The

Impact of Ethical Leadership Behavior on

Employee Outcomes: The Roles of Psychological
Empowerment and Authenticity
Weichun Zhu
Douglas R. May
Bruce J. Avolio
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
Acknowledgments: The ideas presented here benefited from conversations with colleagues associated with the
Gallup Leadership Institute at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Correspondence should be directed to the first
author.

The topics of authentic leadership and the individual behavior has not been thoroughly
ethical behavior of leaders have received explored.
significant interest in recent years due to the The main purpose of this paper is to address
plethora of ethical scandals in corporations. In the following two questions. First, what role
this paper, we developed a theoretical does psychological empowerment play in the
framework that maintains that employees’ relationship between ethical leadership behavior
psychological empowerment mediates the and employees’ attitudinal outcomes (i.e.,
relationship between leaders’ ethical behaviors organizational commitment and trust in leaders)?
and employees’ organizational commitment and Second, how do employee perceptions of the
trust in leaders. We also argue that authenticity authenticity of leaders’ ethical behavior
(i.e., the consistency between leaders’ true influence the relationship between ethical
ethical intention and behavior) moderates the leadership behavior and employee outcomes?
relationship between leaders’ ethical behaviors
and employee outcomes. We discuss the Ethical Leadership Behavior
theoretical and practical implications of the
proposed model for work on authentic Leaders are obligated to set a moral
leadership. example for organizational members and to
determine those organizational activities which
Ethical leadership has been discussed may be detrimental to the values of society in
recently by numerousscholars in the field of general (Aronson, 2001). Leaders exhibit ethical
organizational behavior and management with behaviors when they are doing what is morally
respect to its impact on individual, group and right, just, and good, and when they help to
organizational outcomes (e.g., Koh & Boo, elevate followers’ moral awareness and moral
2001; Lucas, 2000; Petrick & Quinn, 2001; self-actualization. Indeed, ethical leadership
Trevino, Brown, & Hartman, 2003). While encompasses more than the fostering of ethical
there have been studies that have examined the behaviors. For example, Butcher (1997) pointed
individual and situational determinants of ethical out that, &dquo;ethical business leadership requires not
leadership behaviors and the consequences of only investing in the small trees and
such ethical behavior at the organizational level experimental hybrids that won’t yield a thing
(Holmes, Langford, Welch, & Welch, 2002; that in this quarter or the next, but also caring for
Honeycutt, Glassman, Zugelder, & Karande, the soil that allows us to produce such a harvest
2001), how ethical leadership influences in the first place&dquo; (pp. 5-6). Thus, ethical
leaders must create the right conditions and
 17

organizational culture (i.e., an &dquo;organizational amount of good for the largest number of people
soil&dquo;) to foster the development of ethical (Rallapalli et al., 1998). Unfortunately, one of
behavior in associates in ancient China, the primary criticisms of utilitarian logic is that
Confucius pointed out that &dquo;gentlemen can it can result in decisions where employees’ basic
convince the world only with their noble ethics.&dquo; rights might be violated in order to produce this
Ethics is fundamentally concerned with the outcome. Thus, utilitarian logic may justify
impact of an individual’s action on others. horrible acts in organizations.
Frankena (1973) outlined two of the major Alternatively, the deontological perspective
theoretical perspectives in the ethics field- is primarily concerned with the inherent
which are referred to as teleological and obligations and rights of differing parties
deontological theories. The teleological involved in decisions, not the overall outcomes
perspective emphasizes the outcomes or per se. Hunt and Vitell (1986) argued that the
consequences of an action when evaluating crux of the deontological perspective is whether
whether the act is moral (Helms & Hutchins, or not a behavior or act is inherently right. Such

1992). There are various teleological theories determinations are made based on moral
in the literature, including ethical egoism, act principles or guidelines such as Kant’s
utilitarianism, and rule utilitarianism. categorical imperative or the &dquo;Golden Rule.&dquo;
In the case of ethical egoism, Rallapalli, A third perspective often discussed in both
Vitell, and Bames (1998) have suggested that an the organizational behavior and philosophy
individual considers an act to be moral or literatures is the &dquo;justice&dquo; or fairness of a
immoral depending on the likelihood that it will decision. There are two types of organizational
achieve personal objectives. An act is ethical for justice -

distributive and procedural.

a person only if the results of the act or behavior Distributive justice addresses the fairness of a
are more advantageous to that person than those managerial decision based on the allocation of
of the alternatives (Hunt & Vitell, 1986). For outcomes such as pay, rewards, recognition, and
the ethical egoist, the interests of others are only promotion relative to an employee’s input.
a concern if they help maximize one’s own Procedural justice addresses the impartiality of
welfare and interests. the methods and relative input from employees
Utilitarianism represents the second major regarding the standards used to make and apply
teleological perspective. Quinton (1989) managerial decisions. In terms of the
proposed that utilitarianism could be described teleological versus deontological categorization
as the aggregation of two core principles - the discussed above, distributive justice may best be
consequentialist and hedonist principles. thought of as a teleological theory of fairness
According to consequentialist principle, whether due to its focus on outcomes, while procedural
an act is ethical or not is determined by the justice is best considered a deontological theory
consequences of that act. The hedonist view because of its focus on the means of making
maintains that only pleasure is inherently good decisions. Nevertheless, Lind (1992) and Lind,
and only pain is inherently bad. This viewpoint Kulik, Ambrose, and De Vera Park (1993)
focuses on ’the principle of greatest happiness’ recognized that employees perceptions of one
for those involved in a decision or act. form of justice may spillover to their perceptions
According to Frankena (1973), the utilitarian of the other form of justice.
perspective determines what is ethical by It is expected that ethical leaders will treat
endeavoring to create the greatest overall good their employees fairly and in an unbiased and
for those influenced by a decision or action. impartial manner, i.e., using both distributive
There are two general forms of utilitarianism --
and procedural justice to guide their leadership
rule and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism behaviors. Followers’ perceptions of being
postulates that people conform to a set of treated fairly should affect both their job
general rules that are thought to result in the attitudes, such satisfaction and commitment,
as

greatest good for the greatest number of people. and organizational outcomes (Dailey & Kirk,
According to act utilitarianism, whether a 1992; Koh & Boo, 2001). Tansky, Gallagher
specific action is ethical or not is based on its and Wetzel (1997) also indicated that
calculated potential to produce the greatest perceptions of justice and equity influence
18

employees’ attitudes about their organizations. determining how a leader’s ethical behavior may
For example, a strong set of personal ethical be related to their employee’s level of
standards (e.g., the virtues of honesty and commitment to their organization. With all of
fairness) should stimulate a higher level of trust the popular attention being given today to
and loyalty in an organization. factors that affect employee loyalty,
commitment and ethical behavior, this
EthicalLeadership Behavior and represents an area of research that could have
Employee Organizational both theoretical and practical implications.
Commitment Prior research has shown that
organizational commitment is greater for
The concept of organizational commitment employees whose leaders encourage their
has grown in popularity and received a great participation decision-making (e.g., Jermier &
in
deal of attention in the organizational behavior Berkes, 1979; Rhodes & Steers, 1981), who treat
and industrial psychology literatures (Mathieu & them with consideration (e.g., Bycio, Hackett, &
Zajac, 1990). It has been suggested that gaining Allen, 1995; DeCotiis & Summers, 1987),
a better understanding of the individual, group
fairness (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990), and are
and organizational processes that are related to supportive of them (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990;
organizational commitment has significant Mottaz, 1988; Withey, 1988). We would expect
that leaders who exhibit ethical behaviors would
implications for employees, organizations, and be more likely to consider the individual needs
society (Conger, 1999; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & and rights of employees and treat them fairly,
Goodman, 1999; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;
which are core characteristics of
Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Potterfield, transformational leadership behavior. Turner,
1999; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Spreitzer, Janasz,
& Quinn, 1999). Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, and Milner (2002)
indicated that transformational leadership is
Organizational commitment is defined as
&dquo;the relative strength of an individual’s significantly associated with moral reasoning.
in a Leaders viewed by followers as more
identification with and involvement
1982: p. transformational are more likely to have a higher
particular organization&dquo; (Mowday al.,
et
level of moral reasoning. Mize (2000) suggested
27). The antecedents of organizational
commitment can be divided into three broad that there is a positive relationship between
ethical behavior and employees’ level of
categories: organizational factors, personal commitment. Thus, we propose that:
factors, and work experiences (Eby, Freeman,
Rush, & Lance, 1999; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Proposition 1: Ethical leadership behavior
is positively associated with employees’
Mowday et al., 1982). For example, Mowday et
al. (1982) pointed out that supervision is one of organizational commitment.
the critical organizational factors that can
influence employee commitment to the Ethical Leadership Behavior and
organization. Employee Trust in Leaders
In the leadership literature, a number of
authors have referred to effective leadership as The construct of trust has received
being characterized as empowering which, in considerable attention in the organizational
turn, would be expected to enhance sciences literature, in part due to the potential
organizational commitment and effectiveness consequences it has for organizational
(Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1988). effectiveness and performance. It is proposed
Along these lines, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) that employee trust in leaders will enhance their
suggested that other leadership dimensions, such compliance with organizational rules and laws,
as initiating structure, consideration, increase their zones of indifference, and
communication, and participative leadership are facilitate the implementation of organizational
all antecedents of organizational commitment at change (Tyler & Degoey, 1996; Van Zyl &
the individual level. However, despite its Lazeny, 2002). Employee trust in leaders
theoretical and practical significance, there are directly influences their contributions to the
relatively few studies that have focused on organization in terms of performance, intent to
 19

remain, and civic virtue behavior (Robinson, beneficial, or at least not detrimental, to one’s

1996). interest&dquo; (p. 576).

Jones and George (1998) argued that there The ethical leader is one who does not seek
are two types trust, conditional and
of to fulfill his/her own self-interest (psychological
unconditional trust. Conditional trust is a state of egoism) at the expense of others, but who looks
trust inwhich both parties are willing to transact after the group’s interest at a minimum
with each other, as long as each behaves (utilitarianism). Ideally, such a leader bases
appropriately and uses a similar interpretive his/her behaviors on moral principles that
scheme to define the situation. Conditional trust respect the rights of associates and treats them
usually is sufficient to facilitate a wide range of fairly. Ethical leaders involve their employees in
social and economic exchanges (Lewicki & decision-making within their firms to enhance
Bunker, 1996). Unconditional trust is the procedural justice and autonomy over their
characterized with the shared values that work livesthe employees’ experience.
structure the social situation and become the Furthermore, such involvement facilitates the
primary vehicle through which whole well-being and potential growth of the
individuals experience trust (Jones & George, employees.
1998). Scholarly interest in trust has recognized Based on the above discussion of how
the multidimensional nature of the construct. ethical leaders should demonstrate behavioral
Two core aspects of trust relevant to our consistency between words and actions as well
discussion here focus on a leader’s (a) as benevolent behaviors, the second proposition
behavioral consistency with his/her words and is offered:
(b) benevolence toward others (Bulter, 1991). Proposition 2: Ethical leadership behavior
First, most perspectives on trust acknowledge is positively associated with employees’ trust in
that a leader’s words must accurately predict leaders.
his/her future actions in order to create a
necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, Mediating Effects of
Psychological
condition for the development of trust. Ethical Empowerment
leaders are those who have the moral courage to
transform their moral intentions into behaviors Dimensions of psychological
despite pressures to do otherwise (May, Chan, empowerment. Empowerment is another
Hodges, & Avolio, 2003). Such leaders believe important construct that can potentially lead to
in virtues such as honesty and attempt to positive organizational and individual level
practice it on a daily basis in both their personal outcomes. There are several perspectives on
and work lives. Thus, we expect the behavioral empowerment, such as relational, social-
consistency between such leaders’ words and structural, and psychological (Liden, Sparrowe,
actions will be relatively high and that they will & Wayne, 1997). Conger and Kanungo (1988)
be subsequently trusted by their associates. identified four broad antecedent conditions of
Second, several scholars have focused their the psychological state of empowerment, namely
definitions of trust on the notion that an organizational factors, supervision, reward
individual believes the person who he/she trusts system, and job characteristics. Supervision or
will behave in a way that is beneficial to the the influence of a leader was described as one of
person (i.e., benevolence). For example, the ways in which followers could receive
Hosmer (1995) synthesized the definitions from information regarding their personal efficacy
previous research and proposed that &dquo;trust is the (Bandura, 1986) which, in turn, could serve to
reliance...on a voluntarily accepted duty on the remove any powerlessness they may have been
part of another...to recognize and protect the experiencing.
rights and interests of all others engaged in a Thomas and Velthouse (1990), and later
joint endeavor or economic exchange&dquo; (p. 393). Spreitzer (1995), defined empowerment as
Similarly, Robinson (1996) defines trust as &dquo;increased intrinsic task motivation manifested
&dquo;one’s expectations of beliefs about the in a set of four cognitions reflecting an
likelihood that another’s future actions will be individual’s orientation to his or her work role:
meaning, competence, self-determination and
20

impact.&dquo; Meaning refers to when employees opportunities for their employees and to support
experience their jobs as having value or them in making tough ethical decisions on the
importance (Fulford & Enz, 1995; May, Gilson, job. Training, including experiencing successes
& Harter, 2004). When the mission of the and observing others’ successes, has a positive
organization or goals of the activities they are impact on an individual’s self-efficacy
engaged in are congruent with their own value (Bandura, 1986). Thus, employees of ethical
system, employees feel that their work is leaders should have higher feelings of
important and care deeply about what they do competence in their positions.
(May et al., in press; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; Because ethical leaders wish to protect the
Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Tymon, 1994; basic human rights of dignity and autonomy,
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). they are more likely to structure jobs so that
Competence (or self-efficacy) is the employees have discretion in decision-making
knowledge that the individual has the skill over dimensions of their jobs as well as more

necessary to successfully perform the task in a broad participation within decision-making

specific context (Bandura, 1986; Conger & structure of their organization. Such autonomy
Kanungo, 1988; Fulford & Enz, 1995; Thomas in the workplace fosters feelings of self
& Tymon, 1994). Self-determination (or choice) determination in employees and links back to
refers to the sense of freedom or discretion one the trust formed between ethical leaders and
has to perform the work in the way that one their followers.
chooses (Fulford & Enz, 1995; Thomas & Ethical leaders are more likely to provide
Velthouse, 1990). Self-determination reflects opportunities to understand the impact that an
autonomy in making decisions about work employee has in his/her position and in the
methods, procedures, pace and effort (Spreitzer, organization overall, such as participation in
1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Impact refers to decision making and work design. Such leaders
the degree to which an individual feels that encourage the full engagement of the self at
his/her work makes a difference in achieving the work (May et al., 2004) because this helps lift
overall purpose of the task (Thomas & Tymon, the human spirit to realize a person’s dreams in
1994; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) and the the workplace and make contributions that one
extent the individual believes that he or she can alone could not make. In sum, ethical leadership
influence organizational outcomes in a positive behaviors that protect individual employee rights
way (Spreitzer, 1995). (particularly the most basic human rights of
Ethical leadership behaviors and respect, dignity, and autonomy) are likely to
psychological empowerment. As suggested result in employees have greater feelings of
above, ethical leaders are expected to be more empowerment.
likely to consider each employees’ Psychological empowerment and
developmental needs and to place them in organizational commitment. Prior research
positions where they can experience work role indicates that employees who feel more
fit and a sense of meaning in their jobs (May et empowered are more likely reciprocate by
to
al., in press). Such leaders are also likely to treat being more committed to their organizations
their employees with respect, rather than treating (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990;
them simply as a means to an end (i.e., Kraimer, Seibert & Liden, 1999; Sims &
organizational productivity). This respect for Kroeck, 1994). By definition, empowered
human dignity should result in employees employees are more likely to see themselves as
experiencing a strong sense of meaning at work competent and able to influence their job and
since their own goals are consistent with the organizations in a meaningful way. Because of
organizations’ goals. these psychological states, they are also more
Ethical leaders’consideration of their likely to engage in extra-role efforts, act
employees’ developmental needs and independently, and have a high commitment to
benevolence should cause them to place the organization (Spreitzer, 1995). Indeed,
employees in situations that facilitate their Thomas and Velthouse (1990) maintained that
growth and confidence in their job-related skills. empowered employees have improved
Such leaders are likely to seek out training concentration, initiative, resiliency, and
 21

subsequent commitment to the organization.

Furthermore, Kanter (1983) found that Moderating Role of Authenticity of
meaningfulness results in higher levels of Ethical Leader Behavior
commitment to the organization and a greater
concentration of energy. Wiley (1999) similarly Recently, Harter (2002) defined
reported that psychological empowerment authenticity as being true to oneself. An
overall had a positive relationship with authentic person is genuine and does not feign
employee levels of organizational commitment. qualities or beliefs that he/she does not actually
In sum, this research suggests that ethical
possess (e.g., piety or moral superiority).
leaders who empower their employees will Similarly, Taylor (1991) maintained that
subsequently see greater reciprocal commitment authenticity is about discovering and expressing
to the organization. Based on this discussion, oneself, being true to oneself and finding the
our third proposition is offered:
design of one’s own life. Stated another way,
Proposition 3:~° Employees’ psychological authenticity is simply being ’loyal to oneself’
empowerment mediates the relationship between (Avolio, Gardner, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa,
ethical leader behavior and employees’ 2004).
organizational commitment. Simons (1999) suggests there is often a
Psychological empowerment and trust. mismatch between the values a leader may
Employees who feel empowered at work are espouse and the actual values represented by
more likely to have greater levels of trust in their his/her behavior. To be authentic, leaders need
leaders. For example, those who find meaning to ensure their actions are consistent with both
in their work are more likely to immerse their rhetoric and intentions.
themselves totally in their roles (May et al., The focus here is on the employees’
2004) and place themselves in a more perceptions of the authenticity of a leader’s
vulnerable, trusting position as they expose their ethical behavior. Authentic ethical behavior
true selves at work. Individuals who feel more represents behavior which is consistent with the
competent in their ability to handle their work leader’s values and moral intentions and does
roles are also more likely to take risks and not seek to hide that intention, but rather is
similarly place themselves in a more open and transparent with the moral evaluations that lead
vulnerable position. The feelings of self- up to the behavior (May et al., 2003). A critical
determination associated with the sharing and question to be address is how the authenticity of
delegation of control by leaders should be a leader’s ethical behavior may affect an
reciprocally related to the development of employee’s level of trust and commitment.
employee trust in such leaders (Whitener, Brodt, First, Lewicki and Bunker (1996) proposed
Korgaard, & Wemer, 1998). a sequential development model for trust in
Ultimately, those employees who believe work relationships. They argued that trust
they can have an impact on the outcomes of their moves from a more calculating form to a more
jobs and organization may attribute the intimate, empathic, and exclusive form, or from
responsibility for the design of their work conditional trust to unconditional trust in Jones
environment to their leader and consequently and George’s (1998) terms. Under this
extend more trust to them. These employees framework, people who are perceived as not
may believe that such work environments doing what they say might have substantial
demonstrate concern on the part of the leader for difficulties in establishing any trust at all. Thus,
their well-being, which would boost their level the congruence between word and actions is a
of trust in their leader (Whitener et al., 1998). necessary pre-condition for trust to be
Based on this discussion, we propose our fourth established, particularly if ethical behavior is
proposition: promised but not delivered. When inconsistency
Proposition 4: Employees’ psychological between words and actions occur, employees’
empowerment mediates the relationship between responses can range from disappointment to
ethical leader behavior and employees’ trust in anger to destruction and theft.
leaders. Second, leaders can also exhibit ethical
behaviors in organizations such as setting up
22

empowering, well-designed jobs for their themselves at work (Kahn, 1990; May et al.,
employees, yet they may not necessarily have 2004). Such leaders display undistorted
respect for the dignity and autonomy of the communication of the moral intentions which
individuals in mind when they do so. engenders trust among associates (Mishra,
Alternatively, they may be self-interested egoists 1996). Authentic ethical leaders display the
who believe that such arrangements will raise highest levels of integrity, which serves as the
worker productivity, higher profits, and bigger strongest determinant of trust among its
year-end bonuses. While employees’ trust in antecedents (Butler, 1991 ).
such a leader may be higher than for the leader Thus, based on the above discussion, we
who displays no ethical behavior, the believe that employees will respond most
employees’ response will be much less positively to a leader’s ethical behavior when
enthusiastic in terms of trust and commitment that behavior is perceived as genuine or
than for the leader who displays consistency authentic. However, when the moral intention
between moral intentions and behaviors. behind a leader’s ethical behavior becomes
Third, without a well-developed sense of suspicious, the strength of the relationship
authenticity leaders are unable to earn the between such behaviors and employees’
credibility they need to motivate people to responses should weaken.
follow them toward their dreams, missions, Proposition 5a:~° Employees’perception of
purposes, and goals, even if they display ethical the authenticity of a leader’s ethical behavior
leadership behaviors (Morrison, 2001). moderates the relationship between ethical
Employees want to be treated authentically as leader behavior and employees’ tr°ust.
well as fairly and with respect. When such Compared with inauthentic ethical behaviors,
ethical behavior is aligned with authentic moral authentic ethical behavior by leaders will have a
intentions, employees will respond in an stronger positive effect on employees’ trust in
overwhelmingly positive manner (Lucas, 2000). their leader.
Such authentic leaders engage in authentic moral Proposition 5b: Employees’perception of
behaviors (May et al., 2003) that are consistent the authenticity of a leader’s ethical behavior
with their transparent moral evaluations. moderates the relationship between ethical
Employees are able to trust and commit to such leader behavior and employees’ organizational
leaders because they can rely on them to do what commitment. Compared with inauthentic
they say they will do and believe them to be ethical behaviors, authentic ethical leader
individuals with high moral development. Such behavior has a stronger positive effect on
authentic ethical leaders inspire employees to employees’ organizational commitment.
feel psychologically safe and be authentic

Theoretical Model of Authentic Ethical Leadership Behavior

 23

Conclusion provided comprehensive reviews of the business

ethics literature that
may be helpful for
advancing future theory building and research
In this paper, we advanced a theoretical
on authentic moral leadership. Future studies
model that attempts to explain how ethical
leader behavior may wish to examine the impact of some of
influences employees’ these factors on the relationship between ethical
organizational commitment and trust via leadership behavior and employees’
psychological empowerment. We proposed that organizational commitment and trust in their
employees’ psychological empowerment (i.e., leader.
meaning, self-determination, competence, and While we have focused on the impact of
impact) mediated the relationship between ethical leadership on individual outcomes (i.e.,
ethical leader behavior and employee
commitment and trust. We also
psychological empowerment, organizational
organizational commitment, and trust), future research may
proposed that employees’ perception of the also want to investigate the interaction between
authenticity of a leader’s ethical behavior (i.e., leaders’ ethical behavior and authenticity with
the consistency between leaders’ moral
intentions and their behaviors) should moderate
respect to group or organizational level
outcomes (e.g., financial performance - sales,
the linkages between ethical leadership behavior
and individuals’ organizational commitment and
profitability, etc.) or firm reputation.
Future research may also wish to explore
trust in their leaders.
whether authentic leadership is more likely to
One of the important theoretical emerge in privately owned firms vs. public
implications of this model is the discussion of
the authenticity of ethical leadership behavior as
firms, because leaders in public companies are
under tremendous pressure to maximize profits
a variable that moderates the impact of leaders’
for their shareholders. Are the consequences of
ethical behaviors on individual outcomes such as
inauthentic ethical behavior as great in
trust and commitment. Prior research focused
organizational contexts where the pressures to
primarily on the consistency between leaders’ produce short-term profitable results are
words and actions, while the proposed
framework significant? All these questions deserve future
expanded the construct of theoretical inquiry and empirical research.
authenticity to include the consistency between
leaders’ moral intentions and their ultimate
Practical implications
actions. This paper hopefully contributes to the
ongoing discussion of what constitutes authentic We believe the proposed model may help to
leadership and its development (Avolio et al., determine whether ethical behavior in
2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; May et al.,
2003). organizations motivates and empowers
employees. To be authentic ethical leaders,
leaders must transcend their self-interest and
Future research directions focus on what is good for their group or

It should be noted, nonetheless, that our

organization. Yet, authentic ethical leaders must
model is potentially limited by other factors we
ultimately find and behave consistently with
their moral principles that respect the rights of
have not discussed here. For example, personal
their employees and stakeholders. Such leaders
attributes (e.g., ethnic), education and value each employee and respect their right to be
employment background (e.g., type of treated with dignity rather than just as a means
education, employment and years of to an organizational end. Such leaders involve
employment), personality (big five personality employees in organizational decision-making to
dimensions), values, and referent groups (e.g., celebrate their right to autonomy. The authentic
peer group influence) are all factors that need to ethical leader in any organization listens to
be considered when examining the impact of
stakeholders and is truthful and transparent with
ethical leadership behavior on organizational
them with regard to their moral evaluations. We
commitment and trust. Ford and Richardson
believe that such a leader will succeed and gain
(1994) and Loe, Ferrell, and Mansfield (2001) the respect of everyone, while growing such
24

employees into more effective followers and Ford, C. R., & Richardson, W. D. 1994. Ethical
potentially leaders providing a more solid basis decision making: a review of the empirical
for veritable literature. Journal of Ethics, 13: 205-221.
sustainable, organizational
performance. Frankena, W.K. 1973. Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Fulford, M. D. & Enz, C. A. 1995. The impact of
References empowerment on service employees. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 7: 161-175.
Allen,N. J. & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement
Giulla, J. B. 1995. Leadership ethics: Mapping the
and antecedents of affective, continuance and
territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5: 5-28.
normative commitment to the organization.
Harter, S. 2002. Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 1-18. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive
Aronson, E. 2001. Integrating leadership styles and Psychology, (pp. 382-394). Oxford: Oxford
ethical perspectives. Canadian Journal of University Press.
Administrative Sciences, 18: 244-256.
Helms, M.M., & Hutchins, B.A. 1992. Poor quality
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W., Luthans, F., May, D.R., & products: Is their production unethical?
Walumbwa, F. 2004a. Authentic leadership: A Management Decision, 30: 35-46.
theoretical framework predicting veritable
Holmes, S.A., Langford, M., Welch, O.J., & Welch,
sustained performance. Under Review. S.M. 2002. Associations between internal
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and controls and organization citizenship behavior.
ction: A social cognitive theory. NJ: Prentice
a Journal of Managerial Issues, xiv: 85-99.
Hall.
Honeyucutt, E., Glassman, M., Zugelder, M., &
Butcher, W. C. 1997. Ethical leadership. Executive Karande, K.2001. Determinants of ethical
Excellence, 14: 5-6. Behavior: A study of auto sale-people. Journal
Butler, J.K. Jr. 1991. Toward understanding and of Business Ethics, 32: 69-79.
measuring conditions of trust: evolution of Hosmer, L.T. 1995. Trust the connecting link
conditions of trust inventory. Journal of between organizational theory and philosophic
Management, 17: 643-63. ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20:
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D. & Allen, J. S. 1995. Further 379-403.
assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization
Hunt, S.D., & Vitell, S. 1986. A general theory of
of transformational and transactional leadership.
marketing ethics. Journal of micromarketing,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 468-478. 6: 5-16.
Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The Jermier, J. M. & Berkes, L. J. 1979. Leader behavior
empowerment process: Integrating theory and in a police command bureaucracy: A closer look
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13: at the quasi-military model. Administrative
471-482. Science Quarterly, 24: 1-23.
Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational Jones, G. R. & George, J. M. (1998). The experience
leadership in organizations: An insider’s and evolution of trust:Implications for
perspective on these developing streams of cooperation and teamwork. Academy of
research. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 145-179.
Management Review, 23: 531-546.
Dailey, R, C., & Kirk, D. J. 1992. Distributive and Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of
procedural justice as antecedents of job personal engagement and disengagement at
satisfaction and intent to turnover. Human work. Academy of Management Journal, 33:
Relations, 45: 305-317. 692-724.
DeCotiis, T. A. & Summers, T. P. 1987. A path Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters. New York:
analysis of a model of the antecedents and Simon and Schuster.
consequences of organizational commitment. Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C. &
Human Relations, 40: 445-470.
Goodman, E. A. 1999. Antecedents and
by,
E L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C., & Lance, outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence
C. E. 1999. Motivational bases of affective from the health care industry. Group and
commitment: A partial test of an integrative
Organization Management, 24: 71-91.
theoretical model. Journal of Occupational and
Koh, H. C., & Boo, E. H.Y. 2001. The link between
Organizational Psychology, 72: 463-483. organizational ethics and job satisfaction: A
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. study of managers in Singapore. Journal of
1990. Perceived organizational support and Business Ethics, 29: 309-324.
employee diligence, commitment, and
innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75:
51-59.
 25

Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. 1999. Mishra, A.K. 1996. Organizational responses to
Psychological empowerment as a multi- crisis: the centrality of trust, in Kramer, R. and
dimensional construct: A construct validity test. Tyler, T. (Eds). Trust in organizations:
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Frontiers of theory and research. Sage
59: 127-142. Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 261-87.
Lewicki, R.J., & Bunker, B.B. 1996. Developing and Mize, K. J., Stanforth, N., & Johnson, C. 2000.
maintaining trust in work relationships, in Perceptions of retail supervisors’ ethical
Kramer, R. and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in behavior and front-line managers’
organizations: Frontiers of theory and organizational commitment. Clothing and
research (pp. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
114-39). Textiles Research Journal, 18: 100-110.
Publications, Inc. Morrison, A. 2001. Integrity and global Leadership.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. 1997. Journal of Business Ethics, 31: 65-76.
Leader-member exchange theory: The past and Mottaz, C. J. 1988. Determinants of organizational
potential for the future. Research in Personnel commitment. Human Relations, 41: 467-482.
and Human Resource Management, 15: 47-119. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. 1982.
Lind, E. A.1992. The fairness heuristic: rationality Employee-organization linkages. New York:
and "relationality" in procedural evaluations. Academic Press.
Paper presented at the 4 th International Petrick, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. 2001. The challenge of
Conference of the Society for the Advancement leadership accountability for integrity capacity
of Socioeconomics, Irvine, CA. as a strategic asset. Journal of Business Ethics,
Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & De Vera 34: 331-343.
Park, M. V. 1993. Individual and corporate Potterfield, T. A. 1999. The business of employee
dispute resolution: using procedural fairness as empowerment. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quinn, R. E. & Spreitzer, G. M. 1997. The road to
Quarterly, 38: 224-248. empowerment: seven questions every leader
Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L.& Mansfield, P. 2000. A should consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26:
review of empirical studies assessing ethical 37-49.
decision-making in business. Journal of Quinton, A. 1989. Utilitarian ethics. London:
Business Ethics, 25: 185-204. Duckworth.
Lucas, N. J. 2000. Lives of integrity: factors that Rallapalli, K.C., Vitell, S.J., & Barnes, J.H. 1998.
influence moral transforming leaders. The influence of norms on ethical judgments
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: and intentions: An empirical study of marketing
Humanities & Social Sciences, 60: 3289. professionals. Journal of Business research, 43:
Luthans, F. & Avolio, B. J. 2003. Authentic 157-168.
leadership: A positive development approach," Rhodes, S. R. & Steers, R. M. 1981. Conventional vs.
to appear in K.S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. worker-owned organizations. Human Relations,
E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational 12: 1013-1035.
scholarship (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler) Robinson, S.L. 1996. Trust and breach of the
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1990. A review and psychological contract. Administrative Science
meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and Quarterly, 41: 574-99.
consequences of organizational commitment. Simons, T. L. 1999. Behavioral integrity as a critical
Psychological Bulletin, 108: 171-194. ingredient for transformational leadership.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, Journal of Organizational Change
B. J. 2003. Developing the moral component of Management, 12: 89-104.
authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, Sims, R. L., & Kroeck, K. G. 1994. The influence of
32: 247-260. ethical fit on employee satisfaction,
May, D. R., Gilson, R.L., & Harter, L. 2004. The commitment and turnover. Journal of Business
psychological conditions of meaningfulness, Ethics, 13: 939-948.
safety, and the engagement of human spirit at Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment
work. Journal of Occupational and in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement
Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37. and validation. Academy of Management
Meyer, J. & Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in the Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
workplace: Theory, research and application. Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, 39: 483 —
504.
26

Spreitzer, G. M., Janasz. S. C. & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Tyler, T.R., & Degoey, P. 1996. Trust in
Empowered to lead: The role of psychological organizational authorities: the influence of
empowerment in leadership. Journal of motive attributions on willingness to accept
Organizational Behavior, 20: 511-526. decisions, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R.
Tansky, J. W., Gallagher, D. G., & Wetzel , K. W: (Eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of
1997. The effect of demographics, work status, theory and research: 331-56. Thousand Oaks,
and relative equity on organizational CA: Sage Publications.
commitment: looking among part-time workers. Van Zyl, E., & Lazeny, K. 2002. The relation
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, between ethical behavior and work stress
14: 315-326. amongst a group of managers working in
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. affirmative action positions. Journal of Business
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ethics, 40: 111-119.
Thomas, K. W. & Tymon, W. G. Jr. 1994. Does Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korgaard, M. A., &
empowerment always work: Understanding the Werner, J. M. 1998. Managers as initiators of
role of intrinsic motivation and personal trust: an exchange relationship framework for
interpretation. Journal of Management Systems, understanding managerial trustworthy behavior.
6: 1-13. Academy of Management Review, 23: 513-530.
Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive Wiley, D. M. 1999. Impact of locus of control and
elements of empowerment: An "interpretive" empowerment on organizational commitment.
model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States
Management Review, 15: 666-681. International University, US.
Trevino, L.K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L.P. 2003. A Withey, M. 1988. Antecedents of value based and
qualitative investigation of perceived executive economic organizational commitment.
ethical leadership: perceptions from inside and Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
outside the executive suite. Human Relations, Administrative Sciences Association of Canada-
56: 5-37. Organizational Behavior Division, 9: 124-133.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., &
Milner, C. (2002). Transformaional leadership
and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87: 304-311.