Skip to main content
Log in

The “Right” and the “Good” in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors’ Performance and Promotability Evaluations

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

All ethical doctrines worth our attention take consequences into account in judging rightness. One which did not would simply be irrational, crazy.

Rawls (1971, p. 30).

Abstract

Substantial research demonstrates that ethical leaders improve a broad range of outcomes for their employees, but considerably less attention has been devoted to the performance and success of the leaders themselves. The present study explores the extent to which being ethical relates to leaders’ performance and promotability. We address this question by examining ethical leadership from the two ethical perspectives most common in Western traditions—i.e., the “right” and the “good”—and whether one might be more closely associated than the other with performance and promotability evaluations. Results from 117 employee-supervisor-manager triads show that supervisors with a deontological outlook are more likely to be seen as ethical leaders (given current conceptualizations of the construct) and that utilitarian leaders are more likely to earn higher performance evaluations (above these current conceptions). We discuss the implications of these findings for research on ethical leadership.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Z-scores were computed according to Clogg et al.’s method from the following statistics: In predicting job performance, the unstandardized regression coefficient for subordinate ratings of ethical leadership was .11 with a standard error of .09; the coefficient for manager ratings was .42 with a standard error of .10. For promotability, the coefficients for subordinate and manager ratings of ethical leadership were .06 (SE = .10) and .42 (SE = .11), respectively.

References

  • Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership development. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6(1), 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audi, R. (2009). The good in the right: A theory of intuition and intrinsic value. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Axinn, C. N., Blair, M. E., Heorhiadi, A., & Thach, S. V. (2004). Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (1993). Morality and rational choice (Vol. 18). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, R. (1979). A theory of the right and the good. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, J., & Price, B. (1977). Regression analysis by example. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 917–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. B., & Hannum, K. (2006). Research update: 360-degree performance assessment. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(2), 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 993–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., & Dang, C. (2015). Moralized leadership: The construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions. Academy of Management Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0358.

  • Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical decision-making in the U.S. metal-finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 642–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and processes (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (pp. 3–31). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy—An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 166–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, G. F. (2001a). What is deontology? Part 1, orthodox views. Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, G. F. (2001b). What is deontology? Part two, reasons to act. Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(2), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, K., Vance, C., & Paik, Y. (2008). Linking linear/nonlinear thinking style balance and managerial ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). An examination of temporal variables and relationship quality on promotability ratings. Group and Organization Management, 31(6), 677–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauenstein, N. M. A., & Foti, R. J. (1989). From laboratory to practice: Neglected issues in implementing frame-of-reference rater training. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1959). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premeaux, S. R. (2004). The current link between management behavior and ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(3), 269–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. (1993). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(5), 349–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, W. D. (2002). The right and the good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010). Do ethical leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 215–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martinez, R. (2011). Improving the “leader-follower” relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle-down effect on follower job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail: Perspectives across time and cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 62–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions of work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. S., Sin, H., & Colon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 358–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chaim Letwin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Letwin, C., Wo, D., Folger, R. et al. The “Right” and the “Good” in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors’ Performance and Promotability Evaluations. J Bus Ethics 137, 743–755 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2747-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2747-5

Keywords

Navigation