

ered aggression on the football field (Sage et al. 2006), and

less antisocial behavior among adolescents (Barriga et al.

2001). Interestingly, recent research has suggested that

moral identity also functions as an antecedent of ethical

leader behavior (Mayer et al. 2012).

We argue that moral identity is also a relevant boundary

condition for the effects of ego depletion on unethical

leader behavior. As noted, moral identity is an important

motivator of ethical behavior (Aquino and Reed 2002;

Blasi 1980; Hardy and Carlo 2005), and people with a high

moral identity should thus be especially likely to expend

extra effort to self-regulate their ethical behavior. Over

time, people with a high moral identity will more fre-

quently regulate their behavior (i.e., inhibit selfish impul-

ses), resulting in more internalized and automatic

enactment of ethical behavior (Seeley and Gardner 2003).

Consequently, for people high in moral identity, this

internalization of ethical behavior arguably implies that

one’s ethical behavior is less likely to draw on controlled

cognitive processes that share resources with other con-

trolled processes and thus may suffer less from regulatory

depletion. In other words, because people high in moral

identity are much more likely than people low in moral

identity to have internalized the display of ethical and

prosocial behaviors, acting ethically may proceed in a more

automatic manner that uses fewer controlled resources (see

Bargh 1994; Schneider and Chein 2003; Shiffrin and

Schneider 1977; Smith and Lerner 1986). Hence, in a state

of resource depletion, a high moral identity will provide

leaders with a buffer against the detrimental effects of ego

depletion on their ethical behaviors.

Study Overview

In the present research, we collected both experimental and

(multisource) field data to cross-validate our findings. We

did not opt for qualitative research as we were particularly

interested in testing specific hypotheses, for which quan-

titative research is most suitable. Furthermore, we chose to

use established and validated measures. Moral identity was

measured using Aquino and Reed’s (2002) instrument (for

an overview, see Shao et al. 2008). In Study 1, we

manipulated depletion using a frequently used and effec-

tive depletion task (for an overview, see Hagger et al.

2010); in Study 2, we assessed depletion with a measure

that has been successfully used in prior research (Vohs

et al. 2008). Unethical leader behavior was measured using

Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) often-used instrument that

measures workplace deviance (for an overview, see Berry

et al. 2007), which has shown good psychometric proper-

ties (Bennett and Robinson 2000) and which has been

adapted and validated for peer report (Stewart et al. 2009).

In our research, we thus investigate unethical behavior

by focusing on the prevalence of deviant leader behaviors

in the workplace. In line with the literature, we define

workplace deviance as voluntary behavior that violates

significant organizational norms and, as such, threatens the

well-being of the organization and/or its members (Bennett

and Robinson 2000; Robinson and Bennett 1995). Deviant

behavior represents volitional behavior that occurs because

people either lack the motivation to conform to organiza-

tional norms and standards or because they become moti-

vated to violate these norms and standards (Bennett and

Robinson 2000). Workplace deviance encompasses a

diversity of behaviors varying from interpersonal deviance

(i.e., acts that inflict harm on individuals) to organizational

deviance (i.e., acts that are directed at the organization)

which can vary in intensity and potential consequences

(Robinson and Bennett 1995) and, as such, form a mean-

ingful operationalization of unethical behavior. Example

behaviors include humiliating coworkers, procrastinating

on work, and falsifying receipts to receive more money

than was spent on business expenses.

As argued above, we expect that unethical leadership

behaviors may occur when leaders face regulatory resource

Leadership and Self-Regulation 3

123

constraints. We expect this because for many leaders,

behaving ethically may not be an important part of their

self-definition and is thus insufficiently internalized. To test

this idea, we include the leader’s moral identity as a

moderator of the effect of self-regulatory depletion on the

unethical behavior of leaders. Specifically, we expect self-

regulatory depletion to result in unethical leadership

behaviors particularly among leaders who are low, rather

than high in moral identity.

We tested our hypothesis in two studies. Study 1 used a

validated depletion task in a controlled laboratory setting

which allows us to draw causal conclusions. Study 2 was a

cross-sectional multisource study for which we relied on

leaders’ self-ratings of their depletion and moral identity,

while ratings about the leaders’ ethical behavior were pro-

vided by their colleagues as well as by the leaders them-

selves. The field study permits us to generalize our findings

to an organizational field setting in which leaders function

in meaningful day-to-day situations. At the same time, the

specific multisource design of this study minimizes con-

cerns about the effects of potential common method vari-

ance and self-presentation (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

Study 1

Method

Participants and Design

Seventy-eight undergraduate students (41 males and 37

females) with a mean age of 19.00 years (SD = 1.95) from

a Dutch university participated in the study for partial

course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to one

of two experimental conditions: self-regulatory depletion

or no depletion.

Experimental Procedure

This study was conducted in two stages. The first stage

consisted of participants responding via the internet to a

bogus ‘‘leadership ability’’ questionnaire and to the moral

identity measure. The second stage included the actual

experimental tasks. Upon arrival at the laboratory (one day

after they had responded to the internet questionnaires),

participants were seated in separate cubicles that were each

equipped with a personal computer. All communication

took place via this computer. Participants were informed

that they would work together with two other participants

on several tasks. They were led to believe that a computer

network was established between them and the other group

members via which they would collaborate.

All participants were then assigned to the leadership

role. Instructions were taken from previous experiments

that were designed to study unethical leadership behaviors

(Maner and Mead 2010). Participants were informed that

the group assignment required one person to be the leader

and the others to be the subordinates. All participants

learned that they were assigned the group leader role based

on their answers on the ‘‘leadership ability’’ questionnaire

that they completed in the first stage of the study (i.e., the

day before the actual experiment). As the designated lea-

der, they would thus be responsible for the functioning of

their group. To check whether the participants understood

this role assignment, we asked them which role they had to

fulfill in the group assignment.

Participants then completed the regulatory depletion

task (taken from Baumeister et al. 1998, Study 4). This

task consists of two parts and has proven successful in the

manipulation of ego depletion in a number of studies

(Baumeister et al. 1998; DeWall et al. 2011; Fischer et al.

2007; Moller et al. 2006; Wheeler et al. 2007). The

regulatory depletion task was presented as part of the

group assignment. In the first part of the task, participants

were instructed to indicate each instance of the letter

e that they saw in a text (i.e., by clicking each e with the

computer mouse). Participants received visual feedback

whenever they clicked an e (i.e., a highlighted circle

around the corresponding e) and were given five minutes

to complete the task. This first phase was relatively easy

and was used to establish a strong habitual response for

scanning and indicating every e. In the second part of the

task, participants either continued identifying the es using

the same rule as before (i.e., the no depletion condition)

or were given the instruction to respond to each e, except

when the e was followed by a vowel or when a vowel

appeared two letters before the e (i.e., the high depletion

condition). For participants in the high depletion condi-

tion, overriding the response to scan for and indicate

every e would require more regulatory resources than for

participants in the low depletion condition who did not

need to override a habitual response. After completing

this task, we measured the dependent variables and

manipulation checks.

Manipulation Checks

The effectiveness of the self-regulatory depletion manipu-

lation was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1

(totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) using two items: ‘‘The

second task was habit-breaking’’ (taken from DeWall et al.

2008) and ‘‘The second task was simple’’ (reversed item;

taken from Balliet and Joireman 2010).

4 A. Joosten et al.

123

Measures

In the first phase of the study (i.e., twenty-four hours before

the experimental condition), we administered an online

questionnaire that included demographic information

questions, a measure of moral identity, and a bogus lead-

ership scale that was administered to provide a justification

for the role assignment.

We used Aquino and Reed’s (2002) instrument to measure

the participants’ moral identity, which has been used in

several studies and has shown good psychometric properties

(for an overview, see Shao et al. 2008). In line with our ideas,

we relied on the internalization dimension of this instrument

(i.e., the extent to which people find morality an important

aspect of who they are) and disregarded the symbolization

subscale (which measures the extent to which people want to

appear as a moral person). Consistent with Aquino and

Reed’s (2002) procedure, the following instructions were

given: ‘‘Listed below are some characteristics that might

describe a person: Caring, compassionate, fair, friendly,

generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind. The person

with these characteristics could be you or it could be someone

else. For a moment, visualize in your mind the kind of person

who has these characteristics. Imagine how that person would

think, feel, and act. When you have a clear image of what this

person would be like, answer the following questions.’’ Par-

ticipants then answered the five internalization items on a

7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally

agree). Sample items from this scale are ‘‘It would make me

feel good to be a person who has these characteristics’’ and

‘‘Having these characteristics is not really important to me’’

(reverse scored). The scale proved to be internally consistent

(Cronbach’s a = .71; M = 5.42, SD = 0.88). We assessed leadership deviance as a dependent variable

for which we used the interpersonal deviance subscale of

the organizational deviance measure which was developed

and validated by Bennett and Robinson (2000). Participants

answered these 7 items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1

(not at all) to 7 (very much so). We asked participants the

extent to which they found the following behaviors in the

current setting acceptable: ‘‘Say something hurtful to

someone,’’ ‘‘Make an ethnic, religious, or racial remark,’’

‘‘Curse at someone,’’ ‘‘Play a mean prank on someone,’’

‘‘Act rudely toward someone,’’ and ‘‘Publicly embarrass

someone’’ (Cronbach’s a = .82; M = 2.10, SD = 0.84).

Results

Comprehension and Manipulation Checks

All participants correctly indicated that they were assigned

to the leader role. As expected, participants in the self-

regulatory depletion condition rated the second task as

more habit-breaking than those in the no depletion condi-

tion (Ms = 5.10 vs. 4.42, SDs = 1.27 vs. 1.34, respec-

tively, t(76) = -2.30, p \ .05). Furthermore, the second task was experienced as less simple in the self-regulatory

depletion condition than in the no depletion condition

(Ms = 4.48 vs. 3.47, SDs = 1.37 vs. 1.42, respectively,

t(76) = -3.17, p \ .01). As an additional test of the effectiveness of our manipulation, we regressed the

manipulation checks on the main and interactive effects of

the regulatory depletion manipulation and participants’

moral identity. These analyses show that both the manip-

ulation checks were significantly related to the regulatory

depletion manipulation, while the main effect of moral

identity and the interaction term remained insignificant.

Deviant Leader Behavior

To test our hypothesis, we conducted a hierarchical

regression analysis in which leader deviance was predicted

by the main effects of the regulatory depletion manipula-

tion and participants’ moral identity at Step 1. We added a

two-way interaction between regulatory depletion manip-

ulation and moral identity at Step 2. Following Aiken and

West (1991), the interaction term was based on the mean-

centered scores of moral identity and the effect-coded

scores of regulatory depletion. Table 1 shows the regres-

sion results.

Table 1 shows that the predicted two-way interaction

was significant, b = -.27, p \ .05. We conducted simple slope analyses to further examine this interaction (Aiken

and West 1991). Figure 1 shows that, in line with our

hypothesis, regulatory depletion significantly increased

deviant leader behavior among participants who are low in

moral identity (one SD below the mean), b = .24, p \ .05. However, among participants who are high in moral iden-

tity, regulatory depletion decreased deviant leader behavior;

however, this effect was not significant, b = -.21, p = .11.

Supplemental Analyses

To test the robustness of the OLS regression, we conducted

a Tobit regression (see Tobin 1958), which was developed

for variables with a lower (or upper) limit and a concen-

tration of observations at this limiting value. Such distri-

butions can result in the violation of OLS assumptions.

Deviant leader behaviors are typically low-frequency

phenomena that show such a cluster of observations at and

just above the lower limit, thus making them strongly

positively skewed. A Tobit regression revealed results

similar to the OLS regressions for the hypothesized inter-

action on leader deviance, b = -.27, p \ .05.

Leadership and Self-Regulation 5

123

Discussion

Study 1 provides supporting evidence for the hypothesized

buffering role of moral identity in the effect of resource

depletion on unethical leadership behavior. Regulatory

depletion indeed increased unethical leadership behavior

for leaders who are low in moral identity. In contrast, there

was no such increase in unethical leadership behavior for

leaders with a high level of moral identity. These findings

thus highlight the pivotal role of moral identity in pre-

venting unethical leadership behaviors.

Study 2

While Study 1 provided causal evidence for our proposed

ideas, Study 2 was designed to generalize our findings to an

organizational setting in which supervisors and employees

function together in meaningful work situations. Instead of

manipulating regulatory depletion, we measured supervi-

sors’ depletion in Study 2.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The study participants included 100 organizational super-

visors (30 line, 61 middle, and 9 senior/top managers) and

their matched colleagues from a variety of Dutch organiza-

tions. For their participation, they received credit points they

could trade in for certain gifts (i.e., a ticket for the movies).

Of the focal supervisors, 70 were male and 30 were female,

and their mean age was 44.73 years (SD = 9.91). Supervi-

sors worked an average of 11.79 years (SD = 9.25) in their

current organization and 5.97 years (SD = 5.69) in their

current function. Twenty percent of the focal supervisors

were employed in the public sector and 80 percent in the

private sector. The matched group of colleagues included 60

males and 40 females, with a mean age of 41.84 years

(SD = 10.52).

Measures

In Study 2, we used the same five-item internalization

subscale of moral identity (Aquino and Reed 2002) as in

Study 1. To assess focal supervisors’ levels of regulatory

depletion, we asked the focal supervisors to indicate on a

5-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally

agree) how much they agreed or disagreed with the fol-

lowing statements: ‘‘I often feel as if I have low energy,’’

and ‘‘I often feel as if things are taking a lot of effort’’

(taken from Vohs et al. 2008, Study 5).

We measured unethical leadership behavior using Ben-

nett and Robinson’s (2000) 19-item measure of organiza-

tional deviance on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at

all) to 5 (very much so). This measure consists of an

interpersonal and an organizational subscale, and it has

shown good psychometric properties (Bennett and Robin-

son 2000). The leaders completed the items as self-reports,

while the items were adapted for a peer report for their

Table 1 Results of hierarchical regression analysis for leader deviance in Study 1

Variables B SE B b DR2

Step 1 .03*

Regulatory depletion (RD) 0.01 0.10 0.02

Moral identity (MI) -0.16 0.11 -0.17

Step 2 .08*

Regulatory depletion (RD) 0.02 0.09 0.02

Moral identity (MI) -0.11 0.11 -0.12

RD 9 MI -0.27 0.11 -0.28*

Final model: F(3, 74) = 2.94, p \ .05 B = unstandardized regression coefficient; b = standardized regression coefficient. For the regulatory depletion factor, -1 denotes no regu- latory depletion manipulation, whereas 1 indicates regulatory depletion

* p B .05

Fig. 1 Deviant leader behavior as a function of regulatory depletion manipulation and moral identity

6 A. Joosten et al.

123

colleagues who rated how often the focal leader performed

actions such as ‘‘Discussed confidential company infor-

mation with an unauthorized person,’’ ‘‘Falsified a receipt

to get more money than spent on business expenses,’’ and

‘‘Publicly embarrassed someone at work’’ (modified and

validated by Stewart et al. 2009).

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, internal

consistencies, and intercorrelations of the study’s variables.

Hypothesis Test

We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis with self-

reported unethical leader behaviors serving as the depen-

dent variable. The age, gender, and tenure of leaders were

entered as control variables in the first block of the

regression. Regulatory depletion and moral identity were

entered in the second block of the regression. We added a

two-way interaction between regulatory depletion and

moral identity in the third block of the regression. Fol-

lowing Aiken and West (1991), the interaction term was

based on mean-centered scores of the independent vari-

ables. Table 3 shows the regression results for self-reported

unethical leader behavior. For one respondent, self-ratings

of deviance were missing, and thus her information was

disregarded in this analysis.

The predicted two-way interaction was significant,

b = -.25, p \ .01. We conducted simple slope analyses to further assess this interaction (Aiken and West 1991).

Figure 2 shows that among leaders who are low in moral

identity (one SD below the mean), regulatory depletion and

unethical leader behaviors are positively related, b = .55, p \ .001. However, among leaders who are high in moral identity, the relationship between regulatory depletion and

unethical leader behaviors was not significant, b = .10, p = .40.

The regression analysis was then repeated with the

colleague ratings of unethical leader behaviors as the

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of Study 2 measures

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Regulatory depletion 2.54 0.95 (.89)

2. Moral identity 5.34 0.81 .07 (.62)

3. Leader deviance (OR) 1.47 0.52 .33** -.22* (.93)

4. Leader deviance (CR) 1.60 0.81 .19 -.18 .61** (.98)

N = 100. Internal reliabilities (coefficient alphas) are provided in parentheses on the diagonal

OR own ratings, CR colleague ratings

* p B .05; ** p B .01

Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis for leader devi- ance (own ratings) in Study 2

Variables B SE B b DR2

Step 3 .06**

Age -0.01 0.01 -0.21

Gender 0.10 0.10 0.10

Organization tenure 0.01 0.01 0.15

Function tenure 0.00 0.01 0.02

Regulatory depletion (RD) 0.18 0.05 0.33***

Moral identity (MI) -0.15 0.06 -0.24**

RD x MI -0.15 0.06 -0.25**

Final model: F(7, 91) = 4.95, p \ .001 B = unstandardized regression coefficient; b = standardized regres- sion coefficient

* p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001

Fig. 2 Unethical leader behavior (self-ratings) as a function of regulatory depletion and moral identity

Leadership and Self-Regulation 7

123

dependent variable. As shown in Table 4, the predicted

two-way interaction was significant, b = -.33, p = .001. We conducted simple slope analyses to further analyze this

interaction (Aiken and West 1991). Figure 3 shows that

among leaders who are low in moral identity (one SD

below the mean), regulatory depletion and the leaders’

unethical behavior are positively related, b = .52, p \ .001. Among leaders high in moral identity, however, the relationship between regulatory depletion and unethical

leader behavior was not significant, b = -.09, p = .46.

Supplemental Analyses

We conducted several additional analyses to further

investigate the validity of our findings. First, as in Study 1,

we conducted a Tobit regression (see Tobin 1958). The

Tobit regression produced results similar to the OLS

regressions for the hypothesized interaction on leader

deviance, b = -.15 and -.31, ps \ .05, for self and observer ratings, respectively.

Second, there has been much discussion about the

advantages and disadvantages of including control vari-

ables in organizational research. We thus decided to follow

Spector and Brannick’s (2011) suggestion by repeating our

analyses without the control variables as predictors in the

equations. These analyses led to similar conclusions to

those presented previously. Most importantly, we found

significant interactions with the self-ratings of leader

deviance, b = -.26, p \ .01, and with the colleague- indicated ratings of leader deviance, b = -.34, p = .001.

Discussion

Consistent with our main hypothesis and with the results

obtained in Study 1, we obtained corroborative evidence

for the moderating effect of moral identity in the rela-

tionship between regulatory depletion and unethical leader

behavior. This time, however, results were obtained in an

actual organizational setting. These findings provide fur-

ther evidence for the prediction that leaders who are high in

moral identity do not need regulatory resources to refrain

from unethical leadership, while leaders with a low moral

identity do require these resources.

General Discussion

The aim of the present research was to investigate the

effects of regulatory depletion and moral identity on

deviant leadership behavior. We obtained corroborative

evidence for our hypothesis. More specifically, we identi-

fied ego depletion as a variable that may make leaders act

in norm-transgressing ways. Moreover, to further enhance

our understanding of this relationship, we also focused on

moral identity as a possible boundary condition. Our results

indicate that leaders with a low moral identity need self-

regulatory resources to refrain from engaging in deviant

leader behaviors, while for leaders who are high in moral

identity, behaving ethically is less reliant on these resour-

ces and thus not influenced by regulatory resource deple-

tion. This interactive effect was shown across the

laboratory experiment (Study 1) and the multisource field

study (Study 2).

Theoretic Implications

Our results are the first to show that ego depletion can

induce leaders to display a wide range of norm-trans-

gressing behaviors that are as varied as embezzling com-

pany property, deferring work in order to be paid overtime,

and humiliating one’s coworker in public. Such behaviors

Table 4 Results of hierarchical regression analysis for leader devi- ance (colleague indicated) in Study 2

Variables B SE B b DR2

Step 3 .10***

Age -0.03 0.01 -0.30***

Gender -0.07 0.16 -0.04***

Organization tenure 0.01 0.01 0.13***

Function tenure -0.00 0.02 -0.02***

Regulatory depletion (RD) 0.19 0.08 0.22***

Moral identity (MI) -0.13 0.09 -0.13***

RD 9 MI -0.32 0.09 -0.33***

Final model: F(7, 92) = 4.36, p \ .001. B = unstandardized regres- sion coefficient; b = standardized regression coefficient

* p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001

Fig. 3 Unethical leader behavior (colleague ratings) as a function of regulatory depletion and moral identity

8 A. Joosten et al.

123

contrast sharply with how organizations prefer to view the

leadership role. Specifically, leaders often face hectic and

fragmented workdays, but they are at the same time

expected to cooperate, to serve the interests of the orga-

nization, and to direct followers toward organizational

interests (e.g., Hollander 1980; Maner and Mead 2010;

Tjosvold 1984; Van Vugt et al. 2008; Yukl and Van Fleet

1992). In fact, leadership is often defined as influencing

followers to contribute to the collective and as coordinating

collective interests (e.g., Hollander and Offermann 1990;

Van Vugt et al. 2008).

Research has documented a number of cases in which

leaders do not conform to the ideal leadership role of

cooperatively working toward the organization’s goals, but

instead act in self-serving and norm-transgressing ways.

This has been attributed to variables such as the instability

of the leadership position (Maner and Mead 2010) and to

leaders’ feelings of incompetence (Fast and Chen 2009).

Some scholars have even claimed that norm-transgressing

behaviors are intrinsic to the leadership role (De Cremer

2003; Van Dijk and De Cremer 2006) because leaders feel

entitled to obtain more outcomes than followers (De Cre-

mer and Van Dijk 2005; Stouten, De Cremer and Van Dijk

2005). The present research identifies ego depletion as a

variable that may make leaders act in norm-transgressing

ways. Importantly, the nature of ego depletion sheds new

light on (un)ethical leader behavior because leaders need to

be able to control their automatic drives toward self-

servingness.

These findings are particularly important because lead-

ers, by means of their behavior, serve as social models for

their employees, which influence follower cooperation, and

displays of ethical behavior. This process is usually

understood in terms of social learning theory (Bandura

1977, 1986), which holds that people learn behavior by

observing and imitating others. According to Bandura

(1986), people with high status who have the ability to

control rewards may function as effective role models.

Therefore, leaders are the most likely source of vicarious

learning in an organizational setting. This makes leaders’

conformity to ethical rules a particularly important aspect

of the leadership role. In support of this idea, norm-trans-

gressing leaders are known to decrease positive affect,

trust, cooperation, and performance among their followers

(De Cremer 2006a, 2006b; Van Knippenberg and Van

Knippenberg 2005). In sum, the hectic and fragmented

workdays that leaders typically face may increase the

likelihood that they cross essential boundaries of their

leadership role by displaying unethical behaviors, which

consequently makes them less effective in motivating

employees to act productively and cooperatively.

A second theoretic implication is derived from the fact

that Study 2 revealed that self-reports and colleague ratings

of leader deviance show a highly similar pattern. Specifi-

cally, ego-depleted leaders reported more deviant behav-

iors and they were rated as more deviant by their coworkers

(at least leaders who are low in moral identity). It thus

seems that leaders are well aware of the specific and

sometimes norm-transgressing actions they perform, even

when they are depleted of cognitive resources. This,

however, does not necessarily imply that leaders are also

aware of the ethical dimension of their actions. Leaders

may, for instance, frame a specific action not in ethical

terms, but rather in purely economic terms (e.g., striving

for a financial reward even if it comes at the expense of

others; Tenbrunsel and Messick 1999). In fact, it has been

argued that the salience of the economic aspects of a sit-

uation may make the ethical dimension of the decision

‘‘fade’’ into the background; thus, leaders do not recognize

their actions as unethical (Tenbrunsel and Messick 2004).

This idea suggests that ego depletion can lead to deviant

leader actions ranging from discrimination to forgery

because it hinders the identification of the ethical dimen-

sion of a decision, which is a necessary first step in con-

ducting ethical behavior (Rest 1986).

Our research also contributes to the literature on moral

identity. To date, most research has focused on the ante-

cedents and consequences of moral identity (for an over-

view, see Shao et al. 2008). Research that investigates

precisely when moral identity may influence behavior

remains relatively sparse. Thus far, scholars have looked at

the interaction between moral identity and formalism

(Reynolds and Ceranic 2007), at the interaction between

moral identity and ethical organization culture (Skarlicki

et al. 2008), and at the interaction between internal and

symbolic moral identity (Caldwell and Moberg 2007). We

add to this existing literature and illuminate how moral

identity operates. In this context, it is interesting to note

that while ego depletion hinders behavior that requires

cognitive processing, it does not influence automatic pro-

cesses (DeWall et al. 2008; Schmeichel et al. 2003). Our

results thus suggest that moral identity influences moral

behavior in a fairly automatic way, and it is not thwarted by

other processes that require controlled processing.

Practical Implications

A first important practical implication of the present find-

ings is that they suggest that characteristics of leaders’ day-

to-day activities can undermine their ability to behave

ethically and may actually make leaders more likely to act

in norm-transgressing ways. This is an important finding

for managers to acknowledge because much of a leader’s

influence is derived from being a role model, rather than

from explicit attempts to influence followers (Brown et al.

2005; Walumbwa et al. 2011). Organizations should thus

Leadership and Self-Regulation 9

123

be aware that overloading their managers with decisions to

take may come with the cost of an increased likelihood of

leaders transgressing ethical norms. Nevertheless, manag-

ers should be similarly aware that whenever they are facing

tasks that can have important (i.e., ethical) implications,

their cognitive state can affect their behavior; thus, it is

necessary to carefully schedule these tasks. Tasks that may

have ethical implications should preferably be made after a

period of rest because rest can replenish managers’ cog-

nitive resources (Baumeister et al. 2000).

Our findings also convey a more optimistic message by

indicating that not all leaders are prone to displaying norm-

transgressing behaviors due to the effects of ego depletion.

Specifically, leaders who are high in moral identity proved

to be immune to the effects of ego depletion in promoting

norm-transgressing behaviors. This finding is relevant from

a practical perspective because although moral identity

represents a rather stable individual characteristic, it might

also be impacted by the situation. Research (Aquino et al.

2009; Reed et al. 2007) shows that it is possible to situa-

tionally increase the accessibility of moral identity. Com-

bined with the present results, these prior findings have two

promising implications for organizations. First, making

moral identity accessible through situational interventions

such as stimulating a clear ethical climate and ensuring that

the organization’s top management behaves in ethical ways

(Martin and Cullen 2006; Mayer et al. 2009; Mayer et al.

2010) makes it more likely that leaders behave ethically.

More importantly, this effect should also buffer the effects

of ego depletion on leaders’ norm-transgressing behaviors.

Second, and equally important, situational interventions

that make moral identity salient are likely to result in

leaders being ‘‘trained’’ to act ethically. Such training may

make ethical behaviors more automatic, thus rendering

leaders immune to the effects of ego depletion on norm-

transgressing behaviors.

Strengths and Limitations

A major strength of this article lies in the use of diverse

methods to test our hypothesis. While the laboratory

experiment conducted in Study 1 permits us to make causal

inferences, Study 2 was a field study that allowed us to

investigate whether the hypothesized effects emerged in an

organizational setting.

We recognize, of course, that we did not include a sit-

uational manipulation of morality in the experiment.

However, our reliance on a dispositional operationalization

of moral identity is clearly in line with our ideas that moral

identity as a dispositional variable is likely to lead to

internalized moral behavior (i.e., these leaders are better

trained to act ethically). Obviously, this is not the case with

situational manipulations of morality in relatively short-

lived experimental contexts. Yet, various studies show that

a moral prime can stimulate morality and thus can induce

individuals to behave more morally (Aquino et al. 2009;

Mazar et al. 2008; Reed et al. 2007). At the same time, it

should be recognized that other research shows that situa-

tional manipulations of morality can lead to compensatory,

rather than consistent, moral behavior. In other words,

priming morality can also reduce the display of moral

behaviors (Jordan et al. 2011; Sachdeva et al. 2009; Sme-

esters et al. 2003; Zhong et al. 2009). Rather than trying to

resolve this inconsistency in the literature, we relied on a

dispositional measure of moral identity, which has proven

to be a consistent predictor of moral behavior (for an

overview, see Shao et al. 2008). Moreover, a dispositional

measure of moral identity is more likely to tap into inter-

nalized moral values and, more importantly, should be a

stronger predictor of the prevalence of (internalized) moral

actions.

Research on deviance has typically relied on self-

reported behavioral measures (Berry et al., 2007). In line

with this, we also relied on self-reported deviance in Study

1. However, we found the same consistent pattern in the

multisource field sample using observer measures of

leaders’ actual behaviors, which cross-validates the use of

self-report in the experimental study. Additionally, the

observer ratings of deviance in Study 2 yielded a pattern of

results which was analogous to the self-reported ratings,

which corroborates results of a recent meta-analysis on

organizational deviance (Berry et al., 2007) showing high

convergence between observer- and self-reported organi-

zational deviance.

An additional limitation of this research that should be

mentioned is the skewed gender distribution in Study 2. A

majority of our respondents were male, reflecting the pre-

ponderance of males in an executive function. This skewed

gender distribution may pose potential problems to the

validity of our results. We addressed this issue by including

gender as a control variable in Study 2 and found no effect

of gender. Furthermore, excluding gender as a control

variable did not alter our results in any way. It is in this

respect relevant to note that a meta-analysis on workplace

deviance showed that gender had only a very weak corre-

lation with deviant behavior (Berry et al. 2007).

Directions for Future Research

One highly relevant avenue for future research might be to

investigate our research questions in another cultural set-

ting. For instance, the present research was conducted in

the Netherlands, which is considered an individualistic

culture (Schimmack et al. 2005). It might be interesting to

conduct a similar study in a collectivistic culture. Many

aspects of moral behavior are interpersonal in nature

10 A. Joosten et al.

123

(Aquino et al. 2009; Kant 1785/2005; Singer 1981), and

differences in cultural orientation might therefore influence

deviant leader behavior. In Japan, for example, expressing

anger publicly is considered unseemly, while this is con-

sidered necessary (to avoid ‘‘boiling over’’ or ‘‘blowing

up’’ at a later point) in the United States (Markus and

Kitayama 1991). Even more directly relevant to the present

research question, collectivist cultures place greater

importance on acting in line with norms and expectations

(Husted and Allen 2008). Therefore, like our respondents

high in moral identity, collectivist cultures should be more

experienced in inhibiting their selfish impulses than indi-

vidualists (Seeley and Gardner 2003). As a result, leaders

in collectivistic cultures might be less influenced by ego

depletion and may refrain from deviant behavior when they

are depleted.

A second avenue for future research lies in the specific

type of norm-transgressing behavior that is focused on as

the outcome variable. In our research, we focused on

unethical leader behaviors that harm the organization and/or

its members. It could be interesting, however, to focus on

different types of unethical leader behavior. For instance,

prosocial rule breaking (Morrison 2006; Umphress et al.

2010) represents norm-transgressing behavior that is

intended to benefit the organization and/or its members. An

example of this is violating organizational policies or pro-

cedures to solve a problem (Galperin 2012). Arguably, this

creates tension between doing the morally right thing from a

rule-based (i.e., deontological) perspective and from an

outcome-based (i.e., utilistic) perspective.

Concluding Remarks

The hectic, fragmented nature of a typical day for organi-

zational leaders makes them especially prone to resource

depletion. Regretfully, depletion makes it more likely that

organizational leaders display norm-transgressing behaviors

that conflict with their desired leadership role, which should

focus on benefitting the organization and stimulating

employees to strive toward these goals as well. We showed

that leaders who are high in moral identity are less vulnerable

to resource depletion effects in their display of unethical

behaviors, indicating that they need less controlled resources

to act ethically. Leaders who are low in moral identity,

however, need these cognitive resources to display ethical

leader behaviors. This indicates that the nature of the lead-

ership role can lead to unethical leader behaviors, as such

highlighting the importance of internalizing the motivation

to act in ethical ways in organizational settings.

Acknowledgement This research was supported by grant G063610N from the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen).

References

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

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A, II., Lim, V. K. G., & 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.

doi:10.1037/a0015406.

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

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

1423–1440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423.

Balliet, D., & Joireman, J. (2010). Ego depletion reduces proselfs’ concern

with the well- being of others. Group Processes & Intergroup

Relations, 13(2), 227–239. doi:10.1177/1368430209353634.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social-learning theory. Upper Saddle River:

Prentice Hall.

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

social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness,

intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R.

S. Wyer Jr & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition

(2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Barnes, C. M., Schaubroeck, J., Huth, M., & Ghumman, S. (2011).

Lack of sleep and unethical conduct. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 169–180. doi:10.1016/

j.obhdp.2011.01.009.

Barriga, A. Q., Morrison, E. M., Liau, A. K., & Gibbs, J. C. (2001).

Moral cognition: Explaining the gender difference in antisocial

behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(4), 532–562. doi:

10.1353/mpq.2001.0020.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M.

(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),

1252–1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252.

Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure:

An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7(1), 1–15. doi:

10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1.

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing

control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A

resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled pro-

cessing. Social Cognition, 18(2), 130–150. doi:10.1521/soco.

2000.18.2.130.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength

model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 16(6), 351–355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure

of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3),

349–360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349.

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(2), 410–424. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410.

Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A

critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1),

1–45. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.1.

Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical

perspective. Developmental Review, 3(2), 178–210. doi:

10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1.

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

leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-

ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 97(2), 117–134. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002.

Leadership and Self-Regulation 11

123

Caldwell, D. F., & Moberg, D. (2007). An exploratory investigation

of the effect of ethical culture in activating moral imagination.

Journal of Business Ethics, 73(2), 193–204. doi:10.1007/s10551-

006-9190-6.

De Cremer, D. (2003). How self-conception may lead to inequality:

Effect of hierarchical roles on the equality rule in organizational

resource-sharing tasks. Group & Organization Management,

28(2), 282–302. doi:10.1177/1059601103251215.

De Cremer, D. (2006a). Affective and motivational consequences of

leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic lead-

ership. Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79–93. doi:10.1016/

j.leaqua.2005.10.005.

De Cremer, D. (2006b). When authorities influence followers’ affect:

The interactive effect of procedural justice and transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 15(3), 322–351. doi:10.1080/13594320600627662.

De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put

themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a

function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 35(4), 553–563. doi:10.1002/ejsp.260.

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., & Maner, J. K.

(2008). Depletion makes the heart grow less helpful: Helping as

a function of self-regulatory energy and genetic relatedness.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1653–1662.

doi:10.1177/0146167208323981.

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011).

How leaders self- regulate their task performance: Evidence that

power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 47–65. doi:10.1037/

a0020932.

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T.

(2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its

depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-

chology, 43(1), 62–76. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.005.

Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate:

Power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychological Science,

20(11), 1406–1413. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02452.x.

Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., & Frey, D. (2007). Ego depletion and

positive illusions: Does the construction of positivity require

regulatory resources? Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-

tin, 33(9), 1306–1321. doi:10.1177/0146167207303025.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on

stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621–628. doi:

10.1037/0003-066x.48.6.621.

Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of

workplace deviance: Developing and validating a measure of

constructive deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

42(12), 2988–3025. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00971.x.

Ganster, D. C. (2005). Executive job demands: Suggestions from a

stress and decision- making perspective. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 30(3), 492–502. Retrieved from http://www.

jstor.org/stable/20159140.

Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why’s my boss always

holding me down? A meta- analysis of power effects on

performance evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 2(3), 184–195. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_3.

Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable

to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes

unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-

sion Processes, 115(2), 191–203. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.

001.

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010).

Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525. doi:10.1037/

a0019486.

Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executive

job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and

leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30(3),

472–491. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159139.

Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral

motivation. Human Development, 48(4), 232–256. doi:

10.1159/000086859.

Hollander, E. P. (1980). Leadership and social exchange processes.

Gergen, M. S.: In K. J.

Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in

organizations: Relationships in transition. American Psycholo-

gist, 45(2), 179–189. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.2.179.

Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2008). Toward a model of cross-

cultural business ethics: The impact of individualism and

collectivism on the ethical decision-making process. Journal of

Business Ethics, 82(2), 293–305. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-

9888-8.

Jordan, J., Mullen, E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Striving for the

moral self: The effects of recalling past moral actions on future

moral behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

37(5), 701–713. doi:10.1177/0146167211400208.

Kant, I. (2005). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Ontario,

Canada: Broadview Press (Original work published 1785).

Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2004). A social-cognitive approach to

moral personality. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral

development, self, and identity (pp. 189–213). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between

leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the

sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 99(3), 482–497. doi:10.1037/A0018559.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:

Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psycholog-

ical Review, 98(2), 224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224.

Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of

ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of

Business Ethics, 69(2), 175–194. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-

9084-7.

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

Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An

examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leader-

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

10.5465/amj.2008.0276.

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, 7–16. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0794-0.

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

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

down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 108(1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002.

Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest

people: A theory of self- concept maintenance. Journal of

Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633.

Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Ariely,

D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource

depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 45(3), 594–597. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.004.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York:

Harper & Row.

Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in social psychology (Vol. 7,

pp. 249–292). New York: Academic Press.

Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-

depletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality and

12 A. Joosten et al.

123

Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1024–1036. doi:10.1177/

0146167206288008.

Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-

social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32(1), 5–28. doi:

10.1177/0149206305277790.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and

depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a

muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259. doi:10.1037/

0033-2909.126.2.247.

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as

limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 774–789. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774.

Narvaez, D., Lapsley, D. K., Hagele, S., & Lasky, B. (2006). Moral

chronicity and social information processing: Tests of a social

cognitive approach to the moral personality. Journal of Research

in Personality, 40(6), 966–985. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.10.003.

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

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

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/

0021-9101.88.5.879.

Reed, A, II., & Aquino, K. F. (2003). Moral identity and the

expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270–1286. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1270.

Reed, A, II., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2007). Moral identity and

judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71(1),

178–193. doi:10.1509/jmkg.71.1.178.

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

New York: Praeger.

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment

and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination

of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6),

1610–1624. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1610.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant

workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy

of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572. doi:10.2307/256693.

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence,

interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54,

351–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059.

Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and

saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psycho-

logical Science, 20(4), 523–528. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.

02326.x.

Sage, L., Kavussanu, M., & Duda, J. (2006). Goal orientations and

moral identity as predictors of prosocial and antisocial function-

ing in male association football players. Journal of Sports

Sciences, 24(5), 455–466. doi:10.1080/02640410500244531.

Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2005). Individualism: A

valid and important dimension of cultural differences between

nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 17–31.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_2. Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003).

Intellectual performance and ego depletion: Role of the self in

logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 33–46. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.85.1.33.

Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled & automatic

processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cog-

nitive Science, 27(3), 525–559. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(03)

00011-9.

Seeley, E. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2003). The ‘‘selfless’’ and self-

regulation: The role of chronic other-orientation in averting self-

regulatory depletion. Self and Identity, 2(2), 103–117. doi:

10.1080/15298860309034.

Shao, R. D., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral

reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implica-

tions for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4),

513–540.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic

human information- processing: II. Perceptual learning, auto-

matic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review,

84(2), 127–190. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127.

Singer, P. (1981). The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology.

New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.

Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Walker, D. D. (2008).

Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral

identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal

injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology,

93(6), 1335–1347. doi:10.1037/a0012704.

Smeesters, D., Warlop, L., Van Avermaet, E., Corneille, O., &

Yzerbyt, V. (2003). Do not prime hawks with doves: The

interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value

orientation on cooperative behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84(5), 972–987. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.

5.972.

Smith, E. R., & Lerner, M. (1986). Development of automatism of

social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

50(2), 246–259. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.246.

Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban

legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organiza-

tional Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305. doi:10.1177/

1094428110369842.

Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J., &

McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self-

report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94(1), 207–215. doi:10.1037/A0012605.

Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). I’m doing the best

I can (for myself): Leadership and variance of harvesting in

resource dilemmas. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and

Practice, 9(3), 205–211. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.205.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-

control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades,

and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2),

271–324. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning systems,

decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 44(4), 684–707. doi:10.2307/2667052.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role

of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research,

17(2), 223–236. doi:10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53.

Tjosvold, D. (1984). Cooperation theory and organizations. Human

Relations, 37(9), 743. doi:10.1177/001872678403700903.

Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent

variables. Econometrica, 26(1), 24–36. doi:10.2307/1907382.

Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical

behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of

organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on

unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 95(4), 769–780. doi:10.1037/a0019214.

Usoof-Thowfeek, R., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Tavernini, J. (2011).

Moral judgments and the role of social harm: Differences in

automatic versus controlled processing. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 47(1), 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.016.

Van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. (2006). Self-benefiting in the

allocation of scarce resources: Leader-follower effects and the

moderating effect of social value orientations. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1352–1361. doi:10.1177/

0146167206290338.

Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-

sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of

Leadership and Self-Regulation 13

123

leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1),

25–37. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership,

followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past.

American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196. doi:10.1037/0003-

066x.63.3.182.

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M.,

Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs

subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision

making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 883–898. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.94.5.883.

Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: A

resource-depletion approach. Psychological Science, 11(3),

249–254. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00250.

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. doi:

10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002.

Wheeler, S. C., Briñol, P., & Hermann, A. D. (2007). Resistance to

persuasion as self- regulation: Ego-depletion and its effects on

attitude change processes. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 43(1), 150–156. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.001.

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

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

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology

(pp. 659–677). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

Zhong, C., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-

regulation. Licensing and compensation. In D. De Cremer (Ed.),

Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision

making (pp. 75–89). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

14 A. Joosten et al.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.