reserch paper

http://jlo.sagepub.com/Organizational StudiesJournal of Leadership &

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/11/1/16The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/107179190401100104 2004 11: 16Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Weichun Zhu, Douglas R. May and Bruce J. AvolioEmpowerment and Authenticity

The Impact of Ethical Leadership Behavior on Employee Outcomes: The Roles of Psychological

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2004Version of Record >>

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on October 8, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on October 8, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The Impact of Ethical Leadership Behavior onEmployee Outcomes: The Roles of Psychological

Empowerment and AuthenticityWeichun Zhu

Douglas R. MayBruce J. Avolio

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE

Acknowledgments: The ideas presented here benefited from conversations with colleagues associated with theGallup Leadership Institute at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Correspondence should be directed to the firstauthor.

The topics of authentic leadership and theethical behavior of leaders have receivedsignificant interest in recent years due to theplethora of ethical scandals in corporations. Inthis paper, we developed a theoreticalframework that maintains that employeespsychological empowerment mediates therelationship between leaders ethical behaviorsand employees organizational commitment andtrust in leaders. We also argue that authenticity(i.e., the consistency between leaders trueethical intention and behavior) moderates therelationship between leaders ethical behaviorsand employee outcomes. We discuss thetheoretical and practical implications of theproposed model for work on authenticleadership.

Ethical leadership has been discussedrecently by numerous scholars in the field oforganizational behavior and management withrespect to its impact on individual, group andorganizational outcomes (e.g., Koh & Boo,2001; Lucas, 2000; Petrick & Quinn, 2001;Trevino, Brown, & Hartman, 2003). Whilethere have been studies that have examined theindividual and situational determinants of ethicalleadership behaviors and the consequences ofsuch ethical behavior at the organizational level(Holmes, Langford, Welch, & Welch, 2002;Honeycutt, Glassman, Zugelder, & Karande,2001), how ethical leadership influences

individual behavior has not been thoroughlyexplored.

The main purpose of this paper is to addressthe following two questions. First, what roledoes psychological empowerment play in therelationship between ethical leadership behaviorand employees attitudinal outcomes (i.e.,organizational commitment and trust in leaders)?Second, how do employee perceptions of theauthenticity of leaders ethical behaviorinfluence the relationship between ethicalleadership behavior and employee outcomes?

Ethical Leadership Behavior

Leaders are obligated to set a moralexample for organizational members and todetermine those organizational activities whichmay be detrimental to the values of society ingeneral (Aronson, 2001). Leaders exhibit ethicalbehaviors when they are doing what is morallyright, just, and good, and when they help toelevate followers moral awareness and moralself-actualization. Indeed, ethical leadershipencompasses more than the fostering of ethicalbehaviors. For example, Butcher (1997) pointedout that, &dquo;ethical business leadership requires notonly investing in the small trees andexperimental hybrids that wont yield a thingthat in this quarter or the next, but also caring forthe soil that allows us to produce such a harvestin the first place&dquo; (pp. 5-6). Thus, ethicalleaders must create the right conditions and

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on October 8, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

17

organizational culture (i.e., an &dquo;organizationalsoil&dquo;) to foster the development of ethicalbehavior in associates in ancient China,Confucius pointed out that &dquo;gentlemen canconvince the world only with their noble ethics.&dquo;

Ethics is fundamentally concerned with theimpact of an individuals action on others.Frankena (1973) outlined two of the majortheoretical perspectives in the ethics field-which are referred to as teleological anddeontological theories. The teleologicalperspective emphasizes the outcomes orconsequences of an action when evaluatingwhether the act is moral (Helms & Hutchins,1992). There are various teleological theoriesin the literature, including ethical egoism, actutilitarianism, and rule utilitarianism.

In the case of ethical egoism, Rallapalli,Vitell, and Bames (1998) have suggested that anindividual considers an act to be moral orimmoral depending on the likelihood that it willachieve personal objectives. An act is ethical fora person only if the results of the act or behaviorare more advantageous to that person than thoseof the alternatives (Hunt & Vitell, 1986). Forthe ethical egoist, the interests of others are onlya concern if they help maximize ones ownwelfare and interests.

Utilitarianism represents the second majorteleological perspective. Quinton (1989)proposed that utilitarianism could be describedas the aggregation of two core principles - theconsequentialist and hedonist principles.According to consequentialist principle, whetheran act is ethical or not is determined by theconsequences of that act. The hedonist viewmaintains that only pleasure is inherently goodand only pain is inherently bad. This viewpointfocuses on the principle of greatest happinessfor those involved in a decision or act.According to Frankena (1973), the utilitarianperspective determines what is ethical byendeavoring to create the greatest overall goodfor those influenced by a decision or action.There are two general forms of utilitarianism --rule and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianismpostulates that people conform to a set ofgeneral rules that are thought to result in thegreatest good for the greatest number of people.According to act utilitarianism, whether aspecific action is ethical or not is based on itscalculated potential to produce the greatest

amount of good for the largest number of people(Rallapalli et al., 1998). Unfortunately, one ofthe primary criticisms of utilitarian logic is thatit can result in decisions where employees basicrights might be violated in order to produce thisoutcome. Thus, utilitarian logic may justifyhorrible acts in organizations.

Alternatively, the deontological perspectiveis primarily concerned with the inherentobligations and rights of differing partiesinvolved in decisions, not the overall outcomesper se. Hunt and Vitell (1986) argued that thecrux of the deontological perspective is whetheror not a behavior or act is inherently right. Suchdeterminations are made based on moralprinciples or guidelines such as Kantscategorical imperative or the &dquo;Golden Rule.&dquo;

A third perspective often discussed in boththe organizational behavior and philosophyliteratures is the &dquo;justice&dquo; or fairness of adecision. There are two types of organizationaljustice - distributive and procedural.Distributive justice addresses the fairness of amanagerial decision based on the allocation ofoutcomes such as pay, rewards, recognition, andpromotion relative to an employees input.Procedural justice addresses the impartiality ofthe methods and relative input from employeesregarding the standards used to make and applymanagerial decisions. In terms of theteleological versus deontological categorizationdiscussed above, distributive justice may best bethought of as a teleological theory of fairnessdue to its focus on outcomes, while proceduraljustice is best considered a deontological theorybecause of its focus on the means of makingdecisions. Nevertheless, Lind (1992) and Lind,Kulik, Ambrose, and De Vera Park (1993)recognized that employees perceptions of oneform of justice may spillover to their perceptionsof the other form of justice.

It is expected that ethical leaders will treattheir employees fairly and in an unbiased andimpartial manner, i.e., using both distributiveand procedural justice to guide their leadershipbehaviors. Followers perceptions of beingtreated fairly should affect both their jobattitudes, such as satisfaction and commitment,and organizational outcomes (Dailey & Kirk,1992; Koh & Boo, 2001). Tansky, Gallagherand Wetzel (1997) also indicated thatperceptions of justice and equity influence


18

employees attitudes about their organizations.For example, a strong set of personal ethicalstandards (e.g., the virtues of honesty andfairness) should stimulate a higher level of trustand loyalty in an organization.

Ethical Leadership Behavior andEmployee Organizational

Commitment

The concept of organizational commitmenthas grown in popularity and received a greatdeal of attention in the organizational behaviorand industrial psychology literatures (Mathieu &Zajac, 1990). It has been suggested that gaininga better understanding of the individual, groupand organizational processes that are related toorganizational commitment has significantimplications for employees, organizations, andsociety (Conger, 1999; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, &Goodman, 1999; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Potterfield,1999; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Spreitzer, Janasz,& Quinn, 1999).

Organizational commitment is defined as&dquo;the relative strength of an individualsidentification with and involvement in aparticular organization&dquo; (Mowday et al., 1982: p.27). The antecedents of organizationalcommitment can be divided into three broadcategories: organizational factors, personalfactors, and work experiences (Eby, Freeman,Rush, & Lance, 1999; Meyer & Allen, 1997;Mowday et al., 1982). For example, Mowday etal. (1982) pointed out that supervision is one ofthe critical organizational factors that caninfluence employee commitment to theorganization.

In the leadership literature, a number ofauthors have referred to effective leadership asbeing characterized as empowering which, inturn, would be expected to enhanceorganizational commitment and effectiveness(Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1988).Along these lines, Mathieu and Zajac (1990)suggested that other leadership dimensions, suchas initiating structure, consideration,communication, and participative leadership areall antecedents of organizational commitment atthe individual level. However, despite itstheoretical and practical significance, there arerelatively few studies that have focused on

determining how a leaders ethical behavior maybe related to their employees level ofcommitment to their organization. With all ofthe popular attention being given today tofactors that affect employee loyalty,commitment and ethical behavior, thisrepresents an area of research that could haveboth theoretical and practical implications.

Prior research has shown thatorganizational commitment is greater foremployees whose leaders encourage theirparticipation in decision-making (e.g., Jermier &Berkes, 1979; Rhodes & Steers, 1981), who treatthem with consideration (e.g., Bycio, Hackett, &Allen, 1995; DeCotiis & Summers, 1987),fairness (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990), and aresupportive of them (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990;Mottaz, 1988; Withey, 1988). We would expectthat leaders who exhibit ethical behaviors wouldbe more likely to consider the individual needsand rights of employees and treat them fairly,which are core characteristics oftransformational leadership behavior. Turner,Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, and Milner (2002)indicated that transformational leadership issignificantly associated with moral reasoning.Leaders viewed by followers as moretransformational are more likely to have a higherlevel of moral reasoning. Mize (2000) suggestedthat there is a positive relationship betweenethical behavior and employees level ofcommitment. Thus, we propose that:

Proposition 1: Ethical leadership behavioris positively associated with employeesorganizational commitment.

Ethical Leadership Behavior andEmployee Trust in Leaders

The construct of trust has receivedconsiderable attention in the organizationalsciences literature, in part due to the potentialconsequences it has for organizationaleffectiveness and performance. It is proposedthat employee trust in leaders will enhance theircompliance with organizational rules and laws,increase their zones of indifference, andfacilitate the implementation of organizationalchange (Tyler & Degoey, 1996; Van Zyl &Lazeny, 2002). Employee trust in leadersdirectly influences their contributions to theorganization in terms of performance, intent to


19

remain, and civic virtue behavior (Robinson,1996).

Jones and George (1998) argued that thereare two types of trust, conditional andunconditional trust. Conditional trust is a state oftrust in which both parties are willing to transactwith each other, as long as each behavesappropriately and uses a similar interpretivescheme to define the situation. Conditional trustusually is sufficient to facilitate a wide range ofsocial and economic exchanges (Lewicki &Bunker, 1996). Unconditional trust ischaracterized with the shared values thatstructure the social situation and become theprimary vehicle through which wholeindividuals experience trust (Jones & George,1998). Scholarly interest in trust has recognizedthe multidimensional nature of the construct.Two core aspects of trust relevant to ourdiscussion here focus on a leaders (a)behavioral consistency with his/her words and(b) benevolence toward others (Bulter, 1991).First, most perspectives on trust acknowledgethat a leaders words must accurately predicthis/her future actions in order to create anecessary, though perhaps not sufficient,condition for the development of trust. Ethicalleaders are those who have the moral courage totransform their moral intentions into behaviorsdespite pressures to do otherwise (May, Chan,Hodges, & Avolio, 2003). Such leaders believein virtues such as honesty and attempt topractice it on a daily basis in both their personaland work lives. Thus, we expect the behavioralconsistency between such leaders words andactions will be relatively high and that they willbe subsequently trusted by their associates.

Second, several scholars have focused theirdefinitions of trust on the notion that anindividual believes the person who he/she trustswill behave in a way that is beneficial to theperson (i.e., benevolence). For example,Hosmer (1995) synthesized the definitions fromprevious research and proposed that &dquo;trust is thereliance...on a voluntarily accepted duty on thepart of another...to recognize and protect therights and interests of all others engaged in ajoint endeavor or economic exchange&dquo; (p. 393).Similarly, Robinson (1996) defines trust as&dquo;ones expectations of beliefs about thelikelihood that anothers future actions will be

beneficial, or at least not detrimental, to onesinterest&dquo; (p. 576).

The ethical leader is one who does not seekto fulfill his/her own self-interest (psychologicalegoism) at the expense of others, but who looksafter the groups interest at a minimum(utilitarianism). Ideally, such a leader baseshis/her behaviors on moral principles thatrespect the rights of associates and treats themfairly. Ethical leaders involve their employees indecision-making within their firms to enhancethe procedural justice and autonomy over theirwork lives the employees experience.Furthermore, such involvement facilitates thewell-being and potential growth of theemployees.

Based on the above discussion of howethical leaders should demonstrate behavioralconsistency between words and actions as wellas benevolent behaviors, the second propositionis offered:

Proposition 2: Ethical leadership behavioris positively associated with employees trust inleaders.

Mediating Effects of PsychologicalEmpowerment

Dimensions of psychologicalempowerment. Empowerment is anotherimportant construct that can potentially lead topositive organizational and individual leveloutcomes. There are several perspectives onempowerment, such as relational, social-structural, and psychological (Liden, Sparrowe,& Wayne, 1997). Conger and Kanungo (1988)identified four broad antecedent conditions ofthe psychological state of empowerment, namelyorganizational factors, supervision, rewardsystem, and job characteristics. Supervision orthe influence of a leader was described as one ofthe ways in which followers could receiveinformation regarding their personal efficacy(Bandura, 1986) which, in turn, could serve toremove any powerlessness they may have beenexperiencing.

Thomas and Velthouse (1990), and laterSpreitzer (1995), defined empowerment as&dquo;increased intrinsic task motivation manifestedin a set of four cognitions reflecting anindividuals orientation to his or her work role:meaning, competence, self-determination and


20

impact.&dquo; Meaning refers to when employeesexperience their jobs as having value orimportance (Fulford & Enz, 1995; May, Gilson,& Harter, 2004). When the mission of theorganization or goals of the activities they areengaged in are congruent with their own valuesystem, employees feel that their work isimportant and care deeply about what they do(May et al., in press; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997;Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Tymon, 1994;Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Competence (or self-efficacy) is theknowledge that the individual has the skillnecessary to successfully perform the task in aspecific context (Bandura, 1986; Conger &Kanungo, 1988; Fulford & Enz, 1995; Thomas& Tymon, 1994). Self-determination (or choice)refers to the sense of freedom or discretion onehas to perform the work in the way that onechooses (Fulford & Enz, 1995; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990). Self-determination reflectsautonomy in making decisions about workmethods, procedures, pace and effort (Spreitzer,1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Impact refers tothe degree to which an individual feels thathis/her work makes a difference in achieving theoverall purpose of the task (Thomas & Tymon,1994; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) and theextent the individual believes that he or she caninfluence organizational outcomes in a positiveway (Spreitzer, 1995).

Ethical leadership behaviors andpsychological empowerment. As suggestedabove, ethical leaders are expected to be morelikely to consider each employeesdevelopmental needs and to place them inpositions where they can experience work rolefit and a sense of meaning in their jobs (May etal., in press). Such leaders are also likely to treattheir employees with respect, rather than treatingthem simply as a means to an end (i.e.,organizational productivity). This respect forhuman dignity should result in employeesexperiencing a strong sense of meaning at worksince their own goals are consistent with theorganizations goals.

Ethical leaders consideration of theiremployees developmental needs andbenevolence should cause them to placeemployees in situations that facilitate theirgrowth and confidence in their job-related skills.Such leaders are likely to seek out training

opportunities for their employees and to supportthem in making tough ethical decisions on thejob. Training, including experiencing successesand observing others successes, has a positiveimpact on an individuals self-efficacy(Bandura, 1986). Thus, employees of ethicalleaders should have higher feelings ofcompetence in their positions.

Because ethical leaders wish to protect thebasic human rights of dignity and autonomy,they are more likely to structure jobs so thatemployees have discretion in decision-makingover dimensions of their jobs as well as morebroad participation within decision-makingstructure of their organization. Such autonomyin the workplace fosters feelings of selfdetermination in employees and links back tothe trust formed between ethical leaders andtheir followers.

Ethical leaders are more likely to provideopportunities to understand the impact that anemployee has in his/her position and in theorganization overall, such as participation indecision making and work design. Such leadersencourage the full engagement of the self atwork (May et al., 2004) because this helps liftthe human spirit to realize a persons dreams inthe workplace and make contributions that onealone could not make. In sum, ethical leadershipbehaviors that protect individual employee rights(particularly the most basic human rights ofrespect, dignity, and autonomy) are likely toresult in employees have greater feelings ofempowerment.

Psychological empowerment andorganizational commitment. Prior researchindicates that employees who feel moreempowered are more likely to reciprocate bybeing more committed to their organizations(Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990;Kraimer, Seibert & Liden, 1999; Sims &Kroeck, 1994). By definition, empoweredemployees are more likely to see themselves ascompetent and able to influence their job andorganizations in a meaningful way. Because ofthese psychological states, they are also morelikely to engage in extra-role efforts, actindependently, and have a high commitment tothe organization (Spreitzer, 1995). Indeed,Thomas and Velthouse (1990) maintained thatempowered employees have improvedconcentration, initiative, resiliency, and


21

subsequent commitment to the organization.Furthermore, Kanter (1983) found thatmeaningfulness results in higher levels ofcommitment to the organization and a greaterconcentration of energy. Wiley (1999) similarlyreported that psychological empowermentoverall had a positive relationship withemployee levels of organizational commitment.In sum, this research suggests that ethicalleaders who empower their employees willsubsequently see greater reciprocal commitmentto the organization. Based on this discussion,our third proposition is offered:

Proposition 3: ~ Employees psychologicalempowerment mediates the relationship betweenethical leader behavior and employeesorganizational commitment.

Psychological empowerment and trust.Employees who feel empowered at work aremore likely to have greater levels of trust in theirleaders. For example, those who find meaningin their work are more likely to immersethemselves totally in their roles (May et al.,2004) and place themselves in a morevulnerable, trusting position as they expose theirtrue selves at work. Individuals who feel morecompetent in their ability to handle their workroles are also more likely to take risks andsimilarly place themselves in a more open andvulnerable position. The feelings of self-determination associated with the sharing anddelegation of control by leaders should bereciprocally related to the development ofemployee trust in such leaders (Whitener, Brodt,Korgaard, & Wemer, 1998).

Ultimately, those employees who believethey can have an impact on the outcomes of theirjobs and organization may attribute theresponsibility for the design of their workenvironment to their leader and consequentlyextend more trust to them. These employeesmay believe that such work environmentsdemonstrate concern on the part of the leader fortheir well-being, which would boost their levelof trust in their leader (Whitener et al., 1998).Based on this discussion, we propose our fourthproposition:

Proposition 4: Employees psychologicalempowerment mediates the relationship betweenethical leader behavior and employees trust inleaders.

Moderating Role of Authenticity ofEthical Leader Behavior

Recently, Harter (2002) definedauthenticity as being true to oneself. Anauthentic person is genuine and does not feignqualities or beliefs that he/she does not actuallypossess (e.g., piety or moral superiority).Similarly, Taylor (1991) maintained thatauthenticity is about discovering and expressingoneself, being true to oneself and finding thedesign of ones own life. Stated another way,authenticity is simply being loyal to oneself(Avolio, Gardner, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa,2004).

Simons (1999) suggests there is often amismatch between the values a leader mayespouse and the actual values represented byhis/her behavior. To be authentic, leaders needto ensure their actions are consistent with boththeir rhetoric and intentions.

The focus here is on the employeesperceptions of the authenticity of a leadersethical behavior. Authentic ethical behaviorrepresents behavior which is consistent with theleaders values and moral intentions and doesnot seek to hide that intention, but rather istransparent with the moral evaluations that leadup to the behavior (May et al., 2003). A criticalquestion to be address is how the authenticity ofa leaders ethical behavior may affect anemployees level of trust and commitment.

First, Lewicki and Bunker (1996) proposeda sequential development model for trust inwork relationships. They argued that trustmoves from a more calculating form to a moreintimate, empathic, and exclusive form, or fromconditional trust to unconditional trust in Jonesand Georges (1998) terms. Under thisframework, people who are perceived as notdoing what they say might have substantialdifficulties in establishing any trust at all. Thus,the congruence between word and actions is anecessary pre-condition for trust to beestablished, particularly if ethical behavior ispromised but not delivered. When inconsistencybetween words and actions occur, employeesresponses can range from disappointment toanger to destruction and theft.

Second, leaders can also exhibit ethicalbehaviors in organizations such as setting up


22

empowering, well-designed jobs for theiremployees, yet they may not necessarily haverespect for the dignity and autonomy of theindividuals in mind when they do so.Alternatively, they may be self-interested egoistswho believe that such arrangements will raiseworker productivity, higher profits, and biggeryear-end bonuses. While employees trust insuch a leader may be higher than for the leaderwho displays no ethical behavior, theemployees response will be much lessenthusiastic in terms of trust and commitmentthan for the leader who displays consistencybetween moral intentions and behaviors.

Third, without a well-developed sense ofauthenticity leaders are unable to earn thecredibility they need to motivate people tofollow them toward their dreams, missions,purposes, and goals, even if they display ethicalleadership behaviors (Morrison, 2001).Employees want to be treated authentically aswell as fairly and with respect. When suchethical behavior is aligned with authentic moralintentions, employees will respond in anoverwhelmingly positive manner (Lucas, 2000).Such authentic leaders engage in authentic moralbehaviors (May et al., 2003) that are consistentwith their transparent moral evaluations.Employees are able to trust and commit to suchleaders because they can rely on them to do whatthey say they will do and believe them to beindividuals with high moral development. Suchauthentic ethical leaders inspire employees tofeel psychologically safe and be authentic

themselves at work (Kahn, 1990; May et al.,2004). Such leaders display undistortedcommunication of the moral intentions whichengenders trust among associates (Mishra,1996). Authentic ethical leaders display thehighest levels of integrity, which serves as thestrongest determinant of trust among itsantecedents (Butler, 1991 ).

Thus, based on the above discussion, webelieve that employees will respond mostpositively to a leaders ethical behavior whenthat behavior is perceived as genuine orauthentic. However, when the moral intentionbehind a leaders ethical behavior becomessuspicious, the strength of the relationshipbetween such behaviors and employeesresponses should weaken.

Proposition 5a: ~ Employeesperception ofthe authenticity of a leaders ethical behaviormoderates the relationship between ethicalleader behavior and employees trust.Compared with inauthentic ethical behaviors,authentic ethical behavior by leaders will have astronger positive effect on employees trust intheir leader.

Proposition 5b: Employeesperception ofthe authenticity of a leaders ethical behaviormoderates the relationship between ethicalleader behavior and employees organizationalcommitment. Compared with inauthenticethical behaviors, authentic ethical leaderbehavior has a stronger positive effect onemployees organizational commitment.

Theoretical Model of Authentic Ethical Leadership Behavior


23

Conclusion

In this paper, we advanced a theoreticalmodel that attempts to explain how ethicalleader behavior influences employeesorganizational commitment and trust viapsychological empowerment. We proposed thatemployees psychological empowerment (i.e.,meaning, self-determination, competence, andimpact) mediated the relationship betweenethical leader behavior and employeeorganizational commitment and trust. We alsoproposed that employees perception of theauthenticity of a leaders ethical behavior (i.e.,the consistency between leaders moralintentions and their behaviors) should moderatethe linkages between ethical leadership behaviorand individuals organizational commitment andtrust in their leaders.

One of the important theoreticalimplications of this model is the discussion ofthe authenticity of ethical leadership behavior asa variable that moderates the impact of leadersethical behaviors on individual outcomes such astrust and commitment. Prior research focusedprimarily on the consistency between leaderswords and actions, while the proposedframework expanded the construct ofauthenticity to include the consistency betweenleaders moral intentions and their ultimateactions. This paper hopefully contributes to theongoing discussion of what constitutes authenticleadership and its development (Avolio et al.,2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; May et al.,2003).

Future research directions

It should be noted, nonetheless, that ourmodel is potentially limited by other factors wehave not discussed here. For example, personalattributes (e.g., ethnic), education andemployment background (e.g., type ofeducation, employment and years ofemployment), personality (big five personalitydimensions), values, and referent groups (e.g.,peer group influence) are all factors that need tobe considered when examining the impact ofethical leadership behavior on organizationalcommitment and trust. Ford and Richardson(1994) and Loe, Ferrell, and Mansfield (2001)

provided comprehensive reviews of the businessethics literature that may be helpful foradvancing future theory building and researchon authentic moral leadership. Future studiesmay wish to examine the impact of some ofthese factors on the relationship between ethicalleadership behavior and employeesorganizational commitment and trust in theirleader.

While we have focused on the impact ofethical leadership on individual outcomes (i.e.,psychological empowerment, organizationalcommitment, and trust), future research mayalso want to investigate the interaction betweenleaders ethical behavior and authenticity withrespect to group or organizational leveloutcomes (e.g., financial performance - sales,profitability, etc.) or firm reputation.

Future research may also wish to explorewhether authentic leadership is more likely toemerge in privately owned firms vs. publicfirms, because leaders in public companies areunder tremendous pressure to maximize profitsfor their shareholders. Are the consequences ofinauthentic ethical behavior as great inorganizational contexts where the pressures toproduce short-term profitable results aresignificant? All these questions deserve futuretheoretical inquiry and empirical research.

Practical implications

We believe the proposed model may help todetermine whether ethical behavior inorganizations motivates and empowersemployees. To be authentic ethical leaders,leaders must transcend their self-interest andfocus on what is good for their group ororganization. Yet, authentic ethical leaders mustultimately find and behave consistently withtheir moral principles that respect the rights oftheir employees and stakeholders. Such leadersvalue each employee and respect their right to betreated with dignity rather than just as a meansto an organizational end. Such leaders involveemployees in organizational decision-making tocelebrate their right to autonomy. The authenticethical leader in any organization listens tostakeholders and is truthful and transparent withthem with regard to their moral evaluations. Webelieve that such a leader will succeed and gainthe respect of everyone, while growing such


24

employees into more effective followers andpotentially leaders providing a more solid basisfor sustainable, veritable organizationalperformance.

References

Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurementand antecedents of affective, continuance andnormative commitment to the organization.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 1-18.

Aronson, E. 2001. Integrating leadership styles andethical perspectives. Canadian Journal ofAdministrative Sciences, 18: 244-256.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W., Luthans, F., May, D.R., &Walumbwa, F. 2004a. Authentic leadership: Atheoretical framework predicting veritablesustained performance. Under Review.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought andaction: A social cognitive theory. NJ: PrenticeHall.

Butcher, W. C. 1997. Ethical leadership. ExecutiveExcellence, 14: 5-6.

Butler, J.K. Jr. 1991. Toward understanding andmeasuring conditions of trust: evolution ofconditions of trust inventory. Journal ofManagement, 17: 643-63.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D. & Allen, J. S. 1995. Furtherassessments of Basss (1985) conceptualizationof transformational and transactional leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 468-478.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. Theempowerment process: Integrating theory andpractice. Academy of Management Review, 13:471-482.

Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformationalleadership in organizations: An insidersperspective on these developing streams ofresearch. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 145-179.

Dailey, R, C., & Kirk, D. J. 1992. Distributive andprocedural justice as antecedents of jobsatisfaction and intent to turnover. HumanRelations, 45: 305-317.

DeCotiis, T. A. & Summers, T. P. 1987. A pathanalysis of a model of the antecedents andconsequences of organizational commitment.Human Relations, 40: 445-470.

Eby, L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C., & Lance,C. E. 1999. Motivational bases of affectivecommitment: A partial test of an integrativetheoretical model. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 72: 463-483.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V.1990. Perceived organizational support andemployee diligence, commitment, andinnovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75:51-59.

Ford, C. R., & Richardson, W. D. 1994. Ethicaldecision making: a review of the empiricalliterature. Journal of Ethics, 13: 205-221.

Frankena, W.K. 1973. Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall Inc.

Fulford, M. D. & Enz, C. A. 1995. The impact ofempowerment on service employees. Journal ofManagerial Issues, 7: 161-175.

Giulla, J. B. 1995. Leadership ethics: Mapping theterritory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5: 5-28.

Harter, S. 2002. Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of PositivePsychology, (pp. 382-394). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Helms, M.M., & Hutchins, B.A. 1992. Poor qualityproducts: Is their production unethical?Management Decision, 30: 35-46.

Holmes, S.A., Langford, M., Welch, O.J., & Welch,S.M. 2002. Associations between internalcontrols and organization citizenship behavior.Journal of Managerial Issues, xiv: 85-99.

Honeyucutt, E., Glassman, M., Zugelder, M., &Karande, K.2001. Determinants of ethicalBehavior: A study of auto sale-people. Journalof Business Ethics, 32: 69-79.

Hosmer, L.T. 1995. Trust the connecting linkbetween organizational theory and philosophicethics. Academy of Management Review, 20:379-403.

Hunt, S.D., & Vitell, S. 1986. A general theory ofmarketing ethics. Journal of micromarketing,6: 5-16.

Jermier, J. M. & Berkes, L. J. 1979. Leader behaviorin a police command bureaucracy: A closer lookat the quasi-military model. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 24: 1-23.

Jones, G. R. & George, J. M. (1998). The experienceand evolution of trust:Implications forcooperation and teamwork. Academy ofManagement Review, 23: 531-546.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions ofpersonal engagement and disengagement atwork. Academy of Management Journal, 33:692-724.

Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C. &Goodman, E. A. 1999. Antecedents andoutcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidencefrom the health care industry. Group andOrganization Management, 24: 71-91.

Koh, H. C., & Boo, E. H.Y. 2001. The link betweenorganizational ethics and job satisfaction: Astudy of managers in Singapore. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 29: 309-324.


25

Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. 1999.Psychological empowerment as a multi-dimensional construct: A construct validity test.Educational and Psychological Measurement,59: 127-142.

Lewicki, R.J., & Bunker, B.B. 1996. Developing andmaintaining trust in work relationships, inKramer, R. and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust inorganizations: Frontiers of theory andresearch (pp.114-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. 1997.Leader-member exchange theory: The past andpotential for the future. Research in Personneland Human Resource Management, 15: 47-119.

Lind, E. A.1992. The fairness heuristic: rationalityand "relationality" in procedural evaluations.Paper presented at the 4th InternationalConference of the Society for the Advancementof Socioeconomics, Irvine, CA.

Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & De VeraPark, M. V. 1993. Individual and corporatedispute resolution: using procedural fairness asa decision heuristic. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 38: 224-248.

Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L.& Mansfield, P. 2000. Areview of empirical studies assessing ethicaldecision-making in business. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 25: 185-204.

Lucas, N. J. 2000. Lives of integrity: factors thatinfluence moral transforming leaders.Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:Humanities & Social Sciences, 60: 3289.

Luthans, F. & Avolio, B. J. 2003. Authenticleadership: A positive development approach,"to appear in K.S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizationalscholarship (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler)

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1990. A review andmeta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, andconsequences of organizational commitment.Psychological Bulletin, 108: 171-194.

May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio,B. J. 2003. Developing the moral component ofauthentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics,32: 247-260.

May, D. R., Gilson, R.L., & Harter, L. 2004. Thepsychological conditions of meaningfulness,safety, and the engagement of human spirit atwork. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 77, 11-37.

Meyer, J. & Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in theworkplace: Theory, research and application.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mishra, A.K. 1996. Organizational responses tocrisis: the centrality of trust, in Kramer, R. andTyler, T. (Eds). Trust in organizations:Frontiers of theory and research. SagePublications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 261-87.

Mize, K. J., Stanforth, N., & Johnson, C. 2000.Perceptions of retail supervisors ethicalbehavior and front-line managersorganizational commitment. Clothing andTextiles Research Journal, 18: 100-110.

Morrison, A. 2001. Integrity and global Leadership.Journal of Business Ethics, 31: 65-76.

Mottaz, C. J. 1988. Determinants of organizationalcommitment. Human Relations, 41: 467-482.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. 1982.Employee-organization linkages. New York:Academic Press.

Petrick, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. 2001. The challenge ofleadership accountability for integrity capacityas a strategic asset. Journal of Business Ethics,34: 331-343.

Potterfield, T. A. 1999. The business of employeeempowerment. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Quinn, R. E. & Spreitzer, G. M. 1997. The road toempowerment: seven questions every leadershould consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26:37-49.

Quinton, A. 1989. Utilitarian ethics. London:Duckworth.

Rallapalli, K.C., Vitell, S.J., & Barnes, J.H. 1998.The influence of norms on ethical judgmentsand intentions: An empirical study of marketingprofessionals. Journal of Business research, 43:157-168.

Rhodes, S. R. & Steers, R. M. 1981. Conventional vs.worker-owned organizations. Human Relations,12: 1013-1035.

Robinson, S.L. 1996. Trust and breach of thepsychological contract. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 41: 574-99.

Simons, T. L. 1999. Behavioral integrity as a criticalingredient for transformational leadership.Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, 12: 89-104.

Sims, R. L., & Kroeck, K. G. 1994. The influence ofethical fit on employee satisfaction,commitment and turnover. Journal of BusinessEthics, 13: 939-948.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowermentin the workplace: Dimensions, measurementand validation. Academy of ManagementJournal, 38: 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structuralcharacteristics of psychological empowerment.Academy of Management Journal, 39: 483 504.


26

Spreitzer, G. M., Janasz. S. C. & Quinn, R. E. 1999.Empowered to lead: The role of psychologicalempowerment in leadership. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 20: 511-526.

Tansky, J. W., Gallagher, D. G., & Wetzel , K. W:1997. The effect of demographics, work status,and relative equity on organizationalcommitment: looking among part-time workers.Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,14: 315-326.

Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Thomas, K. W. & Tymon, W. G. Jr. 1994. Doesempowerment always work: Understanding therole of intrinsic motivation and personalinterpretation. Journal of Management Systems,6: 1-13.

Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitiveelements of empowerment: An "interpretive"model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy ofManagement Review, 15: 666-681.

Trevino, L.K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L.P. 2003. Aqualitative investigation of perceived executiveethical leadership: perceptions from inside andoutside the executive suite. Human Relations,56: 5-37.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., &Milner, C. (2002). Transformaional leadershipand moral reasoning. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87: 304-311.

Tyler, T.R., & Degoey, P. 1996. Trust inorganizational authorities: the influence ofmotive attributions on willingness to acceptdecisions, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R.(Eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers oftheory and research: 331-56. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Van Zyl, E., & Lazeny, K. 2002. The relationbetween ethical behavior and work stressamongst a group of managers working inaffirmative action positions. Journal of BusinessEthics, 40: 111-119.

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korgaard, M. A., &Werner, J. M. 1998. Managers as initiators oftrust: an exchange relationship framework forunderstanding managerial trustworthy behavior.Academy of Management Review, 23: 513-530.

Wiley, D. M. 1999. Impact of locus of control andempowerment on organizational commitment.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United StatesInternational University, US.

Withey, M. 1988. Antecedents of value based andeconomic organizational commitment.Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of theAdministrative Sciences Association of Canada-Organizational Behavior Division, 9: 124-133.


reserch paper

Documents