Abstract
Ethical leadership (EL) seems to be effective in reducing workplace deviance, questions remain as to whether its benefits are consistent across all situations. Specifically, whether its effectiveness remained in an already ethical environment. In this investigation, we explore two important boundary conditions of ethical leadership that are themselves related to ethicality. We first explore how employees’ moral awareness (MA) may lessen the need for ethical leadership. Drawing on substitutes for leadership theory, we suggest that when individuals already possess a heightened level of moral awareness, ethical leadership’s role in reducing deviant actions may be reduced. We also contended that Employees’ Exchange Ideology - the strength of an employee’s belief that the work effort should depend on treatment by the organization- also reduces EL effectiveness. This norm of reciprocity may not be ethical, as the leader’s positive or negative efforts towards employees may divert them from doing what is morally right to reciprocate. However, not all individuals value reciprocity to the same degree, hence higher Employees’ Exchange Ideology (EEI) may be another boundary condition of EL effectiveness. We conceptualize this framework by modifying Gok et. al. (2017) model to add Employees’ Exchange Ideology as a moderating factor along with Moral Awareness. Workplace Deviance was measured by organizational directed deviance (OD) and supervisor directed deviance (SD). Empirical validity was established by conducting a survey using a close-ended questionnaire. Data was collected from 310 employees working in different organizations in Pakistan and was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and structured equation modeling. Results indicated a significant negative complementarity of EEI, in the effect of EL on both dimensions of workplace deviance. This suggested, higher EEI seems to limit the effect of EL on organizational and supervisor-directed deviance. However, the moderating effect of MA was not substantiated for Pakistan. EEI also seems to have a positive effect on both OD and SD, while, SD seems to have a positive effect on OD. Interestingly, EL seems to be causing rather than reducing both OD and SD in the Pakistani environment.
Highlights
1.1 Background to the StudyLately, ethical leadership has gotten a ―hot issue‖ in the well-known press, powered in huge part by the significant number of moral scandals that have adversely affected the global economy since 2000
Antecedents relating to workplace deviance and ethical leadership have not been consistent (Detert et al, 2009); the results show that the effects of ethical leadership on employees‘ behavior depend on the context (Avey et al, 2011; Yukl, 2010)
The study extends the complementary role of moral awareness and exchange ideology to moderate or limit the impact of ethical leadership based on different situations
Summary
1.1 Background to the StudyLately, ethical leadership (cf. Brown et al, 2005; Brown & Trevino, 2006) has gotten a ―hot issue‖ in the well-known press, powered in huge part by the significant number of moral scandals that have adversely affected the global economy since 2000. Since the beginning of the ethical behavior literature, when most studies paid attention to recognizing the drivers of assertive aspects of employee conduct (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and philanthropic conduct), researchers have widened and extended their concentration to incorporate the ―clouded side‖ of employee conduct r (e.g., employee aberrance and counterproductive work behaviors or CWBs). This emerging shift has been inspired, partially, by an identification of the critical costs unethical conduct imposes to industry, including shrinkage because of employee theft, the diminished output from insulting treatment and negative exposure and its destructing effects upon influential partners (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Tepper et al, 2008; van Gils et al, 2015). Since some research showed that ethical leadership is dealt with high OCB and low deviance (e.g., Mayer et al, 2009), some explored powerless and insignificant (e.g., Detert et al, 2007; Liu et al, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
