Week 4 – Debate an Ethical Issue

Part 1:

Select a business article (within the last 3-5 years) relevant to an ethics violation. The business article should not be more that 2-3 pages. Based on the information in the article, debate the outcome by presenting either a pro argument, if you agree with the outcome or a con article if you do not. Now, share the article with at least one of your workplace peers to get their opinion. Do they agree with you? If not, why? Write a one-two page opinion that briefly describes the situation, the ethical violation, and consequences along with including both your argument and that of your peer(s). Support your paper using at least three scholarly resources.

Length: 1-2 pages

Part 2:

A number of researchers have identified the top ethical issues in our current workplace as the use of abusive behaviors including harassment and bullying; employee theft; and violating company Internet policies.

For this assignment, interview a manager at your current or former workplace in an area who is responsible for and have handling one of the ethical issues listed above. Then write a paper that is 3-4 pages summarizing the interview. Use the following process:

1. Gather the facts

2. Define the ethical issue

3. Identify affected party(ies)

4. Determine possible consequences

5. Discuss the manager’s and/or organization’s obligation

6. Finally, include your reflections on the interview.

Include information from at least three resources and submit the interview notes/transcript that you created during the interview

Length: 3-4 pages, not including title and reference pages

Week 4: Mini Lecture

Ethics in Business

Managers often find themselves in situations making decisions regarding what is right or wrong for the organization and the stakeholders. Although there are many good arguments and incentives for doing the right thing, some businesses and people at all levels of organizations still act unethically. Managers must know how to properly deal with situations regarding ethics and how to avoid the consequences of poor decision-making to ensure alignment with ethical behavior.

In 2014, Gino et al. (2014) reported that a recent survey revealed that nearly three-quarter of employees who responded said that they had observed unethical or illegal behavior by coworkers in the past year. While unethical business behaviors generally end up in the news, companies are still greatly concerned with the unethical behavior of employees for many reasons. Employee unethical behaviors leads to decreases in work performance, organizational financial losses, reputation and brand damage, safety concerns, and a loss of customers and other stakeholders.

Needless to say, managers are held to a higher standard of ethical behavior because they make key decisions that affect the company, its stakeholders and the society as a whole. Ethical managers are obligated to set an example for others by not succumbing to unsound ethical practices and making the best decision when there is an ethical dilemma. Even when there is pressure to compromise values, managers must keep the promise of and commitment to ethics for their team, customers, and shareholders.

Because of the possible impacts of ethical dilemmas, they are more than just “sticky” situations. Managers must make decisions while being sensitive to the organization’s ethical markers. Some factors that managers must consider in making decisions or determining any consequences when faced with an ethical dilemma include if there is a legal implication, conflicting interests, harm to one or more parties while benefitting others and the impact on stakeholders. Often the best solution to an ethical problem is one that will uphold the most important values to the greatest extent avoiding the violation of as many values as possible.

·
Week 4 – Assignment 1: Debate an Ethical Issue

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Length: 1-2 pages

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.

Week 4 – Assignment 2: Conduct an Ethical Dilemma Interview

Bottom of Form

For this assignment, interview a manager at your current or former workplace in an area who is responsible for and have handling one of the ethical issues listed above. Then write a paper that is 3-4 pages summarizing the interview. Use the following process:

1. Gather the facts

2. Define the ethical issue

3. Identify affected party(ies)

4. Determine possible consequences

5. Discuss the manager’s and/or organization’s obligation

6. Finally, include your reflections on the interview.

Include information from at least three resources and submit the interview notes/transcript that you created during the interview

Length: 3-4 pages, not including title and reference pages

MBA-5110: Week 4 Grading Rubrics

Week 4 – Assignment 1: Debate an Ethical Issue

Criteria

Content (2 Points)

Points

Assignment includes a brief description of the situation, the ethical violation, and consequences along with reasoning from both your argument and that of your peer(s).

Organization (1 Point)

Organized and presented in a clear manner. Included a minimum of three (3) scholarly references, with appropriate APA formatting applied to citations and paraphrasing; 1-2 pages in length.

Total

Week 4 – Assignment 2: Conduct an Ethical Dilemma Interview

Criteria

Content (4 Points)

Points

Assignment states an analysis of the interview with a manager on handling one of the ethical issues: harassment and bullying; employee theft; or violating company Internet policies using the assignment process.

The assignment process is applied:
·  Gather the facts
·  Define the ethical issue
·  Identify affected party(ies)
·  Determine possible consequences
·  Discuss the manager’s and/or organization’s obligation
·  Finally, include your reflections on the interview.

Organization (1 Point)

Organized and presented in a clear manner. Included a minimum of three (3) scholarly references, with appropriate APA formatting applied to citations and paraphrasing; 3-4 pages in length.

Total

ETHICS

Why Ethical People Make
Unethical Choices
by Ron Carucci

DECEMBER 16, 2016

Most companies have ethics and compliance policies that get reviewed and signed annually by all

employees. “Employees are charged with conducting their business affairs in accordance with the

highest ethical standards,” reads one such example. “Moral as well as legal obligations will be

fulfilled in a manner which will reflect pride on the Company’s name.” Of course, that policy comes

directly from Enron. Clearly it takes more than a compliance policy or Values Statement to sustain a

truly ethical workplace.

https://hbr.org/topic/ethics

https://hbr.org/search?term=ron+carucci

http://www.navalent.com/resources/blog/values-dont-fit

https://hbr.org/

YOU AND YOUR TEAM SERIES

Creating an Ethical Workplace

When You Feel Pressured to Do the Wrong
Thing at Work
by Joseph L. Badaracco

Keep a List of Unethical Things You’ll Never Do
by Mark Chussil

When Tough Performance Goals Lead to
Cheating
by Colm Healy and Karen Niven

Corporate ethical failures have become painfully common, and they aren’t cheap. In the last

decade, billions of dollars have been paid in fines by companies charged with ethical breaches. The

most recent National Business Ethics Survey indicates progress as leaders make concerted efforts to

pay holistic attention to their organization’s systems. But despite progress, 41% of workers reported

seeing ethical misconduct in the previous 12 months, and 10% felt organizational pressure to

compromise ethical standards. Wells Fargo’s recent debacle cost them $185 million in fines because

5300 employees opened up more than a million fraudulent accounts. When all is said and done,

we’ll likely learn that the choices of those employees resulted from deeply systemic issues.

Despite good intentions, organizations set

themselves up for ethical catastrophes by creating

environments in which people feel forced to make

choices they could never have imagined. Former

Federal Prosecutor Serina Vash says, “When I first

began prosecuting corruption, I expected to walk

into rooms and find the vilest people. I was

shocked to find ordinarily good people I could

well have had coffee with that morning. And they

were still good people who’d made terrible

choices.”

Here are five ways organizations needlessly

provoke good people to make unethical choices.

It is psychologically unsafe to speak up. Despite

saying things like, “I have an open door policy,”

some leadership actions may inhibit the courage

needed to raise ethical concerns. Creating a culture in which people freely speak up is vital to

ensuring people don’t collude with, or incite, misconduct. Elizabeth Morrison of New York

University, in Encouraging a Speak Up Culture, says “You have to confront the two fundamental

challenges preventing employees from speaking up. The first is the natural feeling of futility —

feeling like speaking up isn’t worth the effort or that on one wants to hear it. The second is the

natural fear that speaking up will lead to retribution or harsh reactions.” A manager’s reactions to an

https://hbr.org/2016/11/when-you-feel-pressured-to-do-the-wrong-thing-at-work

https://hbr.org/2016/05/keep-a-list-of-unethical-things-youll-never-do

https://hbr.org/2016/09/when-tough-performance-goals-lead-to-cheating

https://www.ibe.org.uk/userassets/surveys/nbes2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/business/dealbook/wells-fargo-fined-for-years-of-harm-to-customers.html

employee’s concerns sets the tone for whether or not people will raise future issues. If a leader

reacts with even the slightest bit of annoyance, they are signaling they don’t really want to hear

concerns.

There is excessive pressure to reach unrealistic performance targets. Significant research from

Harvard Business School suggests unfettered goal setting can encourage people to make

compromising choices in order to reach targets, especially if those targets seem unrealistic. Leaders

may be inviting people to cheat in two ways. They will cut corners on the way they reach a goal, or

they will lie when reporting how much of the goal they actually achieved. Says Lisa Ordonez, Vice

Dean and professor at the University of Arizona, “Goals have a strong effect of causing tunnel vision,

narrowly focusing people at the expense of seeing much else around them, including the potential

consequences of compromised choices made to reach goals.” Once people sense the risk of failure,

they go into “loss prevention” mode, fearing the loss of job, status, or at-risk incentives. The

Veterans Administration learned this lesson the hard way when trying to address the 115-day wait

time in their Phoenix hospital. They set a new goal of reducing the wait to 14 days, which resulted in

an alleged 24-day wait. But employees said they felt compelled to manipulate performance records

to give the appearance of meeting these goals. As many as 40 veterans died waiting for care at the

Phoenix center, some more than a year. Organizations must ensure people have the resources,

timelines, skill and support they need to achieve targets they are given, especially ambitious stretch

goals.

Conflicting goals provoke a sense of unfairness. And once a sense of injustice is provoked, the stage

is set for compromise. Maureen Ambrose, Mark Seabright, and Marshall Schminke’s research on

organizational injustice clearly shows a direct correlation between employees’ sense of fairness and

their conscious choice to sabotage the organization. Consider one organization I worked with whose

pursuit of growth created conflicting goals. The head of Supply Chain was given a $3.5 million

capital investment to overhaul a plant to triple its production. Some of that funding came from the

25% budget cut in marketing in the same division. At the same time, Sales divided its quota

territories to raise topline performance. The intensity of resentment in the salesforce at having to

drive revenues with smaller territories was compounded by having fewer marketing dollars to sell

more product. The conflicting goals created excess product capacity that was bottlenecked getting to

market. Two years later, the organization was indicted for channel stuffing.

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-083

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/inspector-general-veterans-wait-115-days-for-care-in-phoenix-veterans-affairs-system/article/2548993

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597802000377

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/channelstuffing.asp

Too many leaders assume that talking about ethics is something you do when there’s been a scandal,

or as part of an organization’s compliance program. Everyone gets their annual “ethics flu shot” in

the mandatory review of the compliance policy, and all is well for another year. Nick Eply, professor

at the University of Chicago, in Four Myths about Morality and Business, says, “It’s a myth to think

‘Everyone is different and everything is relative.’ You actually have to teach people the relative value

of principles relative to choices.” Leaders have to infuse everyday activities with ethical

considerations and design policies and norms that keep ethics top of mind. Jonathan Haidt,

Professor of Business Ethics at NYU and founder of says, “It’s important to talk about the positive

examples of ethical behavior, not just the bad ones. Focusing on the positive reasons you are in

business, and reinforcing the good things people do strengthens ethical choices as ‘the norm’ of the

organization.”

A positive example isn’t being set. Leaders must accept they are held to higher standards than

others. They must be extra vigilant about not just their intentions, but how it is others might

interpret their behavior. While they can’t control every possible misinterpretation, leaders who

know their people well make careful choices in how they react to stressful situations, confront poor

performance, how politic they are in the face of controversy, and how receptive they are to bad

news. Above all, even in what might be considered the smallest “white lie,” ethical leaders are

careful not to signal that hypocrisy is ok. As an example, a leader may casually review an

employee’s presentation and provide feedback like, “I think we need to take these two slides out —

that data is inflammatory and we don’t want to derail the ultimate outcome which is to convince the

budget committee to give us the resources we want.” While the leader might presume he has acted

in the best interest of the group — going to bat for resources they need- the person building the

presentation has just been told, “We can’t tell the entire truth because it could prevent us from

getting what we want.” Leaders must put themselves in the shoes of those they lead to see what

unintended messages they may be sending.

Organizations who don’t want to find themselves on a front-page scandal must scrutinize their

actions to far greater degrees than they may have realized. In an age of corporate mistrust, creating

ethical workplaces takes more than compliance programs. It requires ongoing intensified effort to

make the highest ethical standards the norm, and ruthless intolerance of anything less.

http://www.ethicalsystems.org/content/compliance-ethics-programs

https://hbr.org/search?term=ron+carucci

Ron Carucci is co-founder and managing partner at Navalent, working with CEOs and executives pursuing
transformational change for their organizations, leaders, and industries. He is the best-selling author of eight books,

including the recent Amazon #1 Rising to Power. Connect with him on Twitter at @RonCarucci; download his free e-book on

Leading Transformation.

Related Topics: RISK MANAGEMENT | LEADERSHIP

This article is about ETHICS

 FOLLOW THIS TOPIC

Comments

Leave a Comment

P O S T

REPLY 0  0 

13 COMMENTS

Rashmi Airan 7 months ago

“When I first began prosecuting corruption, I expected to walk into rooms and find the vilest people. I was shocked to

find ordinarily good people I could well have had coffee with that morning. And they were still good people who’d

made terrible choices.” This is something I can strongly relate to, having made poor ethical choices to work with a

shady client as an attorney. I was indicted and served a prison sentence because I did not listen to that wrenching

feeling in my gut that told me to ask more questions. It’s now my mission to fight for ethical vigilance.

https://www.rashmiairan.com/ethical-vigilance/

I firmly believe that even good people can make bad decisions. Thank you for the article, very well written.

POSTING GUIDELINES

 JOIN THE CONVERSATION

https://hbr.org/search?term=ron+carucci

Homepage

Tweets by RonCarucci

http://www.navalent.com/resources/musings/leading-transformation-organizations

https://hbr.org/topic/risk-management

https://hbr.org/topic/leadership

https://hbr.org/topic/ethics

We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must sign in or

register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and relevance.

Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators’ judgment. All postings become the property of

Harvard Business Publishing.

https://hbr.org/sign-in

https://hbr.org/register

When Does Ethical Leadership Affect
Workplace Incivility? The Moderating Role

of Follower Personality

ABSTRACT: Although prior work has shown that employees with ethical leaders
are less likely to engage in deviant or unethical behaviors, it is unknown whether all
employees respond this way or to the same extent. Drawing on social learning theory
as a conceptual framework, this study develops and tests hypotheses suggesting that
two follower characteristics—conscientiousness and core self-evaluation—moder
ate the negative relationship between ethical leadership and workplace incivility.
Data from employees of a U.S. public school district supported our predictions.
Implications and future research directions are discussed.

KEY WORDS: conscientiousness, core self-evaluation, deviance, ethical leader
ship, ethics, workplace incivility

S THE CALAMITOUS EFFECTS OF RECENT SCANDALS have unfolded
in business, government, and education, growing concerns among managers,

regulators, academics, and the public at large have centered on ethical issues in
organizational leadership. Not reserved solely for top corporate executives, increas
ing attention has been devoted to ethical leadership across organizational levels
(Schaubroeck et al., 2012; Trevino, Brown, & Hartman, 2003) and contexts (e.g.,
Resick, Martin, Keating, Dickson, Kwan, & Peng, 2011). This growing interest is
substantiated by recent research showing that the conduct of ethical leaders—i.e.,
those who demonstrate and promote normatively appropriate behavior through
personal actions and decision-making, two-way communication, and reinforce
ment (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005: 120)—can “trickle down” to affect the
decision-making and behavior of employees at lower levels of the organization (e.g.,
Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman, & Christensen, 2011). Moreover, and
particularly germane to the present study, other work suggests employees with clear
direction and reinforcement from ethical leaders are less likely to engage in unethi
cal and deviant behaviors at work (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova,
2012; Mayer, Kuenzi, & Greenbaum, 2010; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes,

Shannon G. Taylor
U niversity o f C entral Florida

Marshall W. Pattie
Jam es M adison U niversity

& Salvador, 2009).

pp. 595-616

596 B usiness E thics Quarterly

Among the types of deviant behaviors that cause harm to an organization or its
m em bers (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), workplace incivility (Andersson & Pearson,
1999; Blau & Andersson, 2005) appears to be especially worthy of attention. Indeed,
research exploring these rude and discourteous behaviors indicates that workplace
incivility has become increasingly prevalent and cuts across a variety of industries.
Incivility is believed to affect 98% of U.S. employees and to cost organizations
millions of dollars annually (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Given the important role
leaders play in shaping em ployees’ workplace attitudes and behavior, it appears
imperative that leaders demonstrate, uphold, and reinforce interpersonal and orga
nizational norms regarding appropriate workplace conduct to reduce the spread of
workplace incivility.

However, past research attempting to link leader behavior, and ethical leadership in
particular, to deviant employee behaviors has produced inconsistent results. Whereas
some studies have found a negative relationship between ethical leadership and fol
lower deviance, other work reports null relationships (cf. Detert, Trevino, Burris, &
Andiappan, 2007; M ayer et al., 2010). Intuitively, it seems reasonable to presume
that only some— but not all— subordinates would emulate behaviors displayed by a
leader, or that employees would respond to ethical leadership with varying degrees
of acceptable and unacceptable (viz., uncivil) behavior. That prior work has focused
on a group’s shared perceptions of leaders may likewise contribute to results that
diverge from expected relations between leadership and employee behavior at the
individual level. W hile informative, studies adopting a group-level perspective fail to
consider the possibility that perceptions o f leadership or the resulting behaviors may
vary substantially across followers. Nevertheless, such inconsistent findings suggest
the presence o f moderators, which identify conditions under which the link between
ethical leadership and follower incivility may be more or less likely to hold. Supporting
this idea, in a recent review Brown and Mitchell (2010) suggested potential boundary
conditions of ethical leadership on inappropriate follower behavior. Among various
possibilities, we suspect individual differences in followers’ personality are one
reason that can explain why employees might react differently to ethical leadership.

As such, the purpose of the present study is to better understand when ethical
leadership will affect follower acts of workplace incivility. Our thinking is in line
with previous research suggesting that follower personality traits can shape their
reactions to interactions with leaders (e.g., Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007) and that
certain subordinates are more or less likely to follow the behaviors of ethical leaders
(Brown & Trevino, 2006). By developing and testing hypotheses concerning the
moderating role of two salient follower personality traits (i.e., conscientiousness
and core self-evaluation, or CSE), we identify important boundary conditions that
im pact the effects of ethical leadership. In doing so, we seek to clarify previous
results concerning the relationship between ethical leadership and follower deviance.

The present study makes three contributions to the business ethics and ethical
leadership literatures. First, we link ethical leadership to workplace incivility, a
prevalent and costly form of employee deviance. W hereas prior research has shown
that followers may reduce their unethical or antisocial behaviors when working for
ethical leaders, we expand this set of behavioral outcomes to include workplace

Ethical Leadership and Follower Personality 597

incivility. This finding is important in that it provides a more fine-grained understand
ing of the connection between ethical leadership and workplace deviance. Second,
we develop and test theoretically grounded predictions concerning the moderating
role of follower personality traits. In establishing that followers’ conscientiousness
and CSE moderate their reactions to ethical leadership, we extend prior research
by delineating conditions under which ethical leadership matters to a greater or
lesser extent. Moreover, our study is one of the few to empirically demonstrate that
followers’ personality traits serve as boundary conditions on ethical leadership ef
fects. Finally, the current study broadens the scope of ethical leadership research by
investigating its impact in an academic context. Our results substantiate the general
applicability of prior findings and address calls (Schaubroeck et al., 2012) to extend
the generalizability of ethical leadership research by providing an even broader base
for comparative analysis.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Ethical Leadership and Follower Incivility
Several researchers have used social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) to ex
plain the effects of ethical leadership on workplace outcomes (cf. Brown & Mitchell,
2010). Brown and Trevino (2006) suggest social learning theory is similarly ap
plicable in understanding negative outcomes of ethical leadership. Following prior
studies examining the impact of ethical leadership on various follower misdeeds
(e.g., M ayer et al., 2009, 2010), we employ this theoretical framework to explain
why followers who work for ethical leaders should be less likely to engage in
workplace incivility.

Social learning theory holds that individuals learn from rewards and punishments
and through vicarious learning (Bandura, 1977,1986). Ethical leaders can influence
follower incivility through both mechanisms. Regarding the former, ethical leaders
use rewards and punishments to hold followers accountable to ethical standards
(Trevino et al., 2003). Consequences facilitate learning by apprising individuals of
the benefits and costs associated with various behaviors deemed appropriate and
inappropriate (Bandura, 1986; Brown et al., 2005). Thus, when followers learn that
ethical conduct is rewarded and inappropriate conduct (e.g., incivility) is punished,
they will be more likely to act accordingly (Brown et al., 2005; Trevino et al., 2003).
Conversely, when inappropriate behavior goes unpunished or the consequences of
violating the standards are unclear, followers are more likely to engage in normatively
inappropriate behaviors such as incivility (Brown & Trevino, 2006).

As for the latter mechanism, social learning theory suggests followers learn not
only from their own rewards and punishments, but also by observing those expe
rienced by others around them (Bandura, 1977, 1986). In this way, followers learn
vicariously— i.e., they learn whether certain behaviors (e.g., incivility) are appropri
ate or not by witnessing or hearing about the consequences faced by other followers
who have engaged in them (Mayer et al., 2009, 2010). It has been suggested that
vicarious learning is particularly important when learning about deviant or unethi
cal behavior (Brown & Trevino, 2006; Brown et al., 2005). Thus, when a leader

598 Business Ethics Q uarterly

actively and explicitly communicates standards of workplace conduct and uses the
organizational reward system to reinforce them, the leader’s m essage is more likely
to be salient in the work group and, thus, learned vicariously by followers (Bandura,
1986; Brown et al., 2005). Conversely, when followers witness others escape punish
ment or are otherwise “let off the hook” for misdeeds, it reinforces the notion that
inappropriate behaviors such as workplace incivility will be tolerated. Based on the
available literature and theoretical reasoning discussed above, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1. Ethical leadership will be negatively related to follower incivility.

The Moderating Role o f Personality

Despite proposing a direct (negative) association between ethical leadership and
follower incivility, we believe it is unlikely that all followers will respond to ethical
leadership by reducing their uncivil behavior to the same extent. Rather, we suggest
individual differences in follower personality will influence (i.e., moderate) their
responses to ethical leadership. Although several personality traits m ight impact
employee reactions to leader behaviors, conscientiousness and core self-evaluation
are broad traits that partly reflect feelings of efficacy, the central m echanism m oti
vating hum an behavior according to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986).
C onscientiousness reflects tendencies to plan ahead, follow through, set high
standards, and strive for excellence (Costa & M cCrae, 1992), whereas CSE refers
to fundamental self-appraisals of one’s worthiness and competence (Judge, Erez,
Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). As such, individuals higher in conscientiousness and CSE
are confident in their capabilities and persevere when faced with difficulties. Such
beliefs foster the motivation needed for “personal and social accom plishments”
(Bandura, 1989: 1177), and constructive, effective actions that facilitate interpersonal
relationships. Moreover, recent leadership research (Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa,
2012) suggests conscientiousness and CSE are particularly salient in determining
how followers interact with and respond to leaders. Given their relevance to social
learning (Bandura, 1977; Greenbaum et al., 2012), we offer theory-based predic
tions regarding the ways in which follower conscientiousness and CSE moderate
the relationship between ethical leadership and follower incivility.

Conscientiousness
Conscientious individuals are responsible, disciplined, and dutiful. They are also
known for being more reliable and sensible than their less conscientious counterparts
(McCrae & John, 1992). As Judge, Piccolo, and Kosalka (2009) observe, conscien
tious individuals “are detail-oriented, deliberate in their decision-making, and polite
in m ost interpersonal interactions” (pp. 864-65). In contrast, individuals lower in
conscientiousness tend to be careless and less likely to act in line with their conscience
(McCrae & John, 1992; Moon, 2001). As such, individuals lower in conscientiousness
are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors such as incivility (Berry, Carpenter,
& Barratt, 2012). With these characteristics in mind, we expected conscientiousness
to influence the relationship between ethical leadership and follower incivility.

Ethical Leadership and Follower Personality 599

Social learning theory supports the idea that conscientiousness could moderate the
relationship between ethical leadership and follower incivility. Because followers
higher in conscientiousness are less likely to engage in workplace incivility, one
would expect that their interactions with leaders around this kind of behavior will be
comparatively less frequent. That is, there would be less need for an ethical leader
to interact with conscientious followers because they operate out of a strong sense
of dutifulness and self-discipline (Costa & McCrae, 1992). By contrast, followers
lower in conscientiousness are more likely to commit acts of workplace incivility.
Under these conditions, one might expect ethical leaders to act in response to the
workplace incivility and to work more directly or closely with these followers.
Consistent with social learning theory, ethical leadership is likely to be particularly
relevant in deterring incivility in such instances, as ethical leaders discuss values with
employees, clarify norms regarding appropriate workplace conduct, and discipline
followers who violate these norms.

We further reasoned that conscientiousness would moderate the relationship
between ethical leadership and follower incivility because of its association with
integrity (e.g., Marcus, Hoft, & Riediger, 2006). Conscientious individuals have high
regard for moral duties and obligations (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) and are
more likely to endorse and abide by ethical principles (Horn, Nelson, & Brannick,
2004; McFerran, Aquino, & Duffy, 2010). From a social learning perspective, this
suggests they are more likely to treat people fairly and with respect on their own
volition, and thus will have less need for an ethical leader to provide this sort of
guidance. Conversely, less conscientious followers tend to lack integrity, suggesting
they may be more likely to engage in incivility and more in need of a leader who
will uphold norms regarding appropriate workplace behavior (Trevino, Hartman, &
Brown, 2000). Accordingly, we posit that when followers receive clear guidance from
ethical leaders, those lower in conscientiousness are likely to reduce the frequency
with which they engage in incivility to a greater extent than followers higher in
conscientiousness (whose incivility levels are already relatively low). Thus, based
on the theory and research discussed above, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2. Follower conscientiousness will moderate the relationship
between ethical leadership and follower incivility, such that the negative rela
tionship will be weaker when employees are high in conscientiousness.

Core Self-Evaluation
CSE (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997) is a broad personality trait comprised of four
narrower traits that reflect beliefs about one’s ability to achieve desired outcomes
(generalized self-efficacy), self-worth (self-esteem), tendency to be calm versus
anxious (emotional stability), and perceived control of life events (locus of control).
Meta-analysis has found higher CSE levels relate to improvements in motivation
and performance and reductions in deviant work behaviors (Chang, Ferris, Johnson,
Rosen, & Tan, 2012). Moreover, high-CSE individuals believe they can successfully
meet a wide variety of organizational demands, likely including those involving
moral or ethical decision-making (Bandura, 1991; Zhu, Riggio, Avolio, & Sosik,

600 Business E thics Q uarterly

2011). We therefore expected CSE to influence the extent to which ethical leader
ship is associated with workplace incivility.

Given its connection with workplace deviance, we expected CSE would likewise
moderate the relationship between ethical leadership and follower incivility. Be
cause individuals lower in CSE have a greater tendency to engage in deviant work
behaviors (Chang et al., 2012), there would be a greater need for an ethical leader
to direct or oversee this type of follower. Consistent with social learning theory,
efforts made by ethical leaders to communicate the importance of ethics and to set
and enforce behavioral standards would go a long way toward reducing incivility
among low-CSE followers (Bandura, 1986; Mayer et al., 2009, 2010). Conversely,
because individuals higher in CSE approach work with confidence and feelings of
internalized control, there is less need for an ethical leader to intervene. The effect
of ethical leadership on workplace incivility is, thus, likely to be weaker among
high-CSE followers.

Further supporting the proposed moderating effect of follower CSE is the idea
that individuals higher in CSE and its core subtraits tend to rely on their own agency,
whereas those with lower scores have less confidence in their own judgment (e.g.,
Greenbaum et al., 2012). Consistent with this logic, Hannah, Avolio, and May (2011)
state that individuals lower in moral efficacy, a component of one’s self concept, may
fail to do the right thing (e.g., act ethically) because they lack the confidence to do
so. In the same vein, other work suggests employees with lower self-efficacy and
self-esteem are more likely to look to others (e.g., leaders) for guidance, intimat
ing that ethical leadership will have a greater effect in reducing deviant behaviors
among these types of followers (Avey, Palanski, & Walumbwa, 2011; Chen, Gully,
& Eden, 2001). As CSE levels can affect the extent to which leader behavior impacts
social learning and, consequently, a variety of work behaviors more broadly (e.g.,
see Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011; Kacmar, Collins, Harris, & Judge, 2009),
we anticipated that CSE would similarly influence the relationship between ethical
leadership and workplace incivility in particular. Specifically, we expected the effect
of ethical leadership to be stronger among low-CSE followers and relatively weaker
for followers with higher CSE levels. Accordingly, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3. Follower CSE will moderate the relationship between ethical
leadership and follower incivility, such that the negative relationship will be
weaker when employees are high in CSE.

METHOD

Participants and Procedures
The sample was comprised of teachers (63%) and staff (e.g., counselors, mainte
nance, food service workers, clerical and administrative personnel, etc.) of a public
school district in the eastern United States. Studying ethical leadership in the aca
demic context is informative because leaders (i.e., principals) have a great degree
of discretion in running their respective schools, and research suggests their actions

Ethical Leadership and Follower Personality 601

can directly influence workplace incivility (Twale & DeLuca, 2008). It should also
be noted that leaders’ effects on teachers can ultimately impact student learning
outcomes and behavior (e.g., Stronge, 2007). Moreover, educational settings pos
sess features that contribute to workplace incivility in other professional contexts
(e.g., organizational pressures, technological changes, inferior leadership, norms
for mutual respect; see Caza & Cortina, 2007; Marchiondo, Marchiondo, & Lasiter,
2010; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2005).

Given the relational nature of our study constructs and their proposed inter
relationships, it is important that followers in our sample actually had some level
of interaction with their leaders. Although we did not collect any data that speaks
directly to teacher-principal interaction, we determined in pre-survey interviews
with sample members (principals, teachers, and other employees) and in discussions
with HR directors that leader-follower interaction occurs at least weekly during the
school year. Teachers and staff interact regularly with principals, whether formally
during meetings or informally during breaks, before or after school hours, or during
other school-related functions (e.g., parent-teacher conferences, school dances, etc.).
Part of the responsibility of a principal is to tour the building, observe employees,
and provide immediate feedback. More frequent interaction occurs whenever there
is a need (e.g., disruptive student, upset parent), and interaction is also higher at
the beginning and end of this period due to the work required to launch and wrap
up the school year. Thus, we have no reason to suspect that teachers interact with
principals any less frequently than do other employees.1

The school district’s human resources department provided the email addresses
of all faculty and staff. Before the survey was distributed, school administrators
(i.e., top management) sent an email to describe the study’s purpose and encour
age participation. We then sent sample members an email containing a link to our
online survey; follow-up reminder emails were sent two and four weeks later. Of
the 979 sample members contacted, 485 (49.5%) supplied usable data. Respondents
averaged 41 (SD =11.3) years of age, and a majority was female (81%) and held a
bachelor’s degree or higher (85%).

Measures
Scores for all measures were computed by averaging across items, with higher
scores indicating higher levels of the variable measured. Items for all measures
appear in the Appendix.

Ethical Leadership
We assessed ethical leadership with Brown et al.’s (2005) ten-item measure. Re
spondents indicated how likely (1 = highly unlikely, 5 = highly likely) their principal
was to engage in each leader behavior. Alpha reliability was .95.

Follower Incivility
Employees indicated the frequency (1 = never, 5 = about once a day) with which
they engaged in uncivil behavior during the past year at work with a seven-item
measure from Blau and Andersson (2005). Alpha reliability was .85.

602 Business Ethics Quarterly

Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness was gauged with a ten-item measure from the International
Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg et al., 2006). Respondents indicated how
accurately (1 = very inaccurate; 5 = very accurate) each item described them. Alpha
reliability was .70.

Core Self-Evaluation
We measured CSE with Judge et al.’s (2003) twelve-item measure. Respondents
indicated the extent of agreement (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) with
each item. Alpha reliability was .82.

Control Variables
We controlled for subordinate age, gender, and race because these characteristics
have been shown to influence employee deviance (e.g., Mawritz et al., 2012). We also
controlled for overall job satisfaction with a single item (“Overall, I am satisfied with
my job”) because of its relation with employee deviance (e.g., Dalai, 2005). Although
such job satisfaction measures are conventionally avoided, Wanous, Reichers, and
Hudy (1997: 250) maintain that “single-item measures are more robust than the scale
measures of overall job satisfaction” (see also Nagy, 2002; Scarpello & Hayton,
2001). Its correlation with other study measures was consistent with those found in
prior research (e.g., Avey, Wemsing, & Palanski, 2012; Chang et al., 2012), further
supporting the measure’s validity. We also controlled for emotional exhaustion (us
ing a five-item measure [a = .88] adapted from Witt, Andrews, & Carlson, 2004)
to rule out the possibility that employees engaged in incivility because they were
emotionally drained from their work (Blau & Andersson, 2005). Finally, because
respondents were located within a relatively small number (k = 11) of schools, we
employed the fixed effects approach to clustering (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken,
2003) by creating and including ten dummy variables in analyses to account for
potential nonindependence due to school membership. Including these dummy
variables as covariates accounted for unmeasured differences between principals
and schools by partialing out these effects from estimates of the coefficients and
standard errors in the model (see Hayes, 2013).

Data Analyses
We tested our hypotheses using moderated regression analyses with mean-centered
predictor variables. Control variables were entered in the first step, ethical leader
ship second, the moderators third, and each focal interaction term in a final step.
Because both moderator variables were included in the third step simultaneously,
the effects of each interaction can be interpreted as independent of or controlling
for the main effect of the other moderator. To illustrate the form of the interactions,
we plotted the effects at values one standard deviation above and below the mean
of each moderator variable and conducted simple slope analyses as prescribed by
Aiken and West (1991).

E t h i c a l L e a d e r s h i p a n d F o l l o w e r P e r s o n a l i t y 603

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses
Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to evalu
ate the discrim inant validity of the study variables (see Table 1). The results of a
five-variable m odel (ethical leadership, follower incivility, conscientiousness, core
self-evaluation, emotional exhaustion) revealed acceptable fit to the data and a signifi
cantly better fit (p < .05) than alternative models in which the focal study constructs were variously combined. We also assessed discrim inant validity by ensuring that the variance accounted for by each construct’s items was greater than the variance shared between that construct and any other. As seen in Table 2, results from this analysis indicated adequate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; see also Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003).

Although it has been argued that method bias cannot inflate interaction effects
(Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010), we nonetheless examined common method vari
ance issues in our data with H arm an’s single-factor test. To do so, we entered the
study variable items into an exploratory factor analysis using unrotated principle
component analysis. The emergence of a single factor or one that accounts for more
than 25% of the total item variance suggests a problem atic amount of same source
bias (Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989). The results of the analysis revealed the
presence of multiple factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and that no more than
19.75% of the total variance was explained by one factor. Given the presence of
multiple distinct factors and that one factor did not explain a majority of the total
variance, it is unlikely that same source bias is confounding our results.

Table 1: Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Model X2 Ax2 df CFI RMSEA SRMR

1. 5-factor expected model 2694 – 892 0.94 0.060 0.054

2 . 4-factor model: EL and FI combined 5307 2613* 896 0.89 0.094 0.091

3. 4-factor model: EL and CON combined 4826 2132* 896 0.90 0.089 0.091

4. 4-factor model: EL and CSE combined 5725 3031* 896 0.89 0.098 0.100

5. 4-factor model: EL and EE combined 4845 2151* 896 0.89 0.089 0.091

6. 4-factor model: FI and CON combined 4753 2059* 896 0.90 0.088 0.087

7. 4-factor model: FI and CSE combined 5728 3034* 896 0.89 0.098 0.097

8. 4-factor model: FI and EE combined 4794 2100* 896 0.89 0.088 0.086

9. 4-factor model: CON and CSE combined 4141 1447* 896 0.91 0.080 0.071

10. 4-factor model: CON and EE combined 5063 2369* 896 0.89 0.091 0.081

11. 4-factor model: CSE and EE combined 4781 2087* 896 0.90 0.088 0.073

Note: Model 1 includes ethical leadership (EL), follower incivility (FI), conscientiousness (CON), core self-
evaluation (CSE), and emotional exhaustion (EE). CFI = comparative fit index, RMSEA = root mean square error
of approximation, SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
* p < .05

604 Business Ethics Quarterly

Hypothesis Tests
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables appear
in Table 2. As expected, ethical leadership was negatively correlated (r = -.15, p
< .001) with follower incivility. Of the control variables, only job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion were associated with follower incivility. Consistent with past research (e.g., Blau & Andersson, 2005), exhausted and dissatisfied respondents were more likely to report engaging in workplace incivility (r = . 17 and -.17, respectively, p < .001) than their less exhausted, more satisfied counterparts.

Regression results are reported in Table 3. Hypothesis 1 proposed that ethical
leadership would be negatively related to follower incivility. After accounting for the
control variables (including the dummy variables for school location, none of which
had any impact on prediction) in model 1, the entry of ethical leadership in model
2 resulted in a significant main effect. As shown in the table, ethical leadership was
negatively related to follower incivility (J3 = -.12, p < .05). In subsequent models with the moderators and interaction terms entered, however, ethical leadership was not significant. These results provide some support for Hypothesis 1. Consistent with Hypothesis 2 that conscientiousness would moderate the relationship between ethical leadership and follower incivility, the results of the last step of the regression show a significant interaction effect (model 4, ft = .11, p < .05). As illustrated in Figure 1 (panel a), the negative relationship between ethical leadership and workplace incivil ity was significant for followers with lower levels of conscientiousness (simple slope = -.09, p < .05) but not for more conscientious followers (simple slope = .01, n.s.).

Hypothesis 3 posited that CSE would similarly moderate the relationship between
ethical leadership and follower incivility. Consistent with our expectations, Table 3
illustrates that ethical leadership and CSE interacted to predict follower incivility
(model 5, /? = .11, p < .05). Figure 1 (panel b) shows that the negative relationship

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Ethical leadership 4.04 0.84 (.81)

2 Follower incivility 1.34 0.44 -.15*** (.70)

3 Conscientiousness 4.01 0.47 .09 -.13** (.54)

4 CSE 3.74 0.51 2 1 *** -.23*** .28*** (.54)

5 Exhaustion 2.72 0.94 -.06 17*** -.07 -.35*** (.77)

6 Job satisfaction 3.44 1 . 0 0 _ i7*** .06 3 3 *** -.29*** –

7 Age 41.45 11.28 -.09 . 0 2 .08 . 1 0 * – ,ii* .07 –

8 Gender 0.19 0.40 . 0 0 .06 -.18*** .03 . 1 0 * . 0 2 .03 –

9 Race 0.99 0.09 .06 -.04 -.05 . 0 2 . 0 0 -.03 . 0 2 .05

Note: N = 485. Numbers in parentheses are the square root o f the average variance explained, which, to
demonstrate discriminant validity, must be larger than all correlations in the row and column in which they
appear (Fomell & Larcker, 1981). Gender was coded 0 = female, 1 = male. Race was coded 0 = Non-white,
1 = White.

p < .05; ** p < .01, *** p < .001

E t h i c a l L e a d e r s h i p a n d F o l l o w e r P e r s o n a l i t y 605

was significant for followers with lower levels of CSE (simple slope = -.08, p < .05) but not for those with higher CSE (simple slope = .01, n.s.). These results support Hypothesis 3.

Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Results

Predictor 1 2 3 4 5

Controls

Age .04 .03 .04 .04 .04

Gender .06 .06 .05 .05 .06

Race -.04 -.03 -.04 -.04 -.03

Job satisfaction -.13** -.08 -.05 -.06 -.06

Emotional exhaustion .13** 14** .09 .08 .09

School 1 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03

School 2 -.09 -.09 -.08 -.08 -.08

School 3 -.03 -.03 -.02 -.03 -.04

School 4 .03 .05 .06 .05 .05

School 5 -.06 -.07 -.06 -.06 -.06

School 6 -.05 -.05 -.03 -.03 -.03

School 7 -.06 -.07 -.05 -.05 -.06

School 8 .02 .03 .02 .03 .02

School 9 .03 .03 .02 .03 .02

School 10 .02 .01 .02 .02 .03

Main effect

Ethical leadership -.12* -.09 -.09 -.07

Moderator

Conscientiousness -.06 -.08 -.06

CSE -.15** -.14** _ 17***

Interaction

Ethical leadership x Conscientiousness , i i *

Ethical leadership x CSE .11*

Overall F 2.45 2.63 3.12 3.27 3.31

Total R2 .07** .08*** I]*** 12*** 12***

AR2 .01* .03** “.01* *.01*

Note. N = 485. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. AR2 values may not sum exactly to R2
values due to rounding.

* p < .05; ** p < .01, *** p < .001

a. AR2 in relation to Model 3.

606 B u s in e s s E t h ic s Q u a r t e r l y

DISCUSSION

The present study examined whether the negative relationship between ethical lead
ership and follower incivility was moderated by followers’ personality traits (i.e.,
conscientiousness and core self-evaluation). In line with social learning theory, as
well as previous research investigating the effects of ethical leadership (e.g., Mayer
et al., 2009, 2010), we found that individuals who work for ethical leaders are less
likely to engage in workplace incivility. Extending this line of research, we found
that two follower personality traits affect this relationship. Specifically, we showed
that the negative relationship between ethical leadership and follower incivility is

— Low CON

— — High CON

——-Low CSE

——-High CSE

(b)
Low Ethical Leadership High Ethical Leadership

Figure 1. Note: Interactions of ethical leadership and subordinate personality on follower incivility. The nega
tive relationship between ethical leadership and workplace incivility is significant for individuals with low but
not high levels of conscientiousness (CON; panel a) and core self-evaluation (CSE; panel b).

Ethical Leadership and Follower Personality 607

attenuated for followers with relatively higher levels of conscientiousness and core
self-evaluations. In doing so, we identified conscientiousness and CSE as two fol
lower personality traits that serve as important boundary conditions of the effects
of ethical leadership.

These results are consistent with our social learning framework, as both the
theory (Bandura, 1986) and related research (Twale & DeLuca, 2008) suggest that
learning processes are subject to individual differences. Yet closer inspection of
Figure 1 suggests a more complex story. The interaction plots could be interpreted
to indicate, for instance, that higher levels of conscientiousness and CSE can coun
teract low levels of ethical leadership and, alternatively, that higher levels of ethical
leadership could neutralize the effects of these traits. Whereas researchers within
the leadership domain have long observed that moderators can neutralize the ef
fects of leaders’ influence on employee behavior (e.g., Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr,
1986), this alternative perspective positions follower personality traits as predictors
of workplace incivility, and ethical leadership as a moderator of the personality—
incivility relationship.

From this vantage, developing and testing theory positioning ethical leadership
as a moderator of personality-—incivility relations would be an interesting avenue
for researchers to examine the complex and more nuanced ways in which ethical
leadership and follower personality traits interact. For example, our results show that
CSE was a stronger predictor of workplace incivility than was ethical leadership (cf.
Avey et al., 2011). As such, continued investigations into potential neutralizers of
leaders’ effects on followers (e.g., Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007) may advance research
examining the darker side of leader-follower interactions and aid in understanding
followers’ deviant behavior.

Although we found statistically significant results, the effect sizes observed in
the present study were small. Ethical leadership contributed just one percent of ad
ditional variance beyond the control variables, as did the interaction terms beyond
the main effects. However, small effects preclude neither theoretical nor practical
importance (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Culpepper, 2013). As a reference point for
comparison, the median effect size reported in Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, and Pierce’s
(2005) thirty-year review of moderating effects was .002. The small effects we ob
served should also be considered in light of the difficulty in explaining variance in
deviant work outcomes (Zhang & Shaw, 2012; see also Lee & Allen, 2002). Thus,
even so-called “weak” effects (according to Cohen’s [1988] widely-cited conven
tions) can be important if they predict costly behaviors. Given the aforementioned
costs associated with workplace incivility, we believe our findings have important
practical implications.

Practical Implications
Broadly speaking, our results underscore the importance of investing in ethics and
ethical leaders. Consistent with prior research, our findings suggest organizational
efforts aimed at increasing ethical leadership can be helpful in reducing follower
incivility. Such interventions are particularly important given that leaders’ actions

608 Business Ethics Quarterly

influence the behavior of employees at lower organizational levels (Walumbwa et al.,
2011) and that workplace incivility can likewise spread throughout an organization
(Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). As such, we offer recommendations likely
to resonate with organizational leaders and others concerned with ethical leadership
and workplace incivility.

To the extent workplace incivility is an important concern in the school workplace,
our study highlights how training efforts directed toward developing principals’
ethical leadership skills can be of value. In educational settings, like other profes
sional contexts, various organizational pressures have increased the potential for
incivility in the workplace (e.g., Pearson & Porath, 2005; Twale & DeLuca, 2008).
Nation-wide standards have been established for educational leaders to behave fairly
and ethically when interacting with others (Council of Chief State School Officers,
2008), though it remains unclear whether principals receive effective training in this
regard. Organizations could foster ethical leadership through interventions designed
to develop leaders’ moral reasoning, to promote role modeling with case studies
(especially positive ones), or to coach related leadership skills (Brown & Trevino,
2006). The implementation of such training programs for school principals and other
organizational leaders could promote positive relationships and ultimately facilitate
respectful, dignified (i.e., civil) treatment in the workplace (Pearson et al., 2000).
Our results suggest it is important that organizations invest in the ethical training
of leaders, in school settings and beyond.

Limitations and Future Research
Despite these empirical and practical implications, the present study is not without
limitations that might be examined in future research. Our study could be extended
to include a variety of different kinds of organizations. Another limitation is that
we did not control for other individual variables— namely, moral identity and moral
disengagement— that could have potentially affected followers’ workplace incivil
ity. Although we are aware of no research that has examined the effects of these
variables on incivility, their impact on unethical behavior is well noted (e.g., Detert,
Trevino, & Sweitzer, 2008). As such, future research should likewise explore their
associations with incivility and other deviant work behaviors.

Because our data were collected from a single source, it is possible that the ob
served relationships were influenced by common method variance (CMV; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). To reduce method biases, we followed Podsakoff et
al.’s (2012) recommendations to protect respondent anonymity and lessen evaluation
apprehension. We also provided empirical evidence from Harman’s single-factor test
demonstrating that same source bias did not unduly impact our findings. In addition,
Evans (1985) suggests interactions provide evidence against CMV, as it is unclear
how common source or method effects would operate differently across levels of a
moderator (see also Siemsen et al., 2010). Although recent meta-analytic evidence
suggests self-reports are a viable means of assessing employee acts of deviance
(Berry et al., 2012), future research could nonetheless collect perceptions of ethical

Ethical Leadership and Follower Personality 609

leadership or incivility from other sources (e.g., peers, coworkers) to further reduce
concerns about same-source effects.

Future studies may also wish to explore the impact that facet-level character
istics of conscientiousness or CSE have on the relationships we examined. For
instance, conscientiousness facets may moderate the ethical leadership— incivility
relationship in substantially different ways. Supporting this possibility, Griffin and
Hesketh (2005) found that conscientiousness facets related to achievement (e.g.,
competence, self-discipline, achievement striving) were positively associated with
adaptive behavior, whereas those related to dependability (e.g., order, dutifulness,
cautiousness) were not (and in some cases, negatively) associated with such behav
ior (see also Marinova, Moon, & Kamdar, 2013; Moon, 2001). Thus, as suggested
by an anonymous reviewer, some aspects of conscientiousness (e.g., dutifulness,
which reflects rule following) might actually strengthen (rather than weaken) the
effect of ethical leadership on follower incivility. We encourage future researchers
to explore these possibilities.

An additional opportunity for future research concerns whether other individual
difference variables might also impact the relationship between ethical leadership
and follower incivility. For example, a broad class of individual differences referred
to as “character strengths” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004)— such as wisdom, courage,
and temperance—have implications for individuals’ moral thoughts and actions in
a work setting (see, e.g., Comer & Vega, 2011). Whereas these characteristics have
been identified as important for leaders and their influence on follower behavior
(Riggio, Zhu, Reina, & Maroosis, 2010; Wright & Quick, 2011), subsequent research
efforts might explore the interplay of leader w d follower virtues in affecting leader-
follower relations. One especially promising characteristic is behavioral integrity
(i.e., consistency between words and actions; Simons, 2002), which has garnered
considerable attention from ethics and leadership researchers. We suggest future
endeavors consider these characteristics as additional boundary conditions on the
relationship reported here to broaden understanding of workplace incivility in con
nection with ethical leadership.

In conclusion, the current study demonstrated that while, in general, followers tend
to respond to ethical leadership by reducing the frequency with which they engage
in workplace incivility, certain types of followers are more or less likely to do so.
Specifically, we predicted and found that the negative link between ethical leader
ship and follower incivility is weaker when followers are high in conscientiousness
or core self-evaluation. Despite the potential costs to individuals and organizations
of workplace incivility, little research has attempted to understand how follower
personality influences employees’ deviant reactions to ethical leadership. As such,
the present findings inform prior research by illustrating individual differences in
conscientiousness and CSE can diminish the spread of uncivil behavior.

610 Business Ethics Quarterly

APPENDIX

ITEMS FOR ALL SURVEY MEASURES
* indicates item was reverse-scored
Ethical Leadership
My supervisor . . .

1. Listens to what employees have to say
2. Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards
3. Conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner
4. Has the best interests of employees in mind
5. Makes fair and balanced decisions
6. Can be trusted
7. Discusses business ethics or values with employees
8. Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics
9. Defines success not just by results but also the way they are obtained
10. When making decisions, asks “What is the right thing to do?”

Workplace Incivility
1. I put others down or was condescending to them.
2. I paid little attention to others’ statements or showed little interest in their

opinions.
3. I made demeaning or derogatory remarks about others.
4. I addressed others in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately.
5. I ignored or excluded others from professional camaraderie.
6. I doubted others’ judgment on a matter over which they had responsibility.
7. I made unwanted attempts to draw others into a discussion of personal

matters.
Conscientiousness

1. Iam always prepared.
2. I pay attention to details.
3. I get chores done right away.
4. I carry out my plans.
5. I make plans and stick to them.
6. I waste my time.*
7. I find it difficult to get down to work.*
8. I do just enough work to get by.*
9. I don’t see things through.*
10. I shirk my duties.*

Core Self-Evaluation
1. Iam confident I get the success I deserve in life.
2. Sometimes I feel depressed.*
3. When I try, I generally succeed.
4. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless.*
5. I complete tasks successfully.
6. Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work.*
7. Overall, I am satisfied with myself.
8. Iam filled with doubts about my competence.*
9. I determine what will happen in my life.
10. I do not feel in control of my success in my career.*
11. Iam capable of coping with most of my problems.
12. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me.*

E t h i c a l L e a d e r s h i p a n d F o l l o w e r P e r s o n a l i t y 611

NOTES

We thank Jerry Goodstein and three anonymous reviewers for then helpful comments and guidance on
previous versions o f this manuscript. In addition, we thank members of the UCF Behavioral Ethics Group
for their valuable input and Craig D. Crossley for his helpful comments on an earlier draft manuscript. This
work was partially supported by the Gilliam Center for Free Enterprise and Ethical Leadership, College of
Business, James Madison University. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to
Shannon G. Taylor, Department of Management, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 161400, Orlando,
FL 32816-1400. Email may be sent to sgtaylor@ucf.edu.

1. As requested by an anonymous reviewer, we conducted a few supplementary analyses to determine
whether participants’ job type had any impact on our results. One-way ANOVAs revealed that teachers did
not perceive their principals to be ethical leaders any more or less than did staff employees (F = .098, n.s.),
nor did they report engaging in any more or less workplace incivility than did other employees (F = .066,
n.s.). Moreover, including a dichotomous variable (1 = teacher, 0 = otherwise) in the regression equations
we estimated did not change the results of our hypothesis tests.

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. 2005. Effect size and power in assess
ing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year
review. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 90: 94-107.
http://dx.d0i.0rg/l 0.1037/0021 -9010.90.1.94

Aguinis, H., Gottffedson, R. K„ & Culpepper, S. A. 2013. Best-practice recommendations
for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal
o f Management, 39(6): 1490-1528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478188

Aiken, S. L., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac
tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in
the workplace. Academy o f Management Review, 24: 452-71.

Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. 2011. When leadership goes unnoticed:
The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical
leadership and follower behavior. Journal o f Business Ethics, 98: 573-82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-010-0610-2

Avey, J. B., Wemsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. 2012. Exploring the process of ethical lead
ership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. Jour
nal o f Business Ethics, 107: 21-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-012-1298-2

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

————— 1986. Social foundations o f thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

————— 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44:
1175-84. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.l 175

————— 1991. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines
& J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook o f moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp.
45-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

612 Business Ethics Quarterly

Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. 2012. Do other-reports of counterproduc
tive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-
analytic comparison. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 97: 613-36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026739

Blau, G., & Andersson, L. 2005. Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Jour
nal o f Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78: 595-614.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26822

Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new
avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 583-616.
http ://dx. doi. org/10.5840/beq201020439

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.
Leadership Quarterly, 17:595-616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jdeaqua.2006.10.004

Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 97: 117-34.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

Caza, B. B., & Cortina, L. M. 2007. From insult to injury: Explaining the impact of incivil
ity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29: 335-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665108

Chang, C-H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. 2012. Core self-
evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal o f Management, 38:
81-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419661

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. 2001. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4: 62-83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis fo r the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., Cohen, R, West, S. G., & Aiken, S. L. 2003. Applied multiple regression!cor
relation analysis fo r the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Comer, D. R., & Vega, G. (Eds.). 2011. Moral courage in organizations: Doing the right
thing at work. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and the NEO Five-Factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory professional manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Council of Chief State School Officers. 2008. Educational leadership policy standards:
ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Author.

Dalai, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 90:
1241-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6-1241

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. 2007. Managerial modes of
influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-
level investigation. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 92: 993-1005.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021 -9010.92.4.993

Ethical Leadership and Follower Personality 613

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical deci
sion making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal o f Applied Psychol
ogy, 93: 374-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93-2.374

Evans, M. G. 1985. A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance
in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36: 305-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0

Fomell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv
able variables and measurement error. Journal o f Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &
Gough, H. G. 2006. The International Personality Item Pool and the future of pub
lic-domain personality measures. Journal o f Research in Personality, 40: 84-96.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. 2012. Bottom-line mentality as an ante
cedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and
conscientiousness. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 97: 343-59.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025217

Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. 2005. Are conscientious workers adaptable? Australian Journal
o f Management, 30: 245-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/031289620503000204

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. 2011. Moral maturation and moral conation: A
capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy o f Manage
ment Review, 36: 663-85.

Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process anal
ysis. New York: Guilford.

Horn, J., Nelson, C. E., & Brannick, M. T. 2004. Integrity, conscientiousness, and honesty.
Psychological Reports, 95: 27-38.

Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. 1986. Moderator variables in leadership research.
Academy o f Management Review, 11: 88-102.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2003. The core self-evaluations scale:
Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56: 303-31.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.l 111/j. 1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. 2011. Implications of core self-evaluations for
a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review, 21:
331^11. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.003

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satis
faction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19:
151-88.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. 2009. The bright and dark sides of leader traits:
A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quar
terly, 20: 855-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jdeaqua.2009.09.004

Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. 2009. Core self-evaluations
and job performance: The role of perceived work environment. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 94: 1572-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017498

614 Business Ethics Quarterly

Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. 2007. The joint effects of personality and workplace social
exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 92: 1286-98.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance:
The role of affect and cognitions. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 87: 131 —42.
http ://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131

Marchiondo, K., Marchiondo, L. A., & Lasiter, S. 2010. Faculty incivility: Effects on pro
gram satisfaction of BSN students. Journal o f Nursing Education, 49: 608-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20100524-05

Marcus, B., Hoft, S., & Riediger, M. 2006. Integrity tests and the five-factor model of
personality: A review and empirical test of two alternative positions. International
Journal o f Selection and Assessment, 14: 113-20.
http://dx.doi.org/10T 11 l/j,1468-2389.2006.00338.x

Marinova, S. V., Moon, H., & Kamdar, D. 2013. Getting ahead or getting along? The two-
facet conceptualization of conscientiousness and leadership emergence. Organiza
tion Science, 24: 1257-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0781

Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. 2012.
A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65: 325-57.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.1744-6570.2012.01246.x

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. 2009. How does
ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 108: 1-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j-obhdp.2008.04.002

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. 2010. Examining the link between ethical
leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating role of ethical climate. Jour
nal o f Business Ethics, 95: 7-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-011-0794-0

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applica
tions. Journal o f Personality, 60: 175-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Duffy, M. 2010. How personality and moral identity relate to
individuals’ ethical ideology. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 35-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq20102014

Moon, H. 2001. The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in
escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 86: 533^40.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.535

Nagy, M. S. 2002. Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal
o f Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75: 77-86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317902167658

Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. 2003. Scaling procedures: Issues and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. 2000. Assessing and attacking work
place incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2): 123-37.
http://dx.doi.org/! 0.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019-X

Ethical Leadership and Follower Personality 615

__________ 2005. Workplace incivility. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproduc
tive work behavior: Investigations o f actors and targets, 177-200). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. 2005. On the nature, consequences and remedies of work
place incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy o f Management Execu
tive, 19: 7-18.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. 2004. Character strengths and virtues: A handbook
and classification. New York: Oxford.

Podsakoff, P. M„ MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in so
cial science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review o f
Psychology, 63: 539-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Porath, C., & Pearson, C. 2013. The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1-2):
114-21.

Resick, C. J., Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Dickson, M. W., Kwan, H. K., & Peng, C.
2011. What ethical leadership means to me: Asian, American, and European per
spectives. Journal o f Business Ethics, 101: 435-57.
http://dx.d0i.0rg/l 0.1007/s 10551-010-0730-8

Riggio, R. E„ Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. 2010. Virtue-based measurement of
ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 62: 235-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022286

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy o f Management Journal, 38: 555-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256693

Scarpello, V., & Hayton, J. C. 2001. Identifying the sources of nonequivalence in measures
of job satisfaction. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Equivalence in
measurement: 131-60. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Lord, R. G., Trevino,
L. K., Dimotakis, N., & Peng, A. C. 2012. Embedding ethical leadership within and
across organization levels. Academy o f Management Journal, 55: 1053-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0064

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. 2010. Common method bias in regression models
with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods,
13: 456-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241

Simons, T. 2002. Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words
and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13: 18-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.L18.543

Stronge, J. H. 2007. Qualities o f effective teachers (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Publications.

Trevino, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. 2003. A qualitative investigation of perceived
executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite.
Human Relations, 56: 5-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056001448

Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P , & Brown, M. 2000. Moral person and moral manager: How
executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Re
view, 42(4): 128^12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166057

616 B usiness Ethics Quarterly

Twale, D., & DeLuca, B. 2008. Faculty incivility: The rise o f the academic bully culture
and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M„ Wang, P., Wang, H„ Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.
2011. Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-
member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115: 204-13.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.l 1.002

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice
behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 94: 1275-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015848

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. 1997. Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? Journal o f Applied Psychology, 82: 247-52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021 -9010.82.2.247

Williams, L., Cote, J., & Buckley, M. 1989. Lack of method variance in self-reported affect
and perceptions of work: Reality or artifact? Journal o f Applied Psychology, 74:
462-68. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462

Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Carlson, D. S. 2004. When conscientiousness isn’t enough:
Emotional exhaustion and performance among call center customer service repre
sentatives. Journal o f Management, 30: 149-60.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.007

Wright, T. A., & Quick, J. C. 2011. The role of character in ethical leadership research.
Leadership Quarterly, IT. 975-78. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.015

Zhang, Y. A., & Shaw, J. D. 2012. Publishing in AMJ—part 5: Crafting the methods and
results. Academy o f Management Journal, 55: 8-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4001

Zhu, W., Riggio, R. E., Avolio, B. J., & Sosik, J. J. 2011. The effect of leadership on fol
lower moral identity: Does transformational/transactional style make a difference?
Journal o f Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18: 150-63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051810396714

Copyright of Business Ethics Quarterly is the property of Society for Business Ethics and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Week 4 – Debate an Ethical Issue ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now