Thomas Et Al 2015

Journal of Applied Psychology 2014 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 100, No. 3, 948 965 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038246
RESEARCH REPORT
Ethical Leadership: Meta-Analytic Evidence of Criterion-Related and

Incremental Validity
Thomas W. H. Ng Daniel C. Feldman

The University of Hong Kong The University of Georgia
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This study examines the criterion-related and incremental validity of ethical leadership (EL) with meta-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
analytic data. Across 101 samples published over the last 15 years (N 29,620), we observed that EL
demonstrated acceptable criterion-related validity with variables that tap followers job attitudes, job perfor-
mance, and evaluations of their leaders. Further, followers trust in the leader mediated the relationships of EL
with job attitudes and performance. In terms of incremental validity, we found that EL significantly, albeit
weakly in some cases, predicted task performance, citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behav-
ior even after controlling for the effects of such variables as transformational leadership, use of contingent
rewards, management by exception, interactional fairness, and destructive leadership. The article concludes
with a discussion of ways to strengthen the incremental validity of EL.
Keywords: ethical leadership, construct validity, meta-analysis
Due to a series of highly visible, highly public ethical failures by outcomes across different research designs (e.g., level of analysis
senior executives (Cappelli, 2009; Carson, 2003; Zona, Minoja, & and scales to measure EL) and different cultures (e.g., Eastern vs.
Coda, 2013), researchers have started to investigate the nature and Western) has not been comprehensively reviewed. Demonstrating
influence of ethical leadership (EL). Brown, Trevino, and Harrison criterion-related validity of EL is theoretically important here
(2005) define EL as the demonstration of normatively appropriate because it can clarify how far-reaching and how deep the impact of
conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, this construct could be.
and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way The second gap in the literature is also related to criterion-
communication, reinforcement, and decision-making (p. 120). EL related validity and concerns the specific psychological process
highlights the importance of being a moral person; ethical leaders through which EL elicits these effects. Although both social learn-
are trustworthy, fair, prudent, and self-disciplined (Riggio, Zhu, ing theory and social exchange theory have helped explain the
Reina, & Maroosis, 2010). However, EL also entails a moral general dynamics underlying the positive effects of EL on em-
manager dimension; ethical leaders proactively attempt to shape ployees (Brown & Trevino, 2006), we know much less about the
followers values by being moral role models, communicating mediating psychological process through which EL elicits these
important ethical values to followers, using rewards and punish- effects. Indeed, Brown and Trevino (2006) explicitly call for more
ments to promote higher ethical standards, and treating followers research along these lines. By examining mediating psychological
with care and concern (Brown & Trevino, 2006; Trevio, Brown, mechanisms in more detail, especially those that are consistent
& Hartman, 2003). Not surprisingly, employees, customers, job with both social learning theory and social exchange theory, we
applicants, suppliers, and other stakeholders all react positively to can gain a better understanding of why, and not only that, EL
EL (Mo, Booth, & Wang, 2012; Strobel, Tumasjan, & Welpe, positively affects employees in the work place.
2010; Tu & Lu, 2013; Zheng, Wang, & Li, 2011). Third, it is not yet clear whether positive reactions to EL are
Despite the rapid growth in EL research, three important gaps
due, at least in part, to the overlap of EL with similar leadership
remain. First, while EL has been shown to relate to work outcomes
constructs (S. T. Hunter, 2012). There is certainly prior research
in individual studies, the criterion-related validity of EL with work
suggesting that EL is different from some other leadership con-
structs (e.g., Brown & Trevino, 2006; Brown et al., 2005). How-
ever, to further bolster ELs utility in the organizational sciences,
researchers need to show that EL has incremental predictive power
This article was published Online First November 24, 2014. above and beyond these other constructs; demonstrating incremen-
Thomas W. H. Ng, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University
tal predictive power is an important endeavor in applied psychol-
of Hong Kong; Daniel C. Feldman, Terry College of Business, The
University of Georgia. ogy research because it signals the practical value of a theoretical
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas construct to organizations (Cortina, Goldstein, Payne, Davison, &
W. H. Ng, The University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Business and Eco- Gilliland, 2000; Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006;
nomics, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong. E-mail: tng@business.hku.hk Lievens & Patterson, 2011).
948
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP 949
To address these three gaps in the literature, we first conduct a Both social learning and social exchange theories converge in
quantitative meta-analysis. By analyzing cumulative evidence predicting that followers of ethical leaders will hold more positive
drawn from multiple studies/countries and using multiple mea- job attitudes and will exhibit stronger job performance. Specifi-
sures of EL, we can more accurately assess the nomological cally, because ethical leaders are fairer and more caring (Brown &
network of EL. Second, to gain a stronger understanding of the Trevino, 2006; Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011),
specific psychological processes by which EL affects employees, subordinates are more likely to report favorable evaluations of
we examine trust in the leader as a mediator of the relationships of such leaders, including greater perceived leader effectiveness, sat-
EL with work outcomes. The mediating effects of trust in the isfaction with the leader, and trust in the leader. Similarly, because
leader are important to consider because, as discussed later, they ethical leaders are seen as principled decision-makers and agents
are consistent with both social learning and social exchange the- of benevolent employers, subordinates are also more likely to
ories. Moreover, prior EL studies examining trust in the leader develop favorable perceptions of the general work environment
(e.g., Wong & Cummings, 2009; Wu, 2012) have seldom linked and the organization as a whole (e.g., Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den
this construct to these two theories that are so central to EL Hartog, & Folger, 2010). Consistent with these premises, we
research. Third, to investigate the incremental validity of EL, we predict that subordinates of ethical leaders will report more posi-
examine whether it accounts for significant variance in job per- tive job attitudes (job satisfaction and low job strain) and greater
formance outcomes above and beyond the effects of other leader- organizational attachment (affective commitment, normative com-
ship constructs (e.g., transformational leadership, use of contingent mitment, organizational identification, and intentions to remain;
rewards, management by exception, leadermember exchange, e.g., Walumbwa et al., 2011). Further, both to reciprocate to ethical
interactional fairness, and destructive leadership) and ethical cli- leaders for fair treatment and to model the positive behaviors
mate (a context variable). We are the first to examine ELs incre- displayed by such leaders, subordinates are likely to display
mental validity over and above multiple similar constructs. greater job motivation, greater task performance and citizenship
behavior, and less counterproductive work behavior (e.g., Detert,
Construct Validity of EL Trevio, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007; Mayer, Kuenzi, & Green-
baum, 2010). Therefore, to establish the criterion-related validity
In order to demonstrate construct validity (Peter, 1981), re-
of EL, we predict the following:
searchers first need to establish its criterion-related validity
(whether a construct is related in theoretically consistent ways to Hypothesis 1: EL is positively related to perceived leader
other constructs). In addition, researchers have to demonstrate a effectiveness (H1a), satisfaction with the leader (H1b), and
constructs discriminant validity (whether a construct is different trust in the leader (H1c).
from other constructs in its nomological network; Bagozzi, Yi, &
Phillips, 1991; Peter & Churchill, 1986). One important way to Hypothesis 2: EL is positively related to job satisfaction
show that a construct is distinct from other constructs is by (H2a), affective commitment (H2b), normative commitment
demonstrating its incremental validity, that is, its predictive power (H2c), and organizational identification (H2d), but is nega-
above and beyond other variables with overlapping content do- tively related to job strains (H2e) and turnover intentions
mains (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989; Watson et (H2f).
al., 2008). From a theory development standpoint, establishing
both criterion-related and incremental validity of EL is important Hypothesis 3: EL is positively related to job motivation (H3a),
because numerous other leadership variables that positively impact task performance (H3b), and citizenship behavior (H3c), but is
work outcomes have already been identified in the literature (De- negatively related to counterproductive work behavior (H3d).
Rue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011).
Both social learning and social exchange theories provide useful
frameworks for understanding the general dynamics underlying
Criterion-Related Validity
the above relationships, but not as much research has been exam-
The research on EL is largely grounded in social learning theory ining specific psychological mediators. Here we argue that trust in
(Bandura, 1986) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Social the leader is the major lynchpin in these relationships. Trust in the
learning theory suggests that the behavior of significant others has leader is a psychological state that reflects employees willingness
a strong influence on individuals ethical standards. Followers to become vulnerable to the leader (that is, to assume some risk or
gather cues from their role models about what the right ethical forego some promised reward in the short run) because employees
behaviors in the firm should be (Mayer, Nurmohamed, Trevino, have positive expectations of their leaders intentions and behav-
Shapiro, & Schminke, 2013) and then display their same high iors in the long run (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
ethical standards, job attitudes, and job performance (Mayer, Kue- Numerous EL scholars assert that ethical leaders are trustworthy
nzi, & Greenbaum, 2010). (e.g., Brown & Trevino, 2006; Kalshoven et al., 2011; Walumbwa
Social exchange theory suggests that followers reciprocate pos- et al., 2011). That is, EL signals to employees that there is less risk
itively to ethical leaders because they are treated by those leaders associated with becoming dependent upon their leaders because
in ethical ways (Hansen, Alge, Brown, Jackson, & Dunford, 2013; their leaders will continue to treat them in supportive, fair, and
Neubert, Wu, & Roberts, 2013). Over time, the norm of reciprocity humane ways (Eisenbeiss, 2012; Kalshoven et al., 2011). Their
leads the relationship between the ethical leader and the follower trust in those leaders, in turn, is positively related to their job
to be characterized by higher mutual commitment and satisfaction attitudes and job performance. According to social learning theory,
(Mahsud, Yukl, & Prussia, 2010; Shore, Coyle-Shapiro, Chen, & individuals mimic the attitudes and behaviors of significant role
Tetrick, 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2011). models. Thus, employees who trust their leaders will display
950 NG AND FELDMAN
positive attitudes and behaviors similar to those their leaders (Kalshoven et al., 2011). However, they uphold high ethical stan-
display. In addition, according to social exchange theory, subor- dards not only in their interactions with followers, but in virtually
dinates of ethical leaders will reciprocate with greater psycholog- all aspects of their careers. For instance, ethical leaders set ethical
ical investment in the dyadincluding greater trust in the leader expectations for followers and use rewards and punishments to
and will therefore also display more positive job attitudes and job reinforce those ethical standards (Brown et al., 2005). These latter
behaviors consistent with that heightened psychological invest- behaviors are not captured by the interactional fairness construct.
ment. Thus, the social learning and social exchange theories lead Finally, EL is not simply the opposite of destructive leadership.
us to predict Destructive leadership refers to leader behaviors that stifle the
professional growth and development of followers or even hurt
Hypothesis 4: Followers trust in the leader mediates the their well-being (Schyns & Schilling, 2013), such as being auto-
relationships of EL to job attitudes and job performance. cratic, despotic, or abusive. Destructive leadership is clearly un-
ethical because it violates widely recognized moral principles that
all people should be treated with fairness and dignity (Unal,
Incremental Validity
Warren, & Chen, 2012). Nevertheless, exerting EL entails more

Transformational leadership involves inspiring followers to than restraining oneself from being unethical. Rather, it also in-
identify with a broader vision beyond their own immediate self- volves actively promoting the adoption of ethical norms among
interest (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Brown and Trevino (2006) followers.
emphasize that transformational leadership and EL are different. The above discussion suggests that EL is conceptually distinct
First, transformational leadership does not emphasize engaging in from these other constructs and should account for incremental
ethical behavior as a means of influencing followers behavior, variance in outcome variables after controlling for their effects.
whereas EL does. Conversely, EL does not include either articu- Here we focus in particular on whether EL predicts employees job
lating a corporate vision or providing intellectual stimulation to performance above and beyond these variables for three reasons:
employees, both of which are central to transformational leader- (a) job performance ultimately affects organizational productivity;
ship. In addition, transformational leaders can be altruistic or (b) job performance is a job behavior rather than an attitude or a
self-centered (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), whereas EL clearly belief, so that percept-percept biases can be reduced; and (c)
involves altruistic behavior. others ratings of job performance are available, thereby helping to
Use of contingent rewards entails giving followers desired re- lower the threat of common method bias.
wards based on their effort and performance on the job (Bass,
1985). It is an active form of transactional leadership; it involves Hypothesis 5: EL predicts employees job performance above
the deliberate exchange of tangible resources between leaders and and beyond transformational leadership (H5a), use of contin-
followers (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, gent rewards (H5b), management by exception (H5c), laissez-
2004). EL, too, entails clarifying expectations and using rewards faire leadership (H5d), leadermember exchange (H5e), inter-
and punishments to shape behavior (Kalshoven et al., 2011; Tu & actional fairness (H5f), and destructive leadership (H5g).
Lu, 2013). However, the scope of EL goes beyond simply moti- Last here, we consider whether EL accounts for incremental
vating workers to perform better on their jobs; the ultimate goal of variance above and beyond a closely related context variable,
EL is to promote higher ethical standards among workers as well namely, ethical climate. Over time, managers ethical behaviors
(Resick, Hargis, Shao, & Dust, 2013). contribute to the establishment of an ethical climate (Mayer et al.,
EL is also theoretically distinct from two more passive types of 2010), while the formation of an ethical climate contributes to the
transactional leadership: (a) management by exception (monitoring selection and promotion of more ethical leaders (Strobel et al.,
whether performance is on track and/or intervening when there are 2010). Despite the close relationship between EL and ethical
serious work problems and correcting mistakes as they occur) and climate, however, the two constructs are conceptually different. EL
(b) laissez-faire leadership (avoidance or absence of any active refers to the perceived leadership style of the leader, whereas
leadership). These passive transactional leaders do not intervene ethical climate refers to individuals perceptions of the ethical
at all or intervene only when there are major incidents which content of organizational practices and procedures (Victor &
require their attention (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). In contrast, Cullen, 1988). That is, the target of the evaluation of ethicalness
EL emphasizes proactive behaviors to influence employees ethi- is different in the two cases. For these reasons, we predict
cal conduct (Brown & Trevino, 2006).
Leadermember exchange is the extent to which leaders develop Hypothesis 6: EL predicts employees job performance above
high quality relationships with followers (Gerstner & Day, 1997; and beyond ethical climate.
Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). While ethical leaders are
people-oriented as well, they focus on promoting the ethical stan-
Method
dards of workers rather than promoting the quality of relationships
as an end in and of itself. High quality relationships might be We performed a comprehensive search for those field and
by-products of EL (Walumbwa et al., 2011), but they are not experimental studies, published in or before 2014, that examined
necessarily what ethical leaders intend to create. EL. We utilized numerous electronic databases, including EBSCO-
Interactional fairness refers to whether leaders are equitable in Host, Emerald, Factiva, JSTOR, Oxford Journals, ProQuest, Psy-
their interactions with followers, especially in terms of showing cINFO, ScienceDirect, Sage Full-Text Collections, Wiley Inter-
respect and providing explanations for the decisions they make Science, Dissertation Abstracts International, and Digital
(Colquitt et al., 2013). Ethical leaders, too, strive to be fair leaders Dissertation Consortium. These databases collectively cover a
wide range of management and applied psychology journals. Key- population (J. E. Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In order to examine the
words including ethical leadership and moral leadership were mediating effects we posited in H4 and the incremental validity
used in all searches; each article identified was examined carefully issues addressed in H5 and H6, we used meta-analytical path
to see if it was suitable for the current meta-analysis. We identified analyses (see Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995, for a discussion of the
a total of 89 empirical articles, which together contained 101 technical details).
independent samples (13 were unpublished dissertations; N
29,620). A list of all the studies included in the meta-analysis
Results
(along with effect sizes, reliability information, and design char-
acteristics) is provided in Appendix A. Those studies that were Table 1 presents the uncorrected and corrected effect sizes for
considered but excluded (along with the reasons for doing so) are the relationships of EL with each set of correlates. Before we
provided in Appendix B. investigated our hypotheses, we first examined whether EL might
be influenced by social desirability response bias, as employees
might be reluctant to admit they had unethical leaders. As shown
Measures
in Table 1, we found that the corrected correlation for the rela-

EL. This study focuses on followers perceptions of their tionship of EL to social desirability was only .17, suggesting
leaders EL, following Brown and Trevinos (2006) argument that employees reports of EL were not highly influenced by social
followers evaluations of leaders EL are the best estimates of such desirability response bias.
behavior. Some studies used the term supervisors rather than H1a c, which predicted that greater EL would be associated
leaders in the scales; we treat those as equivalent here but with more favorable evaluations of leaders, were supported. As
consistently use the term leaders throughout this article. The EL shown in Table 1, EL was related to perceived leader effectiveness
scale used in each empirical study is also provided in Appendix A. (.70), satisfaction with the leader (.53), and trust in the leader (.77).
The most frequently used scale was the 10-item scale developed by H2af, which predicted that greater EL would be associated
Brown et al. (2005; 61%; average .92). with more positive job attitudes, were supported, too. EL was
Sixteen percent of the studies, mainly conducted in Asia, used positively related to job satisfaction (.42), affective commitment
the moral leadership scale. Moral leadership is one of the three (.40), normative commitment (.52), and organizational identifica-
components of the paternalistic leadership construct advanced by tion (.26) and was negatively related to both job strains (.29) and
Cheng, Chou, and Farh (2000); its average alpha was .86. In those turnover intentions (.39).
cases where data on other dimensions of paternalistic leadership H3a d, which predicted that greater EL would be associated
were available, we only used the data on moral leadership for the with greater job motivation and performance, were also supported.
sake of consistency. EL was positively related to job motivation (.31), self-ratings of
The remaining 23% of studies employed a variety of other task performance (.30), others ratings of task performance (.21),
scales (average .91). Thus, all the scales being used in studies self-ratings of citizenship behavior (.32), others ratings of citizen-
of EL had internal consistency levels well above the standards ship behavior (.24; person-targeted .22; organization-targeted
recommended in the behavioral sciences (Peterson, 1994). .27), and constructive voice behavior (self-ratings .33; others
Correlates of EL: Criterion-related validity. Except where ratings .32). Moreover, EL was negatively related to both
indicated otherwise, the three groups of correlates examined here self-ratings (.34) and others ratings of counterproductive work
(evaluations of their leaders, job attitudes, and job performance) behavior (.23).
were reported by followers and measured with validated scales. H4 predicted that employees trust in their leaders would me-
Correlates of EL: Incremental validity. Leadership vari- diate the relationships of EL with job attitudes and job perfor-
ables and ethical climate were all measured using self-reports from mance. Because we do not have meta-analytical data among all the
followers and with validated scales. Wherever there were at least attitudinal variables and performance variables reported in Table 1,
three studies available, we also examined the relationship of EL we limited this analysis to a smaller set of criterion variables. Job
with specific components of transformational leadership (e.g., satisfaction and affective organizational commitment were used as
idealized influences or intellectual stimulation), too. In those arti- indicators of job attitudes because they represent two of the most
cles in which informational and interpersonal fairness were exam- important attitudes in the organizational behavior literature (Har-
ined as two components of interactional fairness, we averaged the rison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). In addition, to minimize the
two effect sizes. Destructive leadership consists of several forms of influence of common method bias, others ratings of task perfor-
negative leadership styles (e.g., abusive supervision, authoritarian mance and citizenship behavior were used as the core indicators of
leadership, despotic leadership). job performance.
The model tested (along with data sources and fit indices)
appears in Figure 1. We allowed the residual variances of the four
Meta-Analytical Procedures
dependent variables to be correlated because they are frequently
Raju, Burke, Normand, and Langloiss (1991) techniques, examined together as related outcomes of various predictors (e.g.,
which correct for measurement error variance and sampling error Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009; Suazo, 2009); this strategy allowed
variance, were used to obtain the corrected correlations between us to control for the effects of these omitted predictors. Using Hu
EL and correlates (H1, H2, and H3). Although meta-analyses can and Bentlers (1999) recommended fit indices, we found that the
be performed with uncorrected correlations as well, correcting proposed mediational model has good fit. We then proceeded to
both measurement error and sampling error is important for ob- examine each structural parameter. EL was positively related to
taining accurate estimates of construct-level relationships in the trust in the leader ( .77, p .01), which in turn was positively
952 NG AND FELDMAN
Table 1
The Relationships of Ethical Leadership With Work Outcomes
N k r rc SD 95% CI 90% CV
Evaluations of leaders
Perceived leader effectivenessa 2,721 11 .63 .70 .17 [.60, .80] [.42, .98]
Satisfaction with the leadera,b 2,246 11 .47 .53 .33 [.33, .73] [.01, 1.07]
Trust in the leaderb 2,766 11 .67 .77 .08 [.72, .82] [.64, .90]
Job attitudes
Job satisfactiona 2,983 10 .37 .42 .21 [.29, .55] [.07, .77]
Job strainsa 2,133 7 .26 .29 .08 [.35, .23] [.42, .16]
Affective organizational commitmenta 4,656 17 .35 .40 .13 [.34, .46] [.19, .61]
Normative organizational commitment 539 3 .47 .52 .00 [.52, .52] [.52, .52]
Organizational identification 1,587 6 .24 .26 .31 [.01, .51] [.25, .77]
Turnover intentions 2,091 5 .35 .39 .13 [.50, .28] [.60, .18]
Motivational and performance outcomes

Job motivationa,b 2,503 14 .27 .31 .26 [.17, .45] [.12, .74]
Task performance: Self-ratings 1,389 5 .26 .30 .00 [.30, .30] [.30, .30]
Task performance: Rated by supervisors or peersa 2,879 12 .19 .21 .07 [.17, .25] [.09, .33]
Overall citizenship behavior: Self-ratingsa 2,472 10 .27 .32 .09 [.26, .38] [.17, .47]
Overall citizenship behavior: Rated by supervisors or peers 3,530 16 .21 .24 .09 [.20, .28] [.09, .39]
Person-targeted citizenship behavior: Rated by supervisors or peers 1,859 9 .19 .22 .02 [.21, .23] [.19, .25]
Organization-targeted citizenship behavior: Rated by supervisors or peersa 900 4 .23 .27 .00 [.27, .27] [.27, .27]
Constructive voice behavior: Self-ratingsa 3,116 8 .30 .33 .09 [.27, .39] [.18, .48]
Constructive voice behavior: Rated by supervisors or peersa 1,405 5 .28 .32 .13 [.21, .43] [.11, .53]
Counterproductive work behavior: Self-ratingsa 2,246 11 .31 .34 .13 [.42, .26] [.55, .13]
Counterproductive work behavior: Rated by supervisors or peersa 1,439 7 .21 .23 .06 [.27, .19] [.33, .13]
Overall transformational leadership 2,426 13 .69 .76 .17 [.67, .85] [.48, 1.04]
Idealized influencea,b 1,336 10 .48 .52 .28 [.35, .69] [.06, .98]
Individualized consideration 907 4 .66 .74 .06 [.68, .80] [.64, .84]
Inspirational motivation 364 3 .72 .78 .05 [.72, .84] [.70, .86]
Intellectual stimulation 364 3 .58 .62 .20 [.39, .85] [.29, .95]
Active transactional leadership
Use of contingent rewards 1,156 7 .63 .75 .15 [.64, .86] [.50, 1.00]
Passive transactional leadership
Management by exception: Active 649 5 .15 .19 .27 [.43, .05] [.63, .25]
Management by exception: Passive 723 5 .40 .48 .09 [.56, .40] [.63, .33]
Laissez-faire leadership 480 4 .48 .55 .11 [.66, .44] [.73, .37]
Other leadership variables
Leader-member exchangeb 3,184 11 .54 .60 .32 [.41, .79] [.07, 1.13]
Interactional fairnessa 1,357 6 .62 .69 .16 [.56, .82] [.43, .95]
Destructive leadershipa 1,639 8 .43 .49 .16 [.60, .38] [.75, .23]
Other correlates
Perceived ethical climatea 6,233 12 .50 .57 .10 [.51, .63] [.41, .73]
Perceptions of top managements ethical leadershipa 921 3 .54 .58 .12 [.44, .72] [.38, .78]
Social desirabilitya 468 3 .14 .17 .08 [.08, .26] [.04, .30]
Note. N cumulative sample size; k number of studies cumulated; r sample-sizeweighted uncorrected correlation; rc sample-sizeweighted
corrected correlation; SD standard deviation of rc; CI confidence interval for rc; CV credibility interval for rc.
a
Individual-level and group-level correlations are combined. b Experimental studies are included.
related to job satisfaction ( .65, p .01), affective commit- leader. We found that this alternative model had poorer fit than the
ment ( .51, p .01), others ratings of task performance ( original one; for example, both the Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
.32, p .01), and others ratings of citizenship behavior ( .48, and Bollens Fit Index (BL89) are .88. Thus, it appears reasonable
p .01). Following Iacobucci, Saldanha, and Dengs (2007) to assume the causal ordering of EL and trust in the leader as
guidelines for identifying significant mediational effects in struc- posited in the original model.
tural models, we conclude H4 is supported; all four effects of EL Alternative model 2. Next, we reversed the causal relation-
on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes were partially mediated by ship between EL and trust in the leader; that is, trust was specified
trust in the leader. as an antecedent of EL, which, in turn, was related to work
Alternative model 1. We also tested three theoretically plau- outcomes. Other specifications remain unchanged. In effect, this
sible alternative models. In the first alternative model, we specified model tests whether employees who have high levels of trust in
that both EL and trust in the leader were predictors of job attitudes their leaders come to believe that their leaders are ethical, too. We
and performance. Although they were still specified as correlated, also found that this model has poorer fit that the original one (e.g.,
no causal relationship was specified between them. Other specifi- both CFI and BL89 are .79). This finding suggests that, as posited
cations remain unchanged. In effect, this model examined whether in the original model, it is reasonable to treat trust in the leader as
it was reasonable to assume a causal effect of EL on trust in the a consequence, rather than as an antecedent, of EL.
Job satisfaction (JS)
Affective commitment
(AC)
Ethical leadership Trust in the Leader
(EL) (TRU)
Task performance
(TP)
Citizenship behavior
(OCB)
Figure 1. Criterion-related validity of ethical leadership: The proposed theoretical model. Sources of meta-
analytical correlations: (a) This study: EL-TRU, EL-JS, EL-AC, EL-TP, and EL-OCB; (b) Colquitt et al. (2013):
TRU-AC, TRU-TP, TRU-OCB, and TP-OCB; (c) Dirks and Ferrin (2002): TRU-JS; (d) Harrison et al. (2006):
AC-JS, AC-TP, AC-OCB, JS-TP, and JS-OCB. Model fit: The chi-squared value associated with this model was
431.48 (df 4). Both the Comparative Fit Index and Bollens Fit Index were .96, exceeding the proposed cutoff
recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). In addition, Hu and Bentler advise that the value of the standardized
root-mean-squared residual (which is especially sensitive to model misspecification) should be less than .08 in a model
with good fit. In our case, this index was .03. EL ethical leadership; TRU trust in the leader; JS job satisfaction;
AC affective organizational commitment; TP task performance; OCB organizational citizenship behavior.
Alternative model 3. Last here, we examined whether work causal inferences cannot be drawn here because most EL studies
outcomes mediated the relationship between EL and trust in the are cross-sectional in nature.
leader. In effect, this model tests whether EL evokes positive H5 posits that EL predicts employees job performance above
reactions from employees, and it is those positive reactions that and beyond other leadership variables. If the path analysis shows
drive employees inferences that their leaders are trustworthy. This EL is significantly related to job performance after controlling for
model has much poorer fit than the original one (e.g., both CFI and these other leadership variables, it would provide evidence that EL
BL89 are .75). Thus, it is reasonable to treat work outcomes as has incremental validity. Because we did not have the meta-
consequences rather than as antecedents of trust in the leader. In analytical correlations among all the leadership variables, we per-
sum, the above tests suggest that the original causal order is the formed a separate path analysis for each leadership variable (see
most compelling one, although it is noteworthy that definitive Figure 2). Wherever possible, we included task performance, cit-
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
EL TP EL TP EL
TP
TFL OCB CR OCB MBEA

OCB
MBEP
Model 4A Model 5 Model 6

TP
EL TP
EL TP
EL
OCB
LMX OCB
DL CWB
IF
CWB
Model 4B
Model 7
EL JS
EL
OCB
LMX AC
EC
Figure 2. Incremental validity of ethical leadership: The path-analytical models tested. AC affective
organizational commitment; CR use of contingent rewards; CWB counterproductive work behavior; DL
destructive leadership; EC ethical climate; EL ethical leadership; IF interactional fairness; JS job
satisfaction; LMX leadermember exchange; MBEA management by exception: active; MBEP
management by exception: passive; OCB organizational citizenship behavior; TFL transformational
leadership; TP task performance.
954 NG AND FELDMAN
izenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior in each (cf. Table 1), the results for H5a, H5b, and H5c also provide some
path analysis. However, because meta-analytical data involving support for the incremental validity of EL.
counterproductive work behavior were limited, most of the path Unfortunately, we could not test H5d about laissez-fair leader-
analyses included only task performance and citizenship behavior. ship; there were insufficient meta-analytical data available for that
The results of the meta-analytic path analyses and data sources purpose. Further, we observed that EL was unrelated to either task
appear in Table 2. We found that EL was significantly related to performance or citizenship behavior in the presence of leader
others ratings of task performance ( .12, p .01) in the member exchange. Thus, H5d was not supported. H5f and H5g
presence of transformational leadership. Further, EL was signifi- were partially supported. As predicted in H5f, EL was positively
cantly related to others ratings of citizenship behavior ( .19, related to task performance ( .11, p .01) and negatively
p .01) in the presence of use of contingent rewards. Third, EL related to counterproductive work behavior ( .08, p .01)
was significantly related to others ratings of task performance in the presence of interactional fairness. However, counter to
( .20, p .01) and citizenship behavior ( .23, p .01) in expectations, EL was negatively related to citizenship behavior
the presence of both active and passive management by exception. ( .12, p .01). As predicted in H5g, EL was positively
Thus, while EL is quite strongly related to other types of leadership related to task performance ( .15, p .01) and negatively
Table 2
Analyses of Incremental Validity
Sources of meta-analytical correlations

TP OCB CWB needed for the analysis
Does EL predict job performance in the presence of TFL? (1) This study: EL-TFL, EL-TP, EL-OCB
(Model 1 in Figure 2)
Effects of EL .12 .03 NA (2) Wang et al. (2011): TFL-TP, TFL-OCB
Effects of TFL .12 .28 NA (3) Colquitt et al. (2013): TP-OCB
Does EL predict job performance in the presence of CR? (1) This study: EL-CR, EL-TP, EL-OCB
Effects of EL .00 .19 NA (2) Podsakoff et al. (2006): CR-TP, CR-OCB
Effects of CR .28 .07 NA (3) Colquitt et al. (2013): TP-OCB
Does EL predict job performance in the presence of (1) This study: EL-MBEA, EL-MBEP, EL-TP, EL-OCB
MBEA and MBEP? (Model 3 in Figure 2)
Effects of EL .20 .23 NA (2) DeRue et al. (2011): MBEA-MBEP
Effects of MBEA .08 .24 NA (3) Wang et al. (2011): MBEA-TP, MBEA-OCB,
MBEP-TP, MBEP-OCB
Effects of MBEP .01 .07 NA (4) Colquitt et al. (2013): TP-OCB
Does EL predict job performance in the presence of LMX? (1) This study: EL-LMX, EL-TP, EL-OCB
(Model 4A in Figure 2)
Effects of EL .01 .03 NA (2) Dulebohn et al. (2012): LMX-TP
Effects of LMX .33 .35 NA (3) Ilies et al. (2007): LMX-OCB
(4) Colquitt et al. (2013): TP-OCB
Does EL predict job performance in the presence of IF? (1) This study: EL-IF, EL-TP, EL-OCB, EL-CWB
Effects of EL .11 .12 .08 (2) Colquitt et al. (2013): IF-TP, IF-OCB, IF-CWB,
TP-OCB, TP-CWB, OCB-CWB
Effects of IF .14 .52 .21
Does EL predict job performance in the presence of DL? (1) This study: EL-DL, EL-TP, EL-CWB
Effects of EL .15 NA .06 (2) Schyns & Schilling (2013): DL-TP, DL-CWB
Effects of DL .13 NA .35 (3) Colquitt et al. (2013): TP-CWB
Supplementary analyses JS AC
Does EL predict job attitudes in the presence of LMX? (1) This study: EL-LMX, EL-JS, EL-AC
(Model 4B in Figure 2)

Effects of EL .20 .26 (2) Dulebohn et al. (2012): LMX-JS, LMX-AC
Effects of LMX .37 .26 (3) Harrison et al. (2006): JS-AC
TP OCB CWB
Does EL predict job performance in the presence of EC? (1) This study: EL-EC, EL-OCB, EC-OCB
Effects of EL NA .25 NA
Effects of EC NA .01 NA
Note. AC affective organizational commitment; CR use of contingent rewards; CWB counterproductive work behavior; DL destructive
leadership; EC ethical climate; EL ethical leadership; IF interactional fairness; JS job satisfaction; LMX leadermember exchange; MBEA
management by exception: active; MBEP management by exception: passive; NA not available; OCB organizational citizenship behavior; TFL
transformational leadership; TP task performance.

p .05. p .01.
related to counterproductive work behavior ( .06, p .05) cases emerged as being significantly moderated by country (p
in the presence of destructive leadership, although the latter of .05). First, the relationship of EL with transformational leadership
these two observed effects was weak. was .89 (k 3) in North American samples, whereas it was .65
With one exception (leadermember exchange), the analyses (k 7) in Asian samples. However, three of the Asian studies used
above suggest that EL does have predictive power above and Cheng and colleagues (2000) scale, which, as we highlighted
beyond other leadership variables, despite its strong correlations above, tends to generate weaker effect sizes than Brown and
with them (cf. Table 1). We then performed additional incremental colleagues (2005) scale does. To test for this possibility, we
validity analyses with leadermember exchange in which we used removed the three Asian studies using Cheng and colleagues
job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment as out- (2000) scale and tested the relationship again. However, even after
come variables (rather than job performance). As shown in Table we removed those three studies, the remaining effect size of EL on
2, we found that EL was related to job satisfaction ( .20, p transformational leadership in Asian samples (.78, k 4) was still
.01) and affective organizational commitment ( .26, p .01) significantly smaller (p .05) than the effect size of EL on
in the presence of leadermember exchange. These findings sug- transformational leadership in North American samples.
gest that EL has incremental validity above and beyond leader Second, the relationship of EL with the use of contingent re-
member exchange, although ELs incremental validity is more wards in North American samples was .88 (k 3), whereas it was
evident with job attitudes than with job performance. .62 (k 4) in Asian samples. Only one Asian study used Cheng
H6 posits that EL predicts employees job performance above and colleagues (2000)scale, and, even after removing this one
and beyond ethical climate. As shown in Table 2, EL was signif- study, the average correlation of EL with use of contingent rewards
icantly related to citizenship behavior ( .25, p .01) in the in Asian samples (.68, k 3) was still significantly smaller (p
presence of ethical climate. Thus, while there is some conceptual .05) than that displayed by the North American samples.
overlap between the two constructs, EL has incremental validity
above and beyond ethical climate.
Discussion
Our meta-analytical results demonstrate that (a) EL has accept-
Moderating Effects of Study Design
able criterion-related validity with followers job attitudes and job
We also examined four study design variables as moderators. It performance, and (b) followers trust in the leader is a major
is important to note that these analyses were based on a small reason why EL is related positively to job attitudes and behaviors.
number of studies, and therefore, the results should be interpreted These findings suggest that the effects of EL go beyond merely
as suggestive rather than conclusive. heightening workers sensitivity to ethical issues and standards;
Level of analysis. There were three relationships with EL employees trust ethical leaders and display more positive job
job motivation, counterproductive work behavior, and idealized attitudes and greater job performance because of that heightened
influencein which we had at least three studies apiece which trust. Unlike the evidence on criterion-related validity, the evi-
used group-level and individual-level designs. We observed that dence on the incremental validity of EL is only modestly support-
the level of analysis did not significantly change the relationship of ive. On one hand, EL predicts job performance even when other
EL with any of these three variables. types of leadership and ethical climate are considered at the same
Published versus unpublished studies. There were relation- time. On the other hand, the findings on incremental validity were
ships between EL and four correlatesaffective commitment, not consistently strong across these different correlates and per-
self-ratings of counterproductive work behavior, overall transfor- formance variables.
mational leadership, and contingent rewardsin which we had at There are several ways to further strengthen the incremental valid-
least three unpublished studies and at least three published studies. ity of EL. First, it is important to identify the most salient dimensions
We found that whether a study was published or not did not of EL and to understand their relationships with the dimensions of
significantly change these relationships. similar leadership constructs. For instance, if researchers focus on the
Measurement scales. We also analyzed those cases where we moral manager dimension of EL, then the construct is likely to
had at least three studies which used Brown and colleagues (2005) display strong incremental validity; no other leadership style explicitly
scale and three studies which used other scales. Out of 12 rela- addresses this type of influence. However, if researchers focus on the
tionships where we had sufficient comparison data, we found two fair resource allocation dimension of EL, the construct overlaps
significant moderation effects (p .05). First, Brown and col- with interactional fairness. Indeed, the intricate relationship between
leagues scale of EL was associated with job satisfaction at .52 EL and fairness is evident in the surprising negative effect of EL on
(k 5), whereas studies using Cheng and colleagues (2000) scale citizenship behavior observed in the incremental validity analyses
were associated with job satisfaction at .08 (k 3). Second, (although fairness had a positive effect). Because fairness is a strong,
studies which used Brown and colleagues scale were associated proximal predictor of citizenship behavior (Fassina, Jones, & Ugger-
with destructive leadership at .61 (k 4), whereas studies that slev, 2008), it is possible that after the interactional fairness compo-
used other scales of EL were associated with destructive leadership nent of EL is controlled for, the remaining content domain of EL (e.g.,
at .34 (k 4). By and large, though, the type of EL measure used upholding personal ethics) might focus followers attention on finish-
did not consistently influence effect sizes. ing core tasks rather than taking on additional extrarole duties (Han-
Country. We compared the United States and Canada with nah, Jennings, Bluhm, Peng, & Schaubroeck, 2014).
Asian countries (e.g., China, Taiwan) whenever there were at least Yet another way to enhance our understanding of the incremental
three studies conducted in each of these two regions. We observed validity of EL is to examine its relationship with leadermember
that, out of 12 cases in which we had sufficient data, only two exchange in greater detail. Surprisingly, in the presence of leader
956 NG AND FELDMAN
member exchange, EL did not predict job performance; this was the a core reason why followers of ethical leaders display more positive
only case in which EL emerged as a nonsignificant predictor of job attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. Thus, firms hoping to
performance in the presence of other leadership variables. One pos- promote these outcomes should focus ethical leaders attention on this
sible explanation here is that EL and leadermember exchange are aspect of their management style in particular. Finally, immediate
both closely correlated with positive affect toward leaders. We did not managers EL has incremental predictive power beyond ethical cli-
have the data to test this possibility directly, but Rowold and Borg- mate. From the employees perspective, then, an ethical climate or an
mann (2014) found that the relationships among different leadership ethical top leader is not a substitute for an ethical direct supervisor.
constructs are significantly reduced after controlling for interpersonal
liking of the leader. Along the same lines, mutual liking in the
leaderfollower dyad might also confound supervisors ratings of the Study Limitations
followers job performance, also potentially contributing to the null First, although we conducted an exhaustive search for relevant
effects of EL on job performance. articles, it is important that researchers interpret the conclusions
A third way to advance our understanding of the incremental drawn about relationships for which we only had a few studies with
validity of EL is to delineate the causal relationships between EL and greater tentativeness. Second, the present study did not address the
its correlates in greater depth. The relationship between EL and ethical convergent validity of EL (the extent to which different measures of
climate is an excellent case in point. We believe that the strong the construct are closely related). Given the large number of leader-
correlation between EL and ethical climate reflects an implicit causal ship constructs already in the literature, we believed establishing ELs
relationship; previous researchers have argued that leaders ethical criterion-related and incremental validity was a higher priority. Third,
behavior shapes the ethical tone of the broader organizational climate because most of the studies included in the meta-analysis used cross-
(Mayer et al., 2010; Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts, & Chonko, sectional designs, firm causal inferences cannot be drawn from these
2009). Similarly, EL may trickle down from the top of the organiza- results. Fourth, the majority of the studies included in the meta-
tion to the bottom (Ruiz, Ruiz, & Martinez, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., analysis relied on self-report data. While we were able to conduct
2012). It is also quite possible that individuals who are ethical are separate meta-analyses for articles using non-self-report measures,
more likely to be selected and promoted within organizations with and the results largely mirrored those using self-report measures,
ethical climates. By better understanding the causal relationships of more research using non-self-report measures is needed. Finally, due
EL with similar leadership and contextual constructs, we might get a to data limitations in the set of original articles, we could not examine
better handle on why (or why not) EL demonstrates incremental the incremental validity of EL from some less-studied leadership
validity with them. variables (e.g., authentic leadership and servant leadership).
Another way of better understanding the incremental validity of EL
is to identify the settings in which EL is especially closely related to
other leadership variables. Our analyses suggest that the region of the Conclusion
world where EL studies are undertaken moderates two relationships The present study provides evidence that EL has acceptable
between EL and leadership constructs. Specifically, we found that criterion-related validity. In addition, the study provides evidence that
studies conducted in North America produced stronger relationships the link between EL and positive work outcomes is followers posi-
of EL to transformational leadership and to the use of contingent tive evaluations of their leaders, particularly in terms of leader trust-
rewards than did studies conducted in Asia. Confucianism, Buddhism, worthiness. It also provides evidence that EL has largely acceptable
and Hinduism in Asia might have different effects on the ethical incremental validity, although the evidence is still far from being
standards to which leaders are held than the JudeoChristian tradition strong or definitive. We hope that this study stimulates further mul-
does (Eisenbeiss, 2012), and, as such, the levels of incremental va- tivariate research on EL, especially its incremental validity above and
lidity of EL with other constructs might vary across national cultures beyond other leadership styles and context constructs, which could be
as well. In addition, we observed that studies which used Brown et of use to academics and practitioners alike.
al.s scale sometimes generated stronger correlations than did studies
which used other scales (especially the Cheng et al., 2000, scale), but
the reasons for these differences are not clear. It is important to References
emphasize that the above analyses were based on relatively few Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct
studies, but these results do suggest an additional avenue for future validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly,
work. 36, 421 458. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393203
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Managerial Implications Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
Our findings have several implications for managers and organi- New York, NY: Free Press.
zations. First, followers generally see EL as a distinctive form of Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit
leadership; encouraging leaders to be charismatic, supportive, and fair performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
(or discouraging them from being destructive) does not necessarily
0021-9010.88.2.207
result in EL. Second, EL predicts major attitudinal and performance Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic
outcomes in the workplace (even after the effects of other leadership transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
variables are removed). As a result, there are additional benefits 181217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8
associated with leadership which is, for example, both transforma- Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley
tional and ethical in nature. Third, perceived leader trustworthiness is and Sons.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and Applied Psychology, 82, 827 844. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595 616. http://dx.doi .82.6.827
.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004 Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Peng, A. C., & Schaubroeck,
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary
A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Orga- construct testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117134. cesses, 123, 220 238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford, B. B.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. (2013). Ethical leadership: Assessing the value of a multifoci social
Cappelli, P. (2009). The future of the U.S. business model and the rise of exchange perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 435 449. http://
competitors. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 510. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1408-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2009.39985536 Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are
Carson, T. L. (2003). Self-interest and business ethics: Some lessons of the job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparison of integrative behavioral out-
recent corporate scandals. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 389 394. comes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023013128621 325. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786077
Chang, C., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of nonlead-
perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and ership: From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and
behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Jour- punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1234 1248.
nal, 52, 779 801. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670894 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012875
Cheng, B., Chou, L., & Farh, J. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criterion for fit indexes in
leadership: Its constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3 64. tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., 10705519909540118
Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based recting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199 236. http://dx.doi Hunter, S. T. (2012). (Un)ethical leadership and identity: What did we
.org/10.1037/a0031757 learn and where do we go from here? Journal of Business Ethics, 107,
Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. K., & Gilliland, 79 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1301-y
S. W. (2000). The incremental validity of interview scores over and Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on media-
above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psy- tion: Evidence that structural equation models perform better than re-
chology, 53, 325351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000 gressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 139 153. http://dx.doi
.tb00204.x .org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70020-7
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leadermember exchange
Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta- and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
analytical test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 752. 269277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional
Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of
Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organiza- Applied Psychology, 89, 755768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
tions: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Ap- .89.5.755
plied Psychology, 92, 9931005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).
.92.4.993 Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly,
and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 22, 51 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.007
611628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 Lievens, F., & Patterson, F. (2011). The validity and incremental validity
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simula-
meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job tions for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes se-
performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental va- lection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 927940. http://dx.doi.org/
lidity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40 57. 10.1037/a0023496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40 Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, leadership, and relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader
G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of member exchange quality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 561
leadermember exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the 577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011056932
future. Journal of Management, 38, 17151759. http://dx.doi.org/ Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2010). Examining the link
10.1177/0149206311415280 between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating
Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplin- role of ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 716. http://dx
ary integrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 791 808. http:// .doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0794-0
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.001 Mayer, D. M., Nurmohamed, S., Trevino, L. K., Shapiro, D. L., &
Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Relationship Schminke, M. (2013). Encouraging employees to report unethical con-
clean-up time: Using meta-analysis and path analysis to clarify relation- duct internally: It takes a village. Organizational Behavior and Human
ships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behav- Decision Processes, 121, 89 103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp
iors. Journal of Management, 34, 161188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ .2013.01.002
0149206307309260 Mo, S., Booth, S. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). How do Chinese firms deal with
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader inter-organizational conflict? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 121129.
member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1066-8
958 NG AND FELDMAN
Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Chen, X., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009).
L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Social exchange in work settings: Content, process, and mixed models.
Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 157170. Management and Organization Review, 5, 289 302. http://dx.doi.org/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0037-9 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00158.x
Neubert, M. J., Wu, C., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., & Welpe, I. (2010). Do business ethics pay off?
leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics The influence of ethical leadership on organizational attractiveness. The
Quarterly, 23, 269 296. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq201323217 Journal of Psychology, 218, 213224.
Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and Suazo, M. M. (2009). The mediating role of psychological contract viola-
marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133145. tion on the relations between psychological contract breach and work-
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150948 related attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24,
Peter, J. P., & Churchill, G. A. (1986). Relationships among research 136 160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940910928856
design choices and psychosomatic properties of rating scales: A meta- Trevio, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative
analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 110. http://dx.doi.org/ investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from
10.2307/3151771 inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 537.
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbachs coefficient alpha. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056001448

Tu, Y., & Lu, X. (2013). How ethical leadership influences employees
Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 381391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/

209405 innovative work behaviour: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Jour-
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). nal of Business Ethics, 116, 441 455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. 012-1509-x
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259 278. http://dx.doi.org/ Unal, A. F., Warren, D. E., & Chen, C. C. (2012). The normative foun-
10.1002/job.627 dations of unethical supervision in organizations. Journal of Business
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Ethics, 107, 519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1300-z
Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work
climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101125. http://dx.doi
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622 648. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/2392857
.org/10.2307/256437
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psy-
Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B.
chometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel
(2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior
Psychology, 48, 865 885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995
and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic
.tb01784.x
review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., &
Human Decision Processes, 99, 113142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee per-
.obhdp.2005.09.002
formance: The roles of leadermember exchange, self-efficacy, and
Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. (1991). A new
organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
meta-analytic approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 432 446.
cision Processes, 115, 204 213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.432
.11.002
Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical Wang, G., Oh, I., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transforma-
leadership, moral equity judgment, and discretionary workplace behav- tional leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-
ior. Human Relations, 66, 951972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Man-
0018726713481633 agement, 36, 223270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017
Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based Watson, D., OHara, M. W., Chmielewski, M., McDade-Montez, E. A.,
measurement of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Question- Koffel, E., Naragon, K., & Stuart, S. (2008). Further validation of the
naire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 235 IDAS: Evidence of convergent, discriminant, criterion, and incremental
250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022286 validity. Psychological Assessment, 20, 248 259. http://dx.doi.org/
Rowold, J., & Borgmann, L. (2014). Interpersonal affect and the assess- 10.1037/a0012570
ment of and interrelationship between leadership constructs. Leadership, Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic
10, 308 325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742715013486046 leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff. The
Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martinez, R. (2011). Improving the leader-follower Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 6 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jls
relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle- .20104
down effect on follower job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, Wu, M. (2012). Moral leadership and work performance: Testing the
587 608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0670-3 mediating and interaction effects in China. Chinese Management Stud-
Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J., ies, 6, 284 299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506141211236721
Lord, R. G., Trevino, L. K., . . . Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding ethical Zheng, Q., Wang, M., & Li, Z. (2011). Rethinking ethical leadership, social
leadership within and across organizational levels. Academy of Manage- capital and customer relationship. Journal of Management Development,
ment Journal, 55, 10531078. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0064 30, 663 674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711111150182
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? Zona, F., Minoja, M., & Coda, V. (2013). Antecedents of corporate
A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Lead- scandals: CEOs personal traits, stakeholders cohesion, managerial
ership Quarterly, 24, 138 158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012 fraud, and imbalanced corporate strategy. Journal of Business Ethics,
.09.001 113, 265283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1294-6
Appendix A
Studies Included in the Meta-Analyses
Study N EL scale EL Correlate (r/) Country
Avey et al. (2011) 191 Brown .94 CWB S (.21/.81); OCBI S (.32/.89) U.S.
Avey et al. (2012) 845 Brown .94 JS (.37/.78); VOI S (.23/.93) U.S.
Beeri et al. (2013) 108 Pelletier .80 AC (.51/.82); EC (.59/.81); OCB N (.01/.85) Israel
Borchert (2011)a 124 Brown .92 CWB S (.48/.77)d; EC (.41/.76) U.S.
Brown & Trevino (2006)b 150 Bass .96 CWB S (.24/.88); SD (.15/.74) U.S.
Brown et al. (2005) sample 1 87 Brown .94 DL (.61/.94); TRU (.76/.92) U.S.
Brown et al. (2005) sample 2 123 Brown .93 II (.71/.83); SD (.02/.78) U.S.
Brown et al. (2005) sample 3b 183 Brown .90 EFF (.16/.87); IF (.24/.86); II (.20/.78); JM (.21/.71); U.S.
SAT (.22/.85); SD (.02/.78)
Chan (2014) sample 1 202 Cheng .80 OCBI N (.23/.93); OCBO N (.29/.80); China
TFL (.29/.84)d; VOI N (.32/.94)

Chan (2014) sample 2 286 Cheng .89 VOI N (.17/.82) China
Chang (2005)a 169 Cheng .89 CR (.38/.68); MBEA (.04/.50); TFL (.42/.92)d Taiwan
Chen (2008)a 103 Cheng .76 JS (.30/.77)d China
Chen et al. (2014) 601 Cheng .85 OCB N (.22/.89); TP N (.16/.88); TRU (.61/.82) Taiwan
Cheng et al. (2004) 543 Cheng .90 IC (.67/.87) Taiwan
Chin (2013) 590 Brown .90 VOI S (.46/.87) China
Chu (2010) 428 Cheng .92 JM (.15/.85); LMX (.17/.87); OID (.22/.86) Taiwan
Dadhich & Bhal (2008)c 81 EFF (.29/.85); II (.18/.90); JM (.26/.93); SAT (.44/.80); India
TRU (.67/.89)d
De Hoogh & Den Hartog (2008)b 73 New .81 DL (.56/.82) Netherlands
De Vries (2012) 168 Mixed .90 II (.21/.83) U.S.
Den Hartog & Belschak (2012) sample 1 167 Brown .91 CWB S (.26/.93); JM (.54/.92); OCB N (.29/.91) Netherlands
Den Hartog & Belschak (2012) sample 2 200 Brown .88 CWB S (.21/.89); JM (.49/.91); OCB N (.27/.93) Netherlands
Detert et al. (2007)b 265 Brown .89 CWB N (.09/1.0); DL (.51/.86) U.S.
Einstein (2013)a 264 Brown .96 JS (.72/.89); OID (.55/.94) U.S.
Elci et al. (2012) 1093 Brown .92 EFF (.72/.88); STR (.25/.89); TI (.37/.93) Mixed
Ghahroodi et al. (2013) 117 Brown .86 AC (.71/.96); JS (.52/.92); TI (.76/.84) Malaysia
Goodenough (2008)a,b 15 Brown .92 CWB S (.31/.88)d U.S.
Hannah et al. (2014) sample 1 229 Brown .95 CWB S (.16/.73); OID (.39/.91) U.S.
Hannah et al. (2014) sample 2 376 Brown .96 AC (.35/.96) U.S.
Hansen (2010)a 58 Brown .94 OCB N (.11/.84); TP N (.29/.85); TRU (.58/.78) U.S.
Hansen et al. (2013) 201 Brown .94 AC (.34/.87); LMX (.61/.89); TEL (.35/.94) U.S.
Harvey et al. (2014) sample 1 97 Brown .86 AC (.11/.88); STR (.63/.83) U.S.
Harvey et al. (2014) sample 2 152 Brown .94 CWB N (.28/.89) U.S.
Hassan et al. (2013) 259 Yukl .96 AC (.34/.91); EFF (.67/.96); LMX (.62/.91) U.S.
Hoffman et al. (2013) 68 Brown .91 EC (.08/.72); EFF (.85/.87) U.S.
Huhtala et al. (2013) 902 Brown .80 EC (.32/.96) Finland
Kacmar et al. (2011) 288 Brown .94 OCBI N (.24/.91) U.S.
Kacmar et al. (2013) 136 Brown .90 OCBI N (.28/.86) U.S.
Kalshoven & Boon (2012) 221 Brown .78 OCBI N (.02/.83); STR (.23/.86) Mixed
Kalshoven et al. (2011a) sample 1 243 ELW .90 AC (.27/.87); DL (.27/.72); EFF (.70/1.0); JS (.45/1.0); Netherlands
MBEP (.40/.66); SAT (.79/1.0); TFL (.72/.92)
Kalshoven et al. (2011a) sample 2 294 ELW .81 EFF (.54/1.0); OCB N (.16/.84); TP N (.10/1.0); Netherlands
TRU (.71/.80)
Kalshoven et al. (2011b) 150 ELW .81 LMX (.76/.82) Netherlands
Kalshoven et al. (2013a) 133 ELW .95 EC (.35/.73); OCBI N (.25/.87); TFL (.75/.80) Netherlands
Kalshoven et al. (2013b) 147 ELW .95 OCBI N (.18/.91); OCBO N (.19/.90) Netherlands
Khuntia & Suar (2004) sample 1 152 New .96 AC (.40/.66); JM (.30/.76); TP S (.30/.82) India
Khuntia & Suar (2004) sample 2 188 New .96 AC (.31/.66); JM (.32/.76); TP S (.26/.82) India
Krishnan (2003) 116 New .90 CR (.71/.86); EFF (.69/.84); JM (.78/.85); LF (.32/.81); India
MBEA (.05/.73); MBEP (.31/.83); SAT (.69/.85);
TFL (.75/.84)d
Kuntz et al. (2011) 159 Brown .96 EC (.63/.82) New Zealand
Lau et al. (2007) 294 New .80 DL (.15/.69) China
Li et al. (2012) 241 Cheng .91 IF (.63/.87) China
Liang et al. (2007) 430 Cheng .89 OCB N (.36/.96); SAT (.57/.85); TRU (.69/.92) Taiwan
(Appendices continue)
960 NG AND FELDMAN
Appendix A (continued)
Liu, Kwan et al. (2013) 312 Brown .92 OCBI N (.20/.86); OCBO N (.26/.91); China
TFL (.69/.86); TP N (.18/.86)
Liu, Loi et al. (2013) 158 Brown .94 OCB N (.16/.90); TP N (.05/.79) China
Lu & Guy (2014) 203 Brown .89 JM (.25/.90) China
Mahsud et al. (2010) 218 Mixed .95 LMX (.64/.89) U.S.
Mayer et al. (2009)b 195 Brown .95 CWB N (.35/.92); CWB S (.43/.95); U.S.
OCB N (.34/.86); OCB S (.49/.91);
SD (.24/.77); TEL (.72/.95)
Mayer et al. (2010) 1525 Brown .97 EC (.58/.89) U.S.
Mayer et al. (2012)b 115 Brown .96 IF (.76/.95)d; II (.86/.95) U.S.
Miao et al. (2013) 239 Brown .96 EC (.63/.96) China
Mo et al. (2012)b 57 Brown .93 EC (.64/.86); OCB S (.44/.87) China
Neubert et al. (2009) 250 Brown .95 EC (.63/.94); IF (.71/.95); JS (.44/.92) U.S.
Neubert et al. (2013) 250 Brown .95 AC (.50/.89); LMX (.68/.95); NC (.48/.91); U.S.
OCBO S (.12/.73); VOI S (.33/.95)
Ogunfowora (2009)a 297 Brown .87 AC (.41/.76); CR (.74/.75); CWB S (.22/.86); Canada
DL (.51/.90); IF (.70/.88); OCB S (.43/.86);
SAT (.81/.89); TFL (.88/.93)
Onorato (2013) 220 Craig .96 CWB S (.67/.90) U.S.
Philipp (2012)a 159 Brown .95 AC (.55/.82); NC (.48/.83); OCB N (.07/.90); U.S.
OCB S (.25/.84)
Piccolo et al. (2010) 181 Brown .94 JM (.19/.92); OCBI N (.16/.88); TP N (.12/.91) U.S.
Pucic (2011)a 1266 New .95 AC (.26/.80) U.S.
Resick et al. (2013) 190 Brown .92 CWB N (.15/.98); OCB N (.27/.85) U.S.
Riggio et al. (2010) 172 Brown .97 CR (.85/.87); IC (.80/.97); II (.86/.97); IM (.81/.97); U.S.
IS (.82/.97); LF (.57/.87); MBEA (.45/.64g);
MBEP (.40/.75g); OID (.49/.95); TFL (.87/.97)
Rubin et al. (2010)b 96 Brown .95 EC (.38/.84) U.S.
Ruiz et al. (2011) 525 Brown .95 TEL (.55/.91); TI (.28/.87) Spain
Ruiz-Palomino et al. (2011) 525 Brown .93 AC (.41/.87); JS (.48/.87); OCB S (.24/.57) Spain
Schaubroeck et al. (2012) 2572 Brown .96 EC (.50/.74) U.S.
Schun et al. (2013) 114 Cheng .90 DL (.42/.81); OCB N (.15/.95); TFL (.63/.94); China
TP N (.29/.90)
Sheer (2013) sample 1 251 Cheng .75 JS (.12/1.0); SAT (.10/1.0) Hong Kong
Sheer (2013) sample 2 275 Cheng .82 JS (.09/1.0); SAT (.07/1.0) China
Stouten et al. (2013) sample 1 140 Brown .91 OCB N (.15/.85) Belgium
Stouten et al. (2013) sample 2 410 Brown .92 CWB S (.22/.90); OCB S (.22/.88) Netherlands
Stouten et al. (2013) sample 3 168 Brown .95 CWB N (.31/.94)d; OCB N (.37/.96) U.S.
Sutherland (2010)a 130 Brown .95 AC (.55/.90); CR (.62/.76); EFF (.53/.86); IC (.55/.80); U.S.
II (.75/.90); IM (.70/.87); IS (.35/.84); JM (.54/.86);
LF (.61/.82); MBEA (.28/.65); MBEP (.58/.84);
NC (.45/.90); SAT (.76/.91); TFL (.59/.85)
Sweet (2012)a 240 Brown .93 CWB N (.21/.85); TI (.22/.91) China
Tai et al. (2012) 210 Brown .92e CR (.54/.77g); OCB S (.26/.77g); TFL (.70/.89g) Taiwan
Tanner et al. (2010)b 110 New .95 AC (.26/.88); JM (.34/.95); JS (.39/.81); STR (.19/.89) Switzerland
Thun (2009)a 266 Brown .92 DL (.62/.91); LMX (.83/.95); TFL (.80/.86) Mixed
Toor & Ofori (2009) 62 Brown .92 CR (.42/.67); EFF (.57/.79); IC (.44/.67); II (.53/.83); Singapore
IM (.53/.76); IS (.37/.74); JM (.55/.71); LF (.27/.65);
MBEA (.22/.66); MBEP (.16/.66); SAT (.56/.79);
TFL (.58/.92)
Tu & Lu (2013) 302 Brown .82 JM (.24/.71); VOI S (.29/.89) China
Tumasjan et al. (2011)c 617 Brown .88 LMX (.66/.90) Germany
Walumbwa & Schaubroeck (2009)b 222 Brown .90 II (.29/.80); VOI N (.44/.81) U.S.
Walumbwa et al. (2008) 178 Brown .91 AC (.37/.92); OCB S (.15/.72); AT (.45/.88) U.S.
Walumbwa et al. (2011) 201 Brown .87 LMX (.48/.88); OID (.36/.84); TP N (.14/.92) China
Walumbwa et al. (2012)b 80 Brown .94 II (.26/.80); TP N (.37/.70); VOI S (.41/.81) U.S.
Wong & Cummings (2009) sample 1 188 LPI .91f STR (.28/.87g); TP S (.27/.82g); TRU (.69/.86g); Canada
VOI S (.29/.89g)
Wong & Cummings (2009) sample 2 147 LPI .91f STR (.25/.87g); TP S (.10/.82g); TRU (.70/.86g); Canada
VOI S (.37/.89g)
Wu (2012) 370 Cheng .90 TP N (.34/.91); TRU (.75/.88) China
Appendix A (continued)
Wu et al. (2011) 271 Cheng .86 IF (.64/.87); OCB N (.17/.93); TP N (.16/.78); China
TRU (.73/.86)
Wu et al. (2012) 239 Cheng .88 OCBI N (.21/.88); OCBO N (.18/.84); China
TP N (.21/.78); TRU (.48/.84)
Yang & Liu (2014) 293 Brown .92 OID (.31/.86); TRU (.09/.84); China
VOI N (.43/.93)
a
Yemi-Sofumade (2012) 116 Brown .95 TI (.39/.71) U.S.
Yukl et al. (2013) 192 New .96 EFF (.67/.74); LMX (.66/.91) U.S.
Zehir & Erdogan (2011) 714 De Hoogh .93 TP S (.28/.81); VOI S (.23/.91) Turkey
Zhang et al. (2013) 277 Brown .93 CWB S (.28/.89); OCB N (.11/.96); China
STR (.22/.90)
Zhang et al. (in press) 402 Cheng .93 LMX (.62/.90); VOI N (.15/.85) China
Note. the reported reliability estimate; r the observed correlation. In those cases where authors published multiple articles from the same data set,
we coded those correlations only once to avoid double-counting. Scales: Bass Bass & Avolio (2000); Brown Brown et al. (2005); Cheng Cheng
et al. (2000); Craig Craig & Gustafson (1998); De Hoogh De Hoogh & Den Hartog (2008); ELW Ethical Leadership at Work questionnaire by
Kalshoven et al. (2011a); LPI Leadership Practices Inventory by Kouzes & Posner (2003); Mixed mixed scales; New new scales; Pelletier Pelletier
& Bligh (2006); Yukl Yukl et al. (2013). Correlates: AC affective organizational commitment; CR use of contingent rewards; CWB counterproductive
work behavior; DL destructive leadership; EC ethical climate; EFF perceived leader effectiveness; EL ethical leadership; IC individualized
consideration; IF interactional fairness; II idealized influences; IM inspirational motivation; IS intellectual stimulation; JM job motivation;
JS job satisfaction; LF laissez-faire leadership; LMX leader-member exchange; MBEA management by exception: active; MBEP management
by exception: passive; N non-self-report measures; NC normative organizational commitment; OCB organizational citizenship behavior;
OCBI person-targeted citizenship behavior; OCBO organization-targeted citizenship behavior; OID organizational identification; S
self-ratings; SAT satisfaction with the leader; SD social desirability; STR job strains; TEL top managements ethical leadership; TFL
transformational leadership; TI turnover intentions; TP task performance; TRU trust in the leader; VOI voice behavior.
a
A dissertation. b Group-level data. c An experimental study. d Created by combining subcomponents. e Because the study did not provide reliability
information, we used .92 (the average reliability across studies which used Brown et al.s [2005] scale) as a substitute. f Because the study did not provide
reliability information, we used .91 (the average reliability across studies which used scales other than Brown et al.s [2005] scale) as a substi-
tute. g Because the study did not provide reliability of the correlate, we used the average reliability across studies which examined the same correlate as
a substitute.

Denotes a study from which previous studies of ethical lead- Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leader-
ership borrow or adapt scales. ship: A social learning perspective for construct development and test-
ing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117
134.
Chan, S. C. H. (2014). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does
Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When leadership information sharing matter? Human Relations, 67, 667 693.
goes unnoticed: The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the Chang, Y. (2005). A study of leadership perceptions of managers in select
relationship between ethical leadership and follower behavior. Journal companies in Taiwan that utilize e-learning (Unpublished doctoral dis-
of Business Ethics, 98, 573582. sertation). The University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. (2012). Exploring the Chen, X. (2008). The relationship between managers leadership style and
process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and employee job satisfaction in selected Beijing computer software compa-
psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 2134. nies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of the Incarnate
Word, San Antonio, TX.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor Leadership Question-
naire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Chen, X., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T., Farh, J., & Cheng, B. (2014).
Beeri, I., Dayan, R., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Werner, S. B. (2013). Advancing Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to
ethics in public organizations: The impact of an ethics program on employee performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796 819.

employees perceptions and behaviors in a regional council. Journal of Cheng, B., Chou, L., & Farh, J. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic
Business Ethics, 112, 59 78. leadership: Its constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological
Borchert, D. M. (2011). A meta-model of ethical behavior: An empirical Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3 64.
examination of ethical leadership, ethical identity, ethical climate and Cheng, B., Chou, L., Wu, T., Huang, M., & Farh, J. (2004). Paternalistic
emotions on unethical work behavior (Unpublished doctoral disserta- leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in
tion). Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO. Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89 117.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, Chin, T. (2013). How ethical leadership encourages employee voice be-
value congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied havior in China: The mediating role of organizational harmony. Inter-
Psychology, 91, 954 962. national Business Research, 6, 1524.
962 NG AND FELDMAN
Chu, P. (2010). A study of the influence of paternalistic leadership and Effects on ethical leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Lead-
subordinate-supervisor relationship on working morale. Journal of ership and Organizational Studies, 20, 2537.
Global Business Management, 6, 1 8. Huhtala, M., Kangas, M., Lamsa, A., & Feldt, T. (2013). Ethical managers

Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leadership integrity in ethical organizations? The leadership-culture connection among Finn-
scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leadership ish managers. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 34,
integrity. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 127145. 250 270.
Dadhich, A., & Bhal, K. (2008). Ethical leader behavior and leader Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Harris, K. J., & Tepper, B. J. (2013).
member exchange as predictors of subordinate behaviors. The Journal of Ethical leadership and subordinate outcomes: The mediating role of
Decision Makers, 33, 1525. organizational politics and the moderating role of political skill. Journal

De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic of Business Ethics, 115, 33 44.
leadership, relationships with leaders social responsibility, top manage- Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011).
ment team effectiveness, and subordinates optimism: A multi-method Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring the
study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297311. moderating role of gender and organizational politics. Journal of Applied
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagement and Psychology, 96, 633 642.
Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Kalshoven, K., & Boon, C. T. (2012). Ethical leadership, employee well-
Ethics, 107, 35 47. being, and helping: The moderating role of human resource manage-
Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). ment. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11, 60 68.

Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organiza- Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011a).
tions: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Ap- Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and
plied Psychology, 92, 9931005. validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly,
De Vries, R. E. (2012). Personality predictors of leadership styles and the 22, 51 69.
self-other agreement problem. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 809 821. Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011b). Ethical
Einstein, J. E. (2013). Ethical leadership and service climate: The rela- leader behavior and Big Five factors of personality. Journal of Business
tionship with job satisfaction and organizational identification (Unpub- Ethics, 100, 349 366.
lished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lau- Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2013a). Ethical
derdale, FL. leadership and follower helping and courtesy: Moral awareness and
Elci, M., Sener, I., Aksoy, S., & Alpkan, L. (2012). The impact of ethical empathic concern as moderators. Applied Psychology: An International
leadership and leadership effectiveness on employees turnover inten- Review, 62, 211235.
tion: The mediating role of work related stress. Procedia Social and Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2013b). Ethical
Behavioral Sciences, 58, 289 297. leadership and followers helping and initiative: The role of demon-
Ghahroodi, H. K., Ghazali, M. Z., & Ghorban, Z. S. (2013). Examining strated responsibility and job autonomy. European Journal of Work and
ethical leadership and its impacts on the followers behavioral outcomes. Organizational Psychology, 22, 165181.
Asian Social Science, 9, 9196. Khuntia, R., & Suar, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leadership of
Goodenough, P. L. (2008). Ethical leadership, values congruence, and Indian private and public sector managers. Journal of Business Ethics,
work place deviance: An exploratory study (Unpublished doctoral dis- 49, 1326.
sertation). Webster University, Saint Louis, MO.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Leadership practices inventory:
Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Peng, A. C., & Schaubroeck, Self and observer. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Power and moral leadership: Role of self-other
construct testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- agreement. Leadership and Organization Development, 24, 345351.
cesses, 123, 220 238. Kuntz, J. R. C., Kuntz, J. R., & Elenkov, D. S. (2011). Ethical decision-
Hansen, S. D. (2010). When and how does ethical leadership impact making: An empirical examination. Journal of Academy of Business and
important organizational outcomes? A multi-focus social exchange per- Economics, 11, 1121.
spective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lau, D. C., Liu, J., & Fu, P. P. (2007). Feeling trusted by business leaders
Lafayette, IN. in China: Antecedents and the mediating role of value congruence. Asian
Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford, B. B. Pacific Journal of Management, 24, 321340.
(2013). Ethical leadership: Assessing the value of a multifoci social Li, C., Wu, K., Johnson, D. E., & Wu, M. (2012). Moral leadership and
exchange perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 435 449. psychological empowerment in China. Journal of Managerial Psychol-
Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Buckless, A., & Pescosolido, ogy, 27, 90 108.
A. T. (2014). The impact of political skill on employees perceptions of Liang, S., Ling, H., & Hsieh, S. (2007). The mediating effects of leader
ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, member exchange quality to influence the relationships between pater-
21, 516. nalistic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Ethical and American Academy of Business, 10, 127137.
empowering leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Fu, P. P., & Mao, Y. (2013). Ethical leadership and
Psychology, 28, 133146. job performance in China: The roles of workplace friendships and
Hoffman, B. J., Strang, S. E., Kuhnert, K. W., Campbell, W. K., Kennedy, traditionality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
C. L., & LoPilato, A. C. (2013). Leader narcissism and ethical context: 86, 564 584.
Liu, J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2013). Exemplification and supervisor-rated naire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 235
job performance: The moderating role of ethical leadership. Interna- 250.
tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21, 145154. Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010). Do ethical leaders
Lu, X., & Guy, M. E. (2014). How emotional labor and ethical leadership get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. Business
affect job engagement for Chinese public servants. Public Personnel Ethics Quarterly, 20, 215236.
Management, 43, 324. Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martinez, R. (2011). Improving the leader-follower
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle-
leadership, and relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader down effect on follower job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99,
member exchange quality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 561 587 608.
577. Ruiz-Palomino, P., Ruiz-Amaya, C., & Knorr, H. (2011). Employee orga-
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who nizational citizenship behavior: The direct and indirect impact of ethical
displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 28, 244 258.
antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Man- Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J.,
agement Journal, 55, 151171. Lord, R. G., Trevino, L. K., . . . Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding ethical
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2010). Examining the link leadership within and across organizational levels. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 55, 10531078.
between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating

role of ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 716. Schun, S. C., Zhang, X., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad?
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R. L., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and author-
(2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down itarian leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 629 640.
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, Sheer, V. C. (2013). In search of Chinese paternalistic leadership: Con-
113. flicting evidence from samples of mainland China and Hong Kongs
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Yu, J., & Xu, L. (2013). The relationship between small family businesses. Management Communication Quarterly, 27,
ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior: Linear or 34 60.
Stouten, J., van Dijke, M., Mayer, D. M., De Cremer, D., & Euwema,
curvilinear effects? Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 641 653.
M. C. (2013). Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects
Mo, S., Wang, Z., Akrivou, K., & Booth, S. A. (2012). Look up, look
of ethical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 680 695.
around: Is there anything different about team-level OCB in China?
Sutherland, M. A. (2010). An examination of ethical leadership and orga-
Journal of Management and Organization, 18, 818 832.
nizational commitment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova South-
Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko,
eastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior:
Sweet, K. M. (2012). A fit model of leadership and two empirical exami-
Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 157190.
nations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, TX.
Neubert, M. J., Wu, C., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical
Tai, C. L., Chang, C., Hong, J., & Chen, L. (2012). Alternative models for
leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics
the relationship among leadership, organizational citizenship behavior,
Quarterly, 23, 269 296.
and performance: A study of new product development teams in Taiwan.
Ogunfowora, B. (2009). The consequences of ethical leadership: Compar-
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57, 511517.
isons with transformational leadership and abusive supervision (Unpub- Tanner, C., Brugger, A., Van Schie, S., & Lebherz, C. (2010). Actions
lished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. speak louder than words: The benefits of ethical behaviors of leaders.
Onorato, M. (2013). An empirical study of unethical leadership and work- Journal of Psychology, 218, 225233.
place bullying in industry segments. S. A. M. Advanced Management Thun, N. B. (2009). Character strengthens in leadership (Unpublished
Journal, 78, 4 17. doctoral dissertation). Saint Marys University, Halifax, Nova Scotia,

Pelletier, K. L., & Bligh, M. C. (2006). Rebounding from corruption: Canada.
Perceptions of ethics program effectiveness in a public sector organiza- Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relation-
tion. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 359 374. ships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and orga-
Phillip, B. L. U. (2012). Psychological contracts in the workplace: Rela- nizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533547.
tionships among organizational commitment, organizational citizenship Tu, Y., & Lu, X. (2013). How ethical leadership influences employees
behaviors, and ethical leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal
Alliant International University, Los Angeles, CA. of Business Ethics, 116, 441 455.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). Tumasjan, A., Strobel, M., & Welpe, I. (2011). Ethical leadership evalu-
The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. ations after moral transgression: Social distance makes the difference.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259 278. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 609 622.
Pucic, J. (2011). Ethical leadership in the employment relationship: Evi- Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., &
dence from three Canadian surveys (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation
University of Toronto, Canada. of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89 126.
Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., &
leadership, moral equity judgment, and discretionary workplace behav- Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee per-
ior. Human Relations, 66, 951972. formance: The roles of leadermember exchange, self-efficacy, and
Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Regina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
measurement of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Question- cision Processes, 115, 204 213.
964 NG AND FELDMAN
Walumbwa, F. O., Morrison, E. W., & Christensen, A. L. (2012). Ethical Yang, Q., & Liu, M. (2014). Ethical leadership, organizational identification
leadership and group in-role performance: The mediating roles of group and employee voice: Examining moderated mediation processes in the
conscientiousness and group voice. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 953964. Chinese insurance industry. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20, 231248.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and Yemi-Sofumade, H. B. (2012). The relationship between ethical and authentic
employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work nurse leadership and the turnover intentions of staff nurses (Unpublished
group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 12751286. doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved
leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff. measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 6 23. Studies, 20, 38 48.
Wu, M. (2012). Moral leadership and work performance: Testing the Zehir, C., & Erdogan, E. (2011). The association between organizational
mediating and interaction effects in China. Chinese Management Stud- silence and ethical leadership through employee performance. Procedia
ies, 6, 284 299. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1389 1404.
Wu, M., Huang, X., & Chan, S. C. H. (2012). The influencing mechanisms Zhang, X., Walumbwa, F. O., Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2013). Ethical
of paternalistic leadership in Mainland China. Asia Pacific Business leadership, employee citizenship and work withdrawal behaviors: Ex-
Review, 18, 631 648. amining mediating and moderating processes. The Leadership Quar-
Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C., & Liu, W. (2011). Perceived interactional terly, 24, 284 297.
justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Zhang, Y., Huai, M., & Xie, Y. (in press).Paternalistic leadership and em-
Management and Organization Review, 8, 97121. ployee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly.
Appendix B
Studies Considered but Excluded From the Meta-Analyses
Excluded Because Correlates of Ethical Leadership Mo, S., Booth, S. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). How do Chinese firms deal with
Measured Were Not Relevant to the Current Study inter-organizational conflict? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 121129.
Pastoriza, D., & Arino, M. A. (2013). Does the ethical leadership of supervi-
Bhal, K. T., & Dadhich, A. (2011). Impact of ethical leadership and sors generate internal social capital? Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 112.
leadermember exchange on whistle-blowing: The moderating impact of Ruiz-Palomino, P., Saez-Martinez, F. J., & Martinez-Canas, R. (2013).
the moral intensity of the issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 485 Understanding pay satisfaction: Effects of supervisor ethical leadership
496. on job motivating potential influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 118,
Calvert, V. (2012). Developing leaders through service-learning: A Canadian 31 43.
experience. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 12, 60 73. Steinbauer, R., Renn, R. W., Taylor, R. R., & Njorge, P. K. (2014). Ethical
Chen, H., & Kao, H. S. (2009). Chinese paternalistic leadership and leadership and followers moral judgment: The role of followers per-
non-Chinese subordinates psychological health. The International Jour- ceived accountability and self-leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,
nal of Human Resource Management, 20, 25332546. 120, 381392.
Daly, J. L. (2002). Implications of organizational climate and ethical Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., De Witte, H., &
leadership on reengineering in municipal government. Public Adminis- Euwema, M. (2010). Discouraging bullying: The role of ethical leader-
trative Quarterly, 26, 198 217. ship and its effects on the work environment. Journal of Business Ethics,
Jordan, J., Brown, M., Trevino, L. K., & Finkelstein, S. (2013). Someone 95, 1727.
to look up to: Executive-follower ethical reasoning and perceptions of
Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., & Welpe, I. (2010). Do business ethics pay off?
ethical leadership. Journal of Management, 39, 660 683.
The influence of ethical leadership on organizational attractiveness.
Loi, R., Lam, R. W., & Chan, K. W. (2012). Coping with job insecurity:
Journal of Psychology, 218, 213224.
The role of procedural justice, ethical leadership, and power distance
Wu, Y., & Tsai, P. J. (2012). Muldimensional relations between paternal-
orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 361372.
Ma, Y., & Cheng, W. (2013). Linking ethical leadership to employee istic leadership and perceptions of organizational ethical climates. Psy-
creativity: Knowledge sharing and self-efficacy as mediators. Social chological Reports: Human Resources and Marketing, 111, 509 527.
Behavior and Personality, 41, 1409 1420. Xu, X., Yu, F., & Shi, J. (2011). Ethical leadership and leaders personality
Mayer, D. M., Nurmohamed, S., Trevino, L. K., Shapiro, D. L., & traits. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 361368.
Schminke, M. (2013). Encouraging employees to report unethical con- Yilmaz, E. (2010). The analysis of organizational creativity in schools
duct internally: It takes a village. Organizational Behavior and Human regarding principals ethical leadership characteristics. Procedia Social
Decision Processes, 121, 89 103. and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3949 3953.
McManus, K. (2009). The relationship between ethical leadership, attach- Zheng, Q., Wang, M., & Li, Z. (2011). Rethinking ethical leadership, social
ment orientation and gender in organizations (Unpublished doctoral capital and customer relationships. Journal of Management Develop-
dissertation). Walden University. ment, 30, 663 674.
Excluded Because Studies Examined Honesty, Excluded Because Ethical Leadership Was
Integrity, or Moral Reasoning Rather Than Self-Reported Rather Than Follower-Reported
Ethical Leadership
Henry, K. V. (2011). A quantitative analysis of ethical leadership charac-
ter traits and moral cognition among chief financial officer (CFO)
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationships leadership teams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden Univer-
between authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social sity, Minneapolis, MN.
behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 555578. Shin, Y. (2012). CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and
Kaiser, R. B., & Hogan, R. (2010). How to (and how not to) assess the collective organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 299 312.
integrity of managers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 62, 216 234.
Kimberling, L. S. (2008). Ethical reasoning and transformational leader- Excluded Because of Insufficient Information
ship: An investigation of public sector leaders (Unpublished doctoral on Effect Sizes
dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
Kim, W. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2011). The effects of ethical leadership on
Olsen, O. K., Eid, J., & Larsson, G. (2010). Leadership and ethical justice
manager job satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm perfor-

behavior in a high moral intensity operational context. Military Psychol-
mance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 1020 1026.

ogy, 22, 137156.
Rowold, J., & Borgmann, L. (2014). Interpersonal affect and the assess-
Palanski, M. E., & Vogelgesang, G. R. (2011). Virtuous creativity: The
ment of and interrelationship between leadership constructs. Leadership,
effects of leader behavioural integrity on follower creative thinking
10, 308 325.
and risk taking. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28,
259 269.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of Received November 4, 2013
transformational leaders in organizational settings. Journal of Business Revision received August 25, 2014
Ethics, 35, 7596. Accepted September 22, 2014

Thomas Et Al 2015

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Thomas Et Al 2015

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Applied Psychology 2014 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 100, No. 3, 948 965 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038246

Ethical Leadership: Meta-Analytic Evidence of Criterion-Related and

Thomas W. H. Ng Daniel C. Feldman

Keywords: ethical leadership, construct validity, meta-analysis

Warren, & Chen, 2012). Nevertheless, exerting EL entails more

in Table 1, we found that the corrected correlation for the rela-

Motivational and performance outcomes

Job satisfaction (JS)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

TFL OCB CR OCB MBEA

Model 4A Model 5 Model 6

Sources of meta-analytical correlations

Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbachs coefficient alpha. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056001448

Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 381391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/

Study N EL scale EL Correlate (r/) Country

TFL (.29/.84)d; VOI N (.32/.94)

Study N EL scale EL Correlate (r/) Country

Study N EL scale EL Correlate (r/) Country

between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating

manager job satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm perfor-

mance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 1020 1026.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi