Write about how focuses on ways in which managers and leaders can .docx

Write about how focuses on ways in which managers and
leaders can improve organizational outcomes in an organization
using Ethical Leadership.
This article, http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/5537-how-to-
be-ethical-leader.html
gives 7 steps, I have to write about the first 2, Day to day
ethics & negative interpersonal behaviors.
Here are the other references to use;
Yang, C. (2014). Does Ethical Leadership Lead to Happy
Workers? A Study on the Impact of Ethical Leadership,
Subjective Well-Being, and Life Happiness in the Chinese
Culture. Journal Of Business Ethics, 123(3), 513-525.
doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1852-6
Dean, K., Beggs, J., & Keane, T. (2010). Mid-level Managers,
Organizational Context, and (Un)ethical Encounters. Journal Of
Business Ethics, 97(1), 51-69. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0495-0
Tichy, N. M., & McGill, A. R. (2003). The Ethical Challenge :
How to Lead with Unyielding Integrity. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Burack, J. H., Irby, D. M., Carline, J. D., Root, R. K., &
Larson, E. B. (1999). Teaching compassion and respect.

Attending physicians' responses to problematic behaviors.
Journal Of General Internal Medicine, 14(1), 49-55.
*** will list but not use***
Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R.,
Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. (2015). An Integrative
Approach to Understanding Counterproductive Work Behavior:
The Roles of Stressors, Negative Emotions, and Moral
Disengagement.Journal Of Business Ethics, 130(1), 131-144.
doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2209-5
750 words, with title page, introduction, body and conclusion.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
00
3.
J
os
se
y-
Ba
ss
.
Al
l
ri
gh

ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t

he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr

ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed
on 9/30/2015 12:52 PM via ST
PETERSBURG COLLEGE
AN: 86048 ; Tichy, Noel M., McGill, Andrew R..; The Ethical
Challenge : How to Lead with
Unyielding Integrity
Account: spjc
An Integrative
approach.pdf
An Integrative Approach to Understanding Counterproductive
Work Behavior: The Roles of Stressors, Negative Emotions,
and Moral Disengagement
Roberta Fida • Marinella Paciello •
Carlo Tramontano • Reid Griffith Fontaine •
Claudio Barbaranelli • Maria Luisa Farnese
Received: 25 December 2012 / Accepted: 30 April 2014 /
Published online: 15 May 2014
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Several scholars have highlighted the impor-
tance of examining moral disengagement (MD) in under-

standing aggression and deviant conduct across different
contexts. The present study investigates the role of MD as a
specific social-cognitive construct that, in the organiza-
tional context, may intervene in the process leading from
stressors to counterproductive work behavior (CWB).
Assuming the theoretical framework of the stressor-emo-
tion model of CWB, we hypothesized that MD mediates, at
least partially, the relation between negative emotions in
reaction to perceived stressors and CWB by promoting or
justifying aggressive responses to frustrating situations or
events. In a sample of 1,147 Italian workers, we tested a
structural equations model. The results support our
hypothesis: the more workers experienced negative emo-
tions in response to stressors, the more they morally dis-
engaged and, in turn, enacted CWB.
Keywords Moral disengagement � Counterproductive
work behavior � Job stressor � Negative emotions �
Aggression
Introduction

Deviant behavior at work represents one of the most rele-
vant emerging criticalities in organizations worldwide
(Chappell and Di Martino 2006). In the literature, it has
been labeled in different ways, e.g., organizational
aggression, unethical behavior, delinquency, deviance,
retaliation, revenge, violence, emotional abuse, mobbing/
bullying, and misconduct. However, despite the specificity
of the different definitions provided, all operationalizations
share a common emphasis on the actual or potential
harmful and detrimental effects of such behaviors on both
the organization and its members (Giacalone and Green-
berg 1997; Spector and Fox 2005). In this study, we focus
our attention on counterproductive work behavior (CWB),
namely, voluntary behavior that violates significant orga-
nizational and social norms (see Collins and Griffin 1998;
Robinson and Bennett 1995; Spector and Fox 2005) and in
turn damages organizations and their shareholders and
stakeholders (employers, supervisors, co-workers, and cli-

ents). CWB may include both overt acts, such as direct
aggression and theft, and covert acts, such as purposefully
failing to follow instructions or doing work incorrectly
(Spector et al. 2006).
Several researches have examined the different factors
that could help to understand the process leading to CWB,
considering both situational and personal dimensions (see
Bowling and Eschleman 2010; Spector and Fox 2005). To
this extent, the stressor-emotion model of CWB (Spector
1998; Spector and Fox 2005) represents a comprehensive
model explaining why workers in stressful conditions may
enact CWB at work. In particular, capitalizing on both the
frustration-aggression theory developed by Dollard and his
colleagues (Dollard et al. 1939; also, see Berkowitz 1989)
and stress theories (Jex and Beehr 1991; Lazarus 1999),
R. Fida (&) � C. Barbaranelli � M. L. Farnese
Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome,
Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy

e-mail: [email protected]
M. Paciello
International Telematic University Uninettuno, Rome, Italy
C. Tramontano
Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre
UCL, London, UK
R. G. Fontaine
Social Science Research Institute, Center for Child and Family
Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
123
J Bus Ethics (2015) 130:131–144
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2209-5
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-014-
2209-5&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-014-
2209-5&domain=pdf
Spector and Fox hypothesized that CWB is one of the
possible results of stress at work and constitutes a response
to frustrating working conditions (e.g., Spector and Fox
2005). Therefore, this behavior is considered as a response

to perceived organizational stressors, or more broadly, to
any frustrating condition that substantially interferes with
work goals, job activities, and/or job performance. Previ-
ous research has shown that whenever employees perceive
a job stressor, they may experience negative feelings that,
in turn, may lead them to enact CWB as a strategy to
reduce the emotionally unpleasant condition derived from
organizational frustrations (e.g., Penney and Spector 2005;
Spector 1998). In sum, this is an emotion-centered model
(Chen and Spector 1992; Fox and Spector 1999; Spector
1975, 1997) that highlights the path from perceived
stressors at work to deviant conduct through ‘‘hot’’ affec-
tive processes.
However, CWB does not occur automatically and in a
vacuum; rather, it is enacted within a complex social
context pervaded by shared values, norms, and models of
behaviors acquired during socialization (Schein 1999).
Thus, in order to understand the process leading to CWB, it

is important to also consider the role of socio-cognitive
‘‘cold’’ processes. As underlined in the organizational lit-
erature, as a consequence of negative emotional reaction to
frustrating working conditions, workers may also enact
such forms of unethical and deviant behaviors through
cognitive processes that allow them to temporarily bypass
the acquired collective norms, values, and models (Detert
et al. 2008; Moore 2008; White et al. 2009). Based on this
fact, we aim to extend the stressor-emotion model of CWB
by integrating moral disengagement (MD), a social-cog-
nitive process that may facilitate the translation of negative
feelings derived from perceived stressors into CWB
(Fig. 1). Specifically, we believe that negative feelings can
activate MD as a secondary cognitive process through
which individual moral standards are momentarily
obscured, giving access to CWB as a plausible behavioral
strategy to cope with negative emotions derived from
negatively perceived situations. Thus, MD may intervene

in the stressor-emotion process, mediating the transition
from negative emotional reaction to CWB by legitimizing
this kind of response without concurrently requiring
abandoning personal and shared norms, values, and
models.
CWB and Stressor-Emotion Model
CWB represents a behavioral response to strain aimed at
managing a stressful situation and reducing the consequent
unpleasant negative emotions even though, in so doing, it
threatens organizational and members’ well-being and
reduces their effectiveness (Fox and Spector 1999; Fox
et al. 2001; Krischer et al. 2010; Rodell and Judge 2009;
Spector 1975, 1997). Furthermore, in accordance with
Robinson and Bennett (1995), CWB can be distinguished
on the basis of the target: against the individuals in the
organization (CWB-I) or against the organization as a
whole (CWB-O). The former, CWB-I, is interpersonally
oriented and may include acts of aggression toward fellow

co-workers, such as verbal insults; spreading false rumors
about or making fun of others; playing mean pranks;
making racial slurs; and withholding crucial information
from others. The latter, CWB-O, is oriented toward the
organization and may manifest as taking excessive breaks,
working on a personal matter instead of working for the
employer, withholding effort, violating organizational
policies, or intentionally working slowly (Bennett and
Robinson 2000; Dalal 2005; Mount et al. 2006).
CWB is an increasingly pervasive and costly phenom-
enon (Coffin 2003; Greenberg 1990; Mount et al. 2006;
Murphy 1993; Vardi and Weitz 2004) and has an impact on
organizations in terms of loss of productivity, damage of
property, increased turnover and absenteeism, and threat-
ening the organization and its members’ well-being
(Bensimon 1994; Einarsen et al. 2003; LeBlanc and Kel-
loway 2002; Penney and Spector 2005; Robinson and
Bennett 1995). More generally, although behaviors vio-

lating organizational and social norms in the short time
may meet some organizational goals (for instance, bribery,
deception, cheating or stealing for the benefit of one’s own
unit) and be justified on this premise, long term, these
behaviors are costly and even threaten organizations’ sur-
vival (Moore 2008).
Previous studies on CWB focused on different situations
or conditions that are, at least potentially, mighty stressors
such as organizational constraints, unmanaged conflicts,
work overload, and lack of autonomy and support (Chen
and Spector 1992; Fox and Spector 1999; Fox et al. 2001;
Fig. 1 Theoretical model of relations among stressors, negative
emotions, MD and CWB
132 R. Fida et al.
123
Miles et al. 2002; Peters and O’Connor 1980; Spector et al.
1988). While the first three are tangible stressors, auton-

omy and support are situational resources; however, when
they go missing, workers may perceive them as stressors.
Moreover, research has shown that organizational stressors
(such as organizational constraints) are more closely
associated with CWB-O than CWB-I, whereas interper-
sonal conflict is more closely associated with CWB-I than
CWB-O.
In line with the stress model (Lazarus 1999; Lazarus and
Folkmann 1984), the existence of one or more of these
conditions is not per se sufficient to lead to CWB: a fun-
damental element is workers’ appraisal of such conditions
as stressful. Indeed, when a situation is perceived as
stressful, this elicits negative feelings and workers may act
aggressively as a consequence. In this sense, Spector’s
model highlighted the role of negative emotion and affect
regulation on aggressive behavior according to the tradi-
tional hypothesis that frustrations and instigations may lead
to harmful behaviors (Berkowitz 1989; Dollard et al.

1939). Thus, emotions play a pivotal role in the process of
work stress, since they represent the immediate reactions to
perceived stressful situations (Lazarus 1999; Payne and
Cooper 2001) and facilitate behavioral responses. For these
reasons, negative emotions mediate the relation between
stressors and CWB (Fida et al. 2012; Fox et al. 2001;
Rodell and Judge 2009).
Moral Disengagement and Deviant Conduct
MD refers to social-cognitive processes by which a
wrongful, deviant, and antisocial behavior is psychologi-
cally altered such that it is dissociated from these negative
qualities that would serve to deter the actor from per-
forming it. In particular, through MD, the moral content
and ties usually associated with the deviant act are
detached (or disengaged) from it, and consequently, car-
rying out that behavior in pursuit of one’s own desire or
goal is considered neither internally aversive nor obstruc-
tive by the actor. In a sense, it is a process by which the

individual may rationalize, by either excuse or justification,
the harm and wrong that the behavior necessarily serves so
that the deterrent mechanisms (e.g., guilt) regarding the
behavior are neutralized.
MD was originally introduced by Bandura (1990, 1991)
to clarify how people, despite being morally committed to
ethical principles, under specific situations may perform
behaviors that violate shared norms even while continuing
to profess the same principles and avoiding any feelings of
conflict, guilt, shame, or remorse. MD affects the operation
of moral standards in the regulation of conduct by deacti-
vating internal control and therefore self-sanction, allowing
people to avoid the emotional reactions related to specific
moral content. Self-sanctions of deviant conduct may be
deactivated by eight MD social-cognitive mechanisms (see
Bandura 1991) that, for instance, facilitate the cognitive
restructuring of such acts to appear less harmful or
unethical, e.g., being morally justified, labeled with

euphemisms, or advantageously compared with other
worse actions. Other mechanisms are aimed at minimizing
the role of the actor, displacing or diffusing the responsi-
bility of his/her actions among others (e.g., colleagues,
supervisor). Finally, still other mechanisms suggest a
reframe of the effects of one’s action, for instance, dis-
torting or minimizing its consequences, belittling or
dehumanizing the victims of its action, or attributing
blame. Overall, MD may be considered a cognitive dis-
tortion (Gibbs et al. 1995) through which individuals may
view their own aggressive behavior and its negative con-
sequences in a socially and morally favorable (or at least
acceptable) way. This transformation of social under-
standing enhances the probability that the individual will
act aggressively (Crane-Ross et al. 1998; Huesmann and
Guerra 1997) without requiring the abandonment of shared
personal and social norms.
A large body of research has demonstrated the disin-

hibitory power of MD and its strong associations with
several manifestations of aggressive behavior as well as
other forms of deviant conduct across different contexts
(Bandura et al. 1996; Bandura et al. 2000; Detert et al.
2008; Fida et al. 2012; Moore et al. 2012). Specifically, in
explaining deviant conduct in organizations, several studies
have attested to the role of MD in the performance of
various behaviors that violate social and organizational
norms, for example, corporate transgression and organi-
zational corruption (Bandura et al. 2000; Barsky 2011;
Barsky et al. 2006; Moore 2008), violations of legal and
moral rules in producing harmful practices and products
(Brief et al. 2001), violation of safety rules (Barbaranelli
and Perna 2004), and ‘‘crimes of obedience’’1 (Beu and
Buckley 2004; Hinrichs 2007). Moreover, researchers have
focused on the role of MD in ethical decision-making in
organizational contexts (O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005;
Pauli and Arthur 2006; Treviño et al. 2006).

Furthermore, some contributions underlined that specific
conditions may facilitate the activation of these mecha-
nisms. For example, higher levels of MD have been asso-
ciated with the experience of negative emotions such as
anxiety or irritability (Caprara et al. 2012) and the per-
ception of organizational climate as less favorable, leading
to lower levels of job satisfaction (Claybourn 2011).
1 Type of unethical behavior where followers are influenced by
a
leader to engage in behavior they would otherwise consider
unethical
(Hinrichs 2007).
Understanding Counterproductive Work Behavior 133
123
Therefore, when people are negatively activated, MD can
lead them to perceive the adoption of unethical behavior as
an appropriate strategy to cope with stressful situations
(Paciello et al. 2012). In this sense, MD may be an effec-

tive protection strategy that is useful in stressful job situ-
ations to cope with negative reactions and avoid moral
responsibility toward others (including social organiza-
tions), providing the cognitive framework in which CWB
appears appropriate.
Aims and Hypotheses
The general aim of the present study was to present the work
MD scale and integrate this dimension in the stressor-emo-
tion model of CWB to examine, in a large sample of
employees, its role in translating negative emotional
responses to stressors into deviant behaviors. Specifically,
we posited that negative emotions elicited by the perception
of job stressors on one hand facilitate the recourse to CWB
and on the other hand activate mechanisms of MD that may
free the way to CWB by transforming it into an acceptable
behavior. More specifically, we expected that MD partially
mediated the relation between negative emotions and CWB.
Thus, we hypothesized that the more individuals react to job

stressors with negative emotions, the more prominent MD
will be in countenancing aggressive, wrongful behaviors, in
turn leading to greater CWB. To the best of our knowledge,
there are no studies examining the role ofMD in the stressor-
emotion model of CWB.
As depicted in Fig. 1, we had the following hypotheses:
1. Hypothesis 1: Job stressors are positively related to
negative emotions. In particular, organizational con-
straints, quantitative workload, interpersonal conflict,
and lack of decision latitude and social support are
related to negative emotions so that the higher the
perceived stressors, the higher the negative emotional
response.
2. Hypothesis 2: Negative emotions are positively related
to both CWB-I and CWB-O. In particular, employees
are more likely to engage in both CWB-I and CWB-O
in response to the experience of negative emotions
associated with their jobs.

3. Hypothesis 3: MD is positively related to both CWB-I
and CWB-O. In particular, the more employees
disengage their moral control, the more they engage
in both CWB-I and CWB-O.
4. Hypothesis 4: Negative emotions are positively related
to MD. The more employees are negatively emotion-
ally activated, the more they resort to MD in order to
perform CWB, perceiving deviant conduct as an
appropriate strategy to cope with stressors.
5. Hypothesis 5: Negative emotions mediate the relation
between job stressors and both CWB-I and CWB-O.
6. Hypothesis 6: MD partially mediates the relation
between negative emotions and both CWB-I and
CWB-O.
In testing our hypotheses, we considered gender as a
covariate for all variables, as previous studies have shown
that females are more vulnerable to negative (Newmann
1986; Smith and Reise 1998), whereas males are generally

more prone to deviant behavior and MD (Archer 2004;
Bettencourt and Miller 1996).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 1,147 (53.5 % women) Italian working
adults with a mean age of 40 years (SD = 11). They were
employed in a broad range of industries, from healthcare to
sales and retail tomanufacturing, mainly in the private sector
(62.6 %). The majority (62.3 %) had a high school educa-
tion, 30 % had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and the
remaining participants had lower educational qualifications
(7.2 %). As pertaining to employment contract type, 68.7 %
were permanent employees, 12.2 % were temporary
employees, 15.7 %had other types of contracts, and 3.4 %of
respondents did not indicate the typology of their contract.
The mean organizational tenure was 16 years (SD = 11),
and on average, participants had held their positions (at the
time of the study) for 10 years (SD = 10). We accessed a

convenience sample of employees recruited by a group of 15
bachelor’s-trained psychology students as part of their
bachelor’s thesis. Each employee filled in the questionnaire
individually and returned it the same day they received it.
Before starting, we explained to them that their responses
would be absolutely confidential and that the research was
not commissioned by the organization for which they
worked. The studywas approved by the ethical committee of
the university to which the first author is affiliated. Partici-
pants were not paid for their participation in this study.
Measures
The anonymous self-report survey included measures of
job stressors, negative emotions in response to work, CWB,
and MD.
Interpersonal Conflict
This was measured by the Italian version of the Interper-
sonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS) (Barbaranelli et al.
134 R. Fida et al.

123
2013; Fida et al. 2012; Spector and Jex 1998). This scale is
a four-point continuous scale measuring the amount of
conflict or discord experienced by an individual at work.
Respondents were asked how often they get into arguments
at work and how often other people at work are rude to,
yell at, and/or do nasty things to them (item example:
‘‘How often do other people yell at you at work?’’).
Response options were presented on a five-point continu-
ous scale ranging from less than once per month or never
to several times per day, wherein higher scores indicate
more conflict. The internal consistency for the ICAWS in
the current sample was .71.
Organizational Constraints
These were measured with the Italian version of the
Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS) (Barbaranelli
et al. 2013; Fida et al. 2012; Spector and Jex 1998). This

scale is an eleven-item continuous scale measuring events
or situations at work that interfere with task performance.
Respondents were presented with a list of situational
constraints based on constraint areas identified by Peters
and O’Connor (1980) and were asked to indicate how
often they found it difficult or impossible to do their job
because of each constraint (constraint example: ‘‘Lack of
equipment or supplies’’). Response options were pre-
sented in a five-point format ranging from less than once
per month or never to several times per day. The alpha
reliability coefficient for the OCS in the current sample
was .89.
Workload was measured by the Italian version of the
Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI; Fida et al. 2012;
Spector and Jex 1998). This scale is a five-item continuous
scale measuring the quantity and speed of work carried out
by the respondents. Participants rated their responses on a
five-point rating scale ranging from less than once per

month or never to several times per day to items such as
‘‘How often does your job require you to work very fast?’’
or ‘‘How often does your job require you to work very
hard?’’. Higher scores represent elevated workloads. The
alpha reliability coefficient was .86.
Lack of Job Decision Latitude
This was measured by three items from the Italian version
of the Job Content Questionnaire (Baldasseroni et al. 2001;
Karasek et al. 1998). Participants responded on a five-point
scale ranging from never or almost never to very often or
always (e.g., ‘‘The job allows opportunity for me to
develop my own special abilities’’). The alpha reliability
coefficient was .65. Items were reversed so that the higher
the score, the higher the lack of decision latitude.
Lack of Social Support
This was measured by three items from the Italian version
of the Job Content Questionnaire (Baldasseroni et al. 2001;
Karasek et al. 1998). Participants responded on a five-point

scale ranging from never or almost never to very often or
always to items referring to both co-workers’ and super-
visors’ support, such as ‘‘People I work with are competent
in doing their jobs.’’ The alpha reliability coefficient was
.75. Items were reversed so that the higher the score, the
higher the lack of social support.
Negative Emotions
These were measured by the Italian translation of the 17
items included in the Job-Related Affective Well-Being
Scale (JAWS) (Fida et al. 2012; Van Katwyk et al. 2000).
Each item is an emotion, and respondents were asked how
often they experienced each at work over the prior 30 days.
Examples of items are ‘‘angry,’’ ‘‘furious,’’ ‘‘depressed,’’
‘‘frustrated,’’ and ‘‘anxious.’’ Response options were pre-
sented in a five-point format ranging from almost never to
extremely often or always. The negative emotions score
was obtained by summing scores on the items. The alpha
reliability coefficient was .90.

Counterproductive Workplace Behavior
This was measured by an abridged version of the Italian
version of the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist
(CWB-C) (Barbaranelli et al. 2013; Spector et al. 2006).
This scale is a 30-item continuous scale measuring a wide
range of CWB. Participants were asked to indicate how
often they enacted each of the listed behaviors in their
present job. Response options were presented in a five-
point format ranging from never to every day. Higher
scores indicate higher levels of CWB. The CWB provided
two scores for behaviors that targeted individuals (CWB-I)
(e. g., stole something from a person at work, did some-
thing to make a person at work look bad, insulted someone
about his or her job performance) and behaviors that tar-
geted the organization (CWB-O) (e.g., put into be paid
more hours than worked, purposely did work incorrectly,
stole something belonging to an employer). The CWB-C
demonstrated good internal consistency for both the CWB-

I and CWB-O dimensions, with alpha reliability coeffi-
cients of .89 and .79, respectively.
Work Moral Disengagement
This was assessed by a new scale designed for the scope of
this research. The starting points for the construction of this
123
Table 1 Work MD scale: items and results of CFA
Work MD scale
Italian version English version Loadings
1. Non c’è niente di male ad appropriarsi del lavoro di un
collega
se lui è poco attento e non se ne accorge
There’s nothing wrong with appropriating the work of a
colleague if he/she is careless and does not notice it
.544
2. Se dall’azienda sparisce ogni giorno molto materiale non è
colpa di chi lo sottrae ma dell’azienda che non adotta nessuna

misura preventiva
If things disappear every day from the company it is not the
fault
of the people who take them but of the company itself who do
nothing to prevent it
.541
3. Un dipendente che suggerisce solamente di infrangere le
regole non dovrebbe essere biasimato se altri dipendenti
seguono la sua indicazione e lo fanno*
An employee who only suggests breaking rules should not be
blamed if other employees go ahead and do it*
.488
4. Un dipendente che si fa timbrare il cartellino da un collega
per
uscire a sbrigare necessità personali non è da biasimare, se
anche tutti i suoi colleghi lo fanno
It is acceptable for an employee to leave work without
permission for personal interests if other employees do the
same
.567

5. Un dipendente non può essere incolpato se spreca materiale
di
proprietà della sua azienda, se l’azienda non fa nulla per
controllare
An employee cannot be blamed for wasting organizational
supplies if the organization does nothing to control
.645
6. E’ giusto ‘‘gonfiare’’ la verità per tirar fuori dai guai la
propria azienda*
It is alright to exaggerate the truth to keep your company out
of trouble*
.524
7. Assentarsi spesso dal posto di lavoro non è poi cosı̀ grave,
dal
momento che molta gente viene al lavoro e poi non combina
nulla
Being absent from work frequently is acceptable since many
people at work are not productive anyway
.657
8. Non vi è motivo che i colleghi si offendano se vengono presi

in giro al lavoro, perché anche questo è un modo di interessarsi
a loro
There is no reason that colleagues should be offended if they
are
teased at work because this is simply an expression of others
showing interest in them
.632
9. E’ giusto che un lavoratore si assenti per malattia, se questo è
il modo per allontanarsi da un ambiente di lavoro ostile
It’s all right to be absent from work due to illness, when the
employee uses this as a way to cope with his/her hostile work
environment.
.535
10. Impegnarsi meno degli altri sul lavoro non è poi cosı̀ grave,
se si pensa a tutti i dipendenti che non si impegnano affatto
Doing less work when you are at your job is not that bad
considering the fact that many employees do not work at all.
.738
11. Se un lavoratore danneggia l’azienda non adempiendo ai

propri compiti contrattuali, la colpa è dell’azienda stessa che
non è stata in grado di selezionarlo e di formarlo
adeguatamente
When an employee damages the company by not doing the job it
is the fault of the company itself for not doing a good job at
selecting and training employees
.547
12. Un dipendente non deve essere biasimato se fa qualcosa di
sbagliato per conto della sua azienda*
An employee should not be blamed for the wrongdoing done
on behalf of the organization*
.558
13. Quei colleghi che vengono derisi al lavoro di solito se lo
meritano
Colleagues who are mocked at work usually deserve it. .575
14. Non bisogna farsi troppi problemi ad assentarsi dal lavoro
quando se ne ha bisogno, perché tanto lo fanno tutti
It is not a big deal to be absent from work since everyone does
it .612

15. Se la maggioranza dei colleghi si impegna poco non c’è
motivo perché un dipendente si comporti diversamente
If the majority of colleagues do not work hard enough, there is
no
reason why an employee should act differently.
.636
16. E’ giusto forzare la verità per proteggere la propria
azienda*
It is alright to stretch the truth to protect your company* .506
17. Usufruire impropriamente delle risorse messe a disposizione
dall’azienda non è poi cosı̀ grave, visto che ci sono dirigenti
che si appropriano indebitamente dei capitali degli azionisti
Using organizational resources for inappropriate purposes is not
shameful since managers embezzle stakeholders’ money
.671
18. Danneggiare le cose dell’azienda non è molto grave se si
pensa a quante cose illegali commettono i dirigenti
Damaging an organization’s property is acceptable when you
consider how many illegal actions are committed by managers

.732
19. Non è grave restare indietro con il proprio lavoro dal
momento che lo fanno tutti
It’s not a big deal if you get behind in your work since everyone
does it
.646
20. E’ normale che un dipendente usufruisca impropriamente
delle risorse che l’azienda gli mette a disposizione se nessuno
impedisce che ciò avvenga
It’s ok that an employee improperly benefits from work
resources
if no one prevents it happening
.690
21. Se al lavoro i dipendenti battono la fiacca e producono poco
è
colpa dei loro superiori o dell’azienda
If the employee is lazy and does little work, only the bosses and
company are to blame
.490

136 R. Fida et al.
123
scale were as follows: (1) the scale developed by Bandura
et al. (1996) within the domain of antisocial behavior, (2)
the 10-item scale developed by Barsky et al. (2006), (3) the
scale developed by Barbaranelli and Perna (2004), and (4)
two focus groups with different employees (30 students
that work at least 20 h per week). We came up with a scale
including 24 items. Participants responded on a five-point
scale (from agree not at all to completely agree).
Data Analysis and Results
Preliminary Analysis on Work MD Scale
We initially examined the dimensionality of the MD scale
by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Consis-
tent with previous studies (see Bandura et al. 1996; Caprara
et al. 2009; Fida et al. 2012; Pelton et al. 2004), we
hypothesized a one-factor solution. Because several items

presented a deviation from the normal distribution, a CFA
was performed using robust maximum likelihood parame-
ter estimates, with standard errors and the Chi square test
statistic corrected using the Satorra-Bentler approach. This
model fits the data (v2 = 242.10, df = 82, p .001,
CFI = .90; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .041, SRMR = .038,
WRMR = .672), reproducing with a good approximation
the covariances among the items of the scale (Table 1).
The Cronbach’s reliability coefficient was .89.
Descriptive Analysis of the Study Variables
The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all
studied variables are presented in Table 2.
Analyses showed that all of the stressors correlated with
each other with the following exceptions: (1) lack of
decision latitude, which correlated only with workload and
the lack of social support; and (2) lack of social support,
which did not correlate with workload. Furthermore, while
all stressors correlated with negative emotions only, orga-
nizational constraints and the lack of social support

correlated with MD. Negative emotions were significantly
associated with MD. Overall, both CWB-I and CWB-O
significantly correlated with all stressors; the only excep-
tion was that CWB-O did not correlate with interpersonal
conflict. Finally, both negative emotions and MD corre-
lated with both CWB-I and CWB-O.
Structural Equation Model
To test our hypothesis about the process from job stressors
to CWB through negative emotions and MD, we imple-
mented our theoretical model (see Fig. 1) within the
structural equations modeling framework and used gender
as a covariate. This powerful statistical model allows us to
investigate the mediating role of negative emotions and
MD, which simultaneously acts as a dependent variable
with respect to stressors and as an independent variable
with respect to both CWB-I and CWB-O. In particular, we
used the indirect effect test with the bootstrap procedure
(MacKinnon 2008) to compute the confidence interval of

each effect. The analyses were performed using Mplus 6.1
(Muthén and Muthén 1998–2010).
We used the maximum likelihood estimation of
parameters for handling missing data (Schafer and Graham
2002) under the assumption that the data are missing at
random (Arbuckle 1996). Before proceeding with the
analysis, we ascertained the normality of the variables. Due
to the non-normality of some measures (CWB-I and CWB-
O), we computed the inverse of CWB-I and the logarithm
of CWB-O to normalize these variables, as suggested by
Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). The skewness and kurtosis
of the computed outcomes varied from .69 for CWB-O to
2.45 for CWB-I. Following Bollen (1989), all of the
included dimensions were posited as a ‘‘single-indicator’’
latent variable. To take into account measurement error,
and for the purpose of obtaining more precise estimates of
structural parameters, error variance for each single indi-
cator was fixed at one minus the sample reliability estimate

of the variable multiplied by its sample variance. Since
there was non-normality of CWB variables even after their
Table 1 continued
Work MD scale
Italian version English version Loadings
22. Insultare o trattare male dei colleghi spesso è soltanto un
modo per dare loro una lezione
Insulting or treating colleagues badly is just teaching them a
lesson
.618
23. Non c’è nulla di male nel tenere disordinata o sporca la
propria postazione di lavoro quando lo fanno tanti colleghi
There is nothing wrong if an employee’s work area is sloppy or
dirty if his/her colleagues have theirs the same way
.740
24. Se i dipendenti pensano di non andare incontro a sanzioni
non
dovrebbero essere biasimati se fanno azioni sbagliate

Employees cannot be blamed for wrongdoing if they know they
will not be punished
.613
* Items in bold are from Barsky et al. (2006)
123
transformation in inverse and logarithm, we used the Mplus
MLMV method for parameters estimation, to correct
standard errors and the Chi square test statistic for non-
normality.
The model specified in Fig. 1 showed a good fit:
v2(19) = 61.64, p .01; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .044 (CI
.032–.057), p = .76; SRMR = .029. Nevertheless, an
inspection of the modification indices revealed four sig-
nificant direct effects from stressors on two dimensions of
CWB (i.e., interpersonal conflict and lack of support on
CWB-I; organizational constraints and lack of decision
latitude on CWB-O) and a direct effect of the lack of social

support on MD. The four direct effects on CWB were in
conceptual accordance with the literature on the influence
of stressors on CWB (Spector and Fox 2005). Moreover,
the effect of the lack of social support on MD is in line with
what Detert et al. (2008) suggested on the antecedents of
MD related to social context in organization. Therefore, we
decided to revise the model (Fig. 2) to include these five
new parameters and to test a more parsimonious model
fixing nonsignificant parameters to zero. This model pro-
vided an excellent fit to the data, as revealed by multiple fit
indices: v2(17) = 21.40, p = .21; CFI = 1.00;
RMSEA = .015 (CI .000–.032), p = 1.00; SRMR = .017.
An alternative model testing the process by inverting the
process from negative emotions to MD did not fit the data:
v2(18) = 222.35, p .01; CFI = .84; RMSEA = .100 (CI
.088–.111), p .001; SRMR = .058.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics among all study variables for the
total sample
N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Constraints 1,139 2.32 .78 –
2. Conflict 1,140 2.10 .72 .42** –
3. Workload 1,140 3.40 .83 .38** .31** –
4. Lack of decision latitude 1,145 3.38 .59 .10 .04 .13* –
5. Lack of Social Support 1,145 3.65 .70 .29** .21** .02 .27**
–
6. Negative Emotions 1,145 2.09 .66 .39** .29** .18** .30**
.29** –
7. Moral Disengagement 1,143 1.59 .48 .26** .09 -.03 .14 .12*
.15** –
8. CWB-O 1,145 1.40 .41 .21** .07 .12* .16** .20** .32**
.37** –
9. CWB-I 1,145 1.20 .33 .19** .14* .11* .14** .22** .26**
.38** .60**
** Significant at the p .001; * Significant at the p .05.
Correlations for males are reported below the diagonal, while
correlation for females
are reported above the diagonal
Fig. 2 Results of the posited model: The meditational role of
MD in the stressor-emotion model
138 R. Fida et al.
123

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, interpersonal conflict,
organizational constraints, workload, and lack of social
support significantly and positively affected negative
emotions. Furthermore, as hypothesized, none of the
stressors significantly affected MD, with the exception of
the lack of social support, despite a low beta coefficient.
The results of our model partially supported Hypotheses
2 and 3. In particular, negative emotions significantly
influenced only CWB-O with a low beta coefficient,
whereas MD significantly influenced both CWB-O and
CWB-I. As expected (Hypothesis 4), negative emotions
significantly and positively affected MD.
Finally, with regard to Hypotheses 5 and 6, the posited
model assumed that stressors would have indirectly affec-
ted both CWB-O and CWB-I by influencing negative
emotions and MD. As shown in Fig. 2, only a partial
mediation was confirmed. Table 2 presents the estimates of
indirect effects and their bootstrap confidence intervals. In

particular, some stressors influenced both CWB-I and
CWB-O both directly and indirectly. Interpersonal conflict
influenced CWB-I both directly (b = .16) and indirectly
through negative emotions and MD (b = .03). Similarly,
the lack of social support influenced CWB-I both directly
(b = .07) and indirectly through MD and through both
negative emotions and MD (b = .04, b = .03, respec-
tively). Organizational constraints influenced CWB-O both
directly (b = .12) and indirectly through negative emo-
tions (b = -.02) and both negative emotions and MD
(b = -.024). Finally, lack of decision latitude directly
influenced CWB-O (b = .07) (Table 3).
Finally, with regard to the effect of gender as a covar-
iate, the results attested to some gender differences. In
particular, males scored higher in MD (b = -.11),
whereas females scored higher on negative emotions
(b = .15) and on quantitative workload (b = .08). Con-
sidering that gender was scored zero for males and one for
females, a negative beta indicates higher scores for males
and a positive beta indicates higher scores for females.
Overall, the model explained 29 % of the variance in
CWB-I and 20 % of the variance in CWB-O. Stressors

explained 31 % of the variance in negative emotions.
Discussion
The results of the current study suggest that MD plays a
critical role in mediating the relation between negative
emotions in reaction to job stressors and both CWB-I and
CWB-O. Specifically, the more workers react with nega-
tive emotions to work situations that interfere with their
work goals and/or job performance, the more they activate
cognitive maneuvers that rationalize unethical, wrongful,
and deviant behaviors and in turn legitimize enacting
CWB. Indeed, although CWB violates significant social
and organizational norms, it can be restructured by MD and
become an acceptable behavioral response to strain (Rob-
inson and Bennett 1995; Spector and Fox 2005). This
allows employees to reduce the emotionally unpleasant
condition generated by work stressors or perceived wrongs
without abandoning personal and shared norms, values, and
models.

The concurrent examination of the roles of both emo-
tional reactions and social-cognitive mechanisms associ-
ated with job stressors allowed us to better clarify the
relation between emotion and action. Indeed, the inclusion
of MD within the stressor-emotion model substantially
reduces the association of negative emotions with CWB-O,
and moreover the direct effect of negative emotions on
Table 3 Indirect estimates and
bootstrap confidence interval of
indirect effects from stressors to
both CWB-I and CWB-O
Significant estimates are
highlighted in bold
CI 95 % bootstrap confidence
interval
Indirect effect Estimate CI
Interp.conflict ? Neg.Em ? MD ? CWB-I .03 .014 to .046
Workload ? Neg.Em ? MD ? CWB-I .02 .007 to .030
Constraint ? Neg.Em ? MD ? CWB-I .04 .017 to .032

Lack of Support ? Neg.Em ? MD ? CWB-I .03 .015 to .047
Lack of Support ? MD ? CWB-I .04 .004 to .086
Interp.conflict ? Neg.Em ? MD ? CWB-O .02 .009 to .036
Interp.conflict ? Neg.Em ? CWB-O .02 .002 to .033
Workload ? Neg.Em ? MD ? CWB-O .01 .005 to .023
Workload ? Neg.Em ? CWB-O .01 .001 to .020
Constraint ? Neg.Em ? MD ? CWB-O .03 .012 to .041
Constraint ? Neg.Em ? CWB-O .02 .002 to .038
Lack of Support ? Neg.Em ? MD ? CWB-O .02 .011 to .036
Lack of Support ? Neg.Em ? CWB-O .02 .002 to .034
Lack of Support ? MD ? CWB-O .03 -.005 to .067
123
CWB-I becomes nonsignificant. The weaker influence of
emotional reaction on CWB suggests that in the work
context, where norms and models are acquired and shared,
social-cognitive processes are necessary mediators for

converting negative emotions into aggressive and deviant
behavior. In the organizational social scenario, workers
that are usually ethically committed need to rationalize and
justify sanctionable and undesirable behaviors through
social-cognitive processes triggered by emotional reactions
related to stressors. MD captures this ‘‘cold’’ cognitive
process that may give access to a broader repertoire of
misconducts, including behaviors that are potentially more
harmful, less predictable, and more dangerous to the
organization. This process may be particularly valid when
the misconduct is potentially dangerous and harmful for
other people (CWB-I) rather than being for a more abstract
and impersonal entity such as the ‘‘organization as a
whole’’ (CWB-O).
In line with Spector and Fox’s hypothesis, our results
support the posited role played by stressors in eliciting
negative emotions, with the only exception being the lack
of decision latitude. Here, we want to focus our discussion

in particular on the two specific stressors we examined:
lack of support and lack of decision latitude. As stated
initially, these are generally considered as resources rather
than as stressors per se. However, in our study, we exam-
ined the plausible negative impact that their absence may
cause. Our results suggested that the lack of social support
was associated with both negative emotions and with MD
(although modestly). This finding was not so surprising,
since it is plausible that the perception of organizational
context as unsupportive may reduce empathy and therefore
facilitate the activation of cognitive processes aimed at
reducing guilt or shame that would deter resorting to
harmful actions toward the organization and its stake-
holders. These results are also in line with the findings from
studies by Detert et al. (2008) and by Paciello et al. (2012)
that highlight the role of the quality of social ties in
influencing individual choices to perform harmful behav-
iors. Specifically, they found that empathy—an individual

affective competence to understand and to be concerned
with others’ feelings—was negatively related to MD,
which in turn influenced unethical decision-making. The
results related to decision latitude were not in line with our
expectations. This dimension refers to work autonomy and
job control and, as suggested by Spector and colleagues
(Fox and Spector 2006; Spector and Fox 2005), may be a
moderator of the relation between stressors and negative
emotion and between negative emotion and CWB rather
than an independent variable. Moreover, the lack of deci-
sion latitude may play a different role in relation to specific
characteristics of role and organizational position occupied
by workers. Along the same lines, social support could
actually represent a moderator of the stressor–strain rela-
tion. Indeed, as theorized by Karasek and in line with the
job demand-resources model (Bakker and Demerouti
2007), social resources can mitigate the negative effect of
stressors. Future studies should specifically investigate and

examine more in depth the role of these dimensions in the
process leading to CWB in order to identify possible
organizational resources that can contrast and prevent
recourse to unethical and deviant behaviors at work.
In terms of the posited model, in line with previous
findings, some stressors directly influenced CWB above
and beyond their indirect effect through negative emotions
and MD. Moreover, stressors tended to be mainly associ-
ated with a specific CWB. In particular, interpersonal
conflict and lack of support were principally related to
CWB-I, whereas organizational constraints and lack of
decision latitude were principally related to CWB-O.
Hence, on the one hand, stressors referring to the quality of
interpersonal relationships with colleagues and supervisors
tended to foster misconducts oriented toward damaging
organizational stakeholders. On the other hand, stressors
referring to work management and planning tended to
foster misconducts oriented toward damaging the organi-

zation as a whole.
Overall, this study extends the findings that emerged in the
literature, which frequently underline the relevance ofMD in
the unethical decision-making process (Barsky 2011; Detert
et al. 2008; Moore 2008, 2012). The inclusion of MD in the
stressor-emotion model represents an attempt to integrate
two important traditions of research on aggressive behavior:
the frustration-aggression hypothesis, focusing on the effects
that negative emotions and affect regulation exert on
aggression; and social-cognitive theory, addressing pro-
cesses that promote or justify aggression. This integrated
approach may be highly productive and promising for
defining organizational strategies aimed at discouraging and
contrasting CWB. Indeed, unlike emotions, MD mecha-
nisms are susceptible to the reciprocal influences of indi-
viduals and context and can be learned. Thismeans that these
cognitive maneuvers may likely become crystallized over
time (Paciello et al. 2008) in a context where workers

repeatedly have to deal with job stressors, legitimizing
recourse to aggressive and transgressive behaviors. Fur-
thermore, it is plausible that a context inwhichmisconduct is
frequently enacted through moral-cognitive distortions
without being sanctioned may in turn promote a ‘‘morally
disengaged culture’’ in which these mechanisms can be
socialized, learned, and activated, facilitating recourse to
CWB (Farnese et al. 2011; Gino and Galinsky 2012).
Therefore, within a socio-cognitive perspective, it is plau-
sible that organizations in which an increasing number of
employees tend to adopt MD over time will assimilate a
cultural model coherent with the adoption of unethical
140 R. Fida et al.
123
behaviors. For instance, if the cognitive justification of
wrongful acts is the easiest and least costly answer to job
stressors, it may produce a ‘‘routinization’’ of misconducts

both in individuals, in workgroups, and finally within the
organization as a whole (see Moore 2008). This could be
even more likely if leaders or direct supervisors exert a
modeling function in this direction. Complementarily,
organizational cultures may enhance the use of MD pro-
cesses, for instance, disregarding adverse consequences by
not sanctioning, or even worse, promoting them as long as
they are coherent with implicit values of the organization
(e.g., when diffusing responsibility is in line with an uneth-
ical corporate goal, or when moral justifications help the
company to pursue competitive corruption strategies). Some
authors highlight that the way performance objectives are set
defines different contexts that are more or less favorable to
deceptive or harmful behaviors, according to the degree to
which they are ‘‘reframed’’ as serving worthy purposes,
making them personally and socially acceptable (Barsky
2011; Barsky et al. 2006). Further, the management may
produce organizational practices or may promote the crea-

tion of shared beliefs about the weak morality within the
work context, facilitating widespread recourse to MD (see
White et al. 2009).
It is plausible that CWB could be the result of an
unethical decision-making process derived from a distorted
interpretation and application of shared norms. In this vein,
organizational culture may play a role in influencing and
reinforcing cognitive mechanisms such as MD through
which individuals attribute meaning to their work experi-
ence and relations. For instance, organizational culture may
promote a system of beliefs about human relations that
legitimizes dehumanization practices. Similarly, a gap
between explicit and implicit norms may explain the
adoption of moral justification mechanisms that allow
people to consider personally and socially acceptable a
detrimental or immoral style of conduct. However, cultural
dimensions (e. g., collectivism; cf. Jackson et al. 2006)
may on the contrary facilitate the internalization and

adoption of social norms, restricting the use of MD
mechanisms. In this sense, organizational culture, by con-
veying and reinforcing coherent managerial practices
(reward systems, leaders’ behaviors, etc.), guides the sense-
making processes that orient and legitimize ethical deci-
sion-making in work contexts. At the same time, individ-
uals who misbehave without being sanctioned or even
gaining opportunistic advantages from their conduct may
become a model for teammates. From a longstanding the-
oretical perspective, these negative models may make
easier and more obvious the adoption of MD, contributing,
in turn, to the creation of a ‘‘morally disengaged culture.’’
Future research should focus on the link between collective
and individual processes for interpreting interiorized norms
that lead to the adoption of both prosocial and antisocial
behaviors in the work context to deeply investigate their
possible reciprocal influences.
Undoubtedly, the cross-sectional nature of our datamakes

it more difficult for us to infer causal relations among vari-
ables considered, although the posited model is strongly
grounded in theory and prior research. Nevertheless, future
longitudinal and experimental research should be imple-
mented to confirm and strengthen the model herein exam-
ined. Another limitation of this research is the utilization of
self-report instruments. However, it should be noted that Fox
et al. (2007) demonstrated the convergence between self- and
peer-reports of the majority of stressor-emotion model
measures. Finally, the stressors and the negative emotions
included in the model only explain a reduced percentage of
variance of MD. Future studies should include further
determinants of MD more related to social and cultural
aspects to enable a better understanding of the process.
Conclusion
The results of our study highlight the role of MD in better
understanding the processes involved in the emergence and
maintenance of CWB, which is an increasingly pervasive

and costly phenomenon (Coffin 2003; Greenberg 1990;
Mount et al. 2006; Murphy 1993; Vardi and Weitz 2004),
impacting organizations in terms of loss of productivity,
damage of property, increased turnover, and absenteeism
(Bensimon 1994; Einarsen et al. 2003; LeBlanc and Kello-
way 2002; Penney and Spector 2005). Specifically, this study
extends previous research on the stressor-emotion model of
CWB that has mainly investigated the role of emotions
within the relation between work environment and CWB. In
particular, this study suggests that CWB may have both
‘‘hot’’ emotional and ‘‘cold’’ social-cognitive triggers in it.
Moreover, this study suggests the importance of integrating
different theoretical approaches to better understand indi-
vidual behaviors in social context. MD has received wide-
spread attention in the study of deviant behavior, and this
study has promising potential within the organizational lit-
erature for explaining the process leading to CWB.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by a Fulbright

Senior Research Scholar Award to R. G. Fontaine and in part by
Grant from the University of Rome ‘‘La Sapienza’’ (2010) to R.
Fida.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the
presence of
incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker
(Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and
techniques (pp. 243–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
123
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world
settings:
A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4),
291–322. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-
resources
model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
22(3), 309–328.

Baldasseroni, A., Camerino, D., Cenni, P., Cesana, G. C.,
Fattorini,
E., Ferrario, M., et al. (2001). La valutazione dei fattori
psicosociali. Proposta della versione italiana del Job Content
Questionnaire di R.A. Karasek. Fogli D’Informazione ISPESL,
3. Retrived from http://www.ispesl.it/informazione/karasek.htm.
Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in
terror-
ism. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of terrorism: Psychologies,
ideologies, states of mind (pp. 161–191). New york: Cambridge
University Press.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought
and
action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of
moral behavior and development (Vol. I, pp. 45–103). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C.
(1996).
Mechanism of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral
agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2),

364–374. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., & Zsolnai, L. (2000). Corporate
transgressions through moral disengagement. Journal of Human
Values, 6, 57–64. doi:10.1177/097168580000600106.
Barbaranelli, C., Fida, R., & Gualandri, M. (2013). Assessing
counterproductive work behavior: A study on the dimensionality
of Cwb-Checklist. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in
Applied Psychology, 20(3), 1–15.
Barbaranelli, C., & Perna, A. (2004). Meccanismi di disimpegno
morale nell’applicazione delle normative sulla sicurezza: con-
tributo empirico. Risorsa Uomo, 10(4), 393–415.
Barsky, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of moral
disengagement
and participation on unethical work behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 104, 59–75. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0889-7.
Barsky, A., Islam, G., Zyphur, M. J., & Johnson, E. (2006).
Investigating the effects of moral disengagement and participa-
tion on unethical work behavior. Ibmec working paper, WPE,
14,

San Paolo.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a
measure
of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3),
349–360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349.
Bensimon, H. F. (1994). Violence in the workplace. Training
and
Development Journal, 28, 27–32.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An
examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106,
59–73.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in
aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.
Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). This war: How the
politically
astute achieve crimes of obedience through the use of moral
disengagement. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 551–568. doi:10.
1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.007.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.

New
York: Wiley.
Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K. J. (2010). Employee
personality as
a moderator of the relationships between work stressors and
counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 15, 91–103. doi:10.1037/a0017326.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001).
Collective
corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. In
M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp.
471–499). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., Caprara, M., Fontaine, R.,
Gerbino,
M., Paciello, M., et al. (2012). Individual differences in
personality traits and social cognitive mechanisms conducive
to violence from adolescence to adulthood. European Journal of
Personality,. doi:10.1002/per.1855.
Caprara, G., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Tramontano, C., &
Barbara-

nelli, C. (2009). Assessing civic moral disengagement: Dimen-
sionality and construct validity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47(5), 504–509. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.027.
Chappell, D., & Di Martino, V. (2006). Violence at work (3rd
ed.).
Geneva: International Labor Office.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work
stressors
with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An
exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 65(3), 177–184. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Claybourn, M. (2011). Relationships between moral
disengagement,
work characteristics and workplace harassment. Journal of
Business Ethics, 100(2), 283–301. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-
0680-1.
Coffin, B. (2003). Breaking the silence on white collar crime.
Risk
Management, 50(9), 8.
Collins, J. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). The psychology of

counterproductive job performance. In R. W. Griffin, A.
O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (eds.). Dysfunctional behavior
in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior. Mono-
graphs in organizational behavior and relations, 23, Part B,
pp. 219–242.
Crane-Ross, D. A., Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (1998). Aggression
and
conventional rule violation among adolescents: Social reasoning
predictors of social behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 347–
365.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral
disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of anteced-
ents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374–
391.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374.
Dollard, J., Doob, C. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears,

R. R.
(1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Einarsen, S. E., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.).
(2003).
Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International
perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor &
Francis.
Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Paciello, M.
(2011).
Cheating behaviors in academic context: Does academic moral
disengagement matter? Procedia Social and Behavioral Science,
29, 356–365. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.250.
Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Barbaranelli, C., &
Fontaine,
R. G. (2012). The Role of Irritability in the Relation between
Job
Stressors, Emotional Reactivity, and Counterproductive Work
Behavior. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 23, 31–47. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.713550.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-
aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 915–931.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6915:AID-JOB918[
3.0.CO;2-6.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The many roles of control in a
stressor-emotion theory of counterproductive work behavior. In
P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational
stress and well-being (Vol. 5, pp. 171–201). Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does
your
coworker know what you’re doing? Convergence of self- and
142 R. Fida et al.
123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
http://www.ispesl.it/informazione/karasek.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097168580000600106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0889-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017326
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1855

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0680-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0680-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.713550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199911)20:6%3c915:AID-JOB918%3e3.0.CO;2-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199911)20:6%3c915:AID-JOB918%3e3.0.CO;2-6
peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International
Journal of Stress Management, 14, 41–60. doi:10.1037/1072-
5245.14.1.41.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive
work
behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational
justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and
emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291–309.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803.
Giacalone, R., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1997). Antisocial
behavior in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Gibbs, J. C., Potter, G. B., & Goldstein, A. P. (1995). The

EQUIP
program: Teaching youth to think and act responsibly through a
peer-helping approach. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When
psychological closeness creates distance from one’s moral
compass. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 119(1), 15–26.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to
underpayment
inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(5), 561–568. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561.
Hinrichs, K. T. (2007). Follower propensity to commit crimes of
obedience. The role of leadership beliefs. Journal of Leadership
&
Organizational Studies, 14, 69–76.
doi:10.1177/1071791907304225.
Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative
beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 408–419. doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.72.2.408.

Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan,
C. P.
(2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation
and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 884–899. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.
Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and
methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. In K.
Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (pp. 9, 311–365). Greemwoch, CT: JAI
Press.
Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers,
P., &
Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An
instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psy-
chosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3(4), 322–355. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322.
Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can
counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as
emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-

chology, 15(2), 154–166. doi:10.1037/a0018349.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion. A new synthesis.
New
York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkmann, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and
coping.
New York: Springer.
LeBlanc, M., & Kelloway, E. (2002). Predictors and outcomes
of
workplace violence and aggression. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 87(3), 444–453. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.444.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation
analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002).
Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A
comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 10(1–2), 51–57. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00193.
Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of
organiza-

tional corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 129–139.
doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer,
D. M.
(2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement
and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology,
65(1), 1–48. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of
personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The
mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
59(3), 591–622. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00048.x.
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s
guide
(6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Newmann, J. P. (1986). Gender, life strains, and depression.
Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 27(2), 161–178. doi:10.2307/

2136314.
O’Fallon, M., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the
empirical
ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 59, 375–413. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7.
Paciello, M., Fida, R., Cerniglia, L., Tramontano, C., & Cole, E.
(2012). High cost helping scenario: The role of empathy,
prosocial reasoning and moral disengagement on helping
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences,. doi:10.1016/
j.paid.2012.11.004.
Paciello, M., Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Lupinetti, C., &
Caprara, G.
V. (2008). Stability and change of moral disengagement and its
impact on aggression and violence in late adolescence. Child
Development, 79(5), 1288–1309. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.
01189.x.
Pauli, K. P., & Arthur, T. Y. (2006). In the eye of the beholder:
Moral
disengagement and ethical decision making among information
systems professionals. Review of Business Information

Systems,
10(2), 115–124.
Payne, R., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Emotions at work: Theory,
research and applications for management. Chichester: Wiley.
Pelton, J., Gound, M., Forehand, R., & Brody, G. (2004). The
Moral
Disengagement Scale: Extension with an American Minority
Sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assess-
ment, 26(1), 31–39.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility,
and
counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB): The moderating
role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26(5), 777–796. doi:10.1002/job.336.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints
and
work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked
construct. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 391–398.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant

workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572. doi:10.2307/
256693.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can ‘‘good’’ stressors
spark
‘‘bad’’ behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of
challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counter-
productive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6),
1438–1451. doi:10.1037/a0016752.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view
of the
state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. doi:10.
1037/1082-989X.7.2.147.
Schein, E. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San
Francisco: Wiley, Jossey-Bass.
Smith, L. L., & Reise, S. P. (1998). Gender differences on
negative
affectivity: An IRT study of differential item functioning on the
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire Stress Reaction

scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5),
1350–1362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1350.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational
frustration with
reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60(5), 635–637. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial
behavior at
work. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial
123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.1.41
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.1.41
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071791907304225
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018349
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.444
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00048.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136314

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136314
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01189.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01189.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.336
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256693
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256693
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016752
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1350
behavior in organizations (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process.
In C.
L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153–
169).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, S. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of
job
stressor to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A
comparison of multiple data sets. Journal of Applied
Psychology,
73(1), 11–19. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive
work
behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive
workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp.
151–174). Washington, DC: APA.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A.,
&
Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity:
Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.
005.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-
report
measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at
work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative
workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356–367.
doi:10.1037/
1076-8998.3.4.356.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. (2006).
Behavioral
ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management,
32(6), 951–990. doi:10.1177/0149206306294258.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E.
(2000).
Using the job-related affective well-being scale (JAWS) to
investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 219–230. doi:10.1037/
1076-8998.5.2.219.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations:
Theory,
research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
White, J., Bandura, A., & Bero, L. A. (2009). Moral
Disengagement
in the Corporate World. Accountability in Research: Policies &
Quality Assurance, 16(1), 41–74.

144 R. Fida et al.
123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.219
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of
Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. 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.
An Integrative Approach to Understanding Counterproductive
Work Behavior: The Roles of Stressors, Negative Emotions, and
Moral DisengagementAbstractIntroductionCWB and Stressor-
Emotion ModelMoral Disengagement and Deviant ConductAims
and HypothesesMethodParticipants and
ProcedureMeasuresInterpersonal ConflictOrganizational
ConstraintsLack of Job Decision LatitudeLack of Social
SupportNegative EmotionsCounterproductive Workplace
BehaviorWork Moral DisengagementData Analysis and
ResultsPreliminary Analysis on Work MD ScaleDescriptive
Analysis of the Study VariablesStructural Equation
ModelDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgmentsReferences
Happy Workers.pdf
Does Ethical Leadership Lead to Happy Workers? A Study

on the Impact of Ethical Leadership, Subjective Well-Being,
and Life Happiness in the Chinese Culture
Conna Yang
Received: 2 December 2012 / Accepted: 19 July 2013 /
Published online: 9 August 2013
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Business ethics has been emphasized through-
out the past decade and organizations are aware of the
influence it has on the organization’s performance. As a
result, ethical leadership is important as it influences the
employees profoundly. This study aims to address this
issue and explore the influence ethical leadership has on
employees by examining job satisfaction, subjective well-
being at work, and life satisfaction. Two groups of inde-
pendent data were collected and a multi-group analysis was
conducted before pooling together for a two-step structural
equation modeling test. The results revealed that ethical
leadership has a negative direct effect on employee well-
being which offers significant findings for the meaning of

ethical leadership in the Chinese culture. Useful manage-
rial implications are provided for managers and supervisors
at the end of this study.
Keywords Ethical leadership � Job satisfaction �
Leader–member exchange theory � Life satisfaction �
Social identity theory � Subjective well-being
Introduction
As one of the most discussed issues of our time, business
ethics stands as the number one priority to a corporation’s
clients, stakeholders, and to its employees. It is known that
leadership styles can contribute in the success or failure of a
corporation (Lok and Crawford 2004). Before Treviño et al.
(2003) proposed a clear definition of ethical leadership,
many other styles of leadership such as transactional lead-
ership and transformational leadership were often associated
with ethical leadership due to their similar characteristics.
Treviño et al. (2003) defined an ethical leader as one who
influences the ethical behaviors of his subordinates by
encouraging ethical behavior. Indeed, most would agree that

good leadership must possess the qualities of integrity and
ethical behaviors for sustainable development.
Recently, studies on leader–member behavior have aimed
to understand how different leadership styles impact the
outcomes of organizational members (De Jonge et al. 2000;
Ilies et al. 2005). Although ethical leadership has been
studied with relevant studies growing due to the interest of
both empirical and research area, there is still much to learn
about ethical leadership and its outcomes and influences.
Accordingly, the proposed model in this study observes the
ethical leadership and the subjective well-being of employ-
ees while building propositions based upon social identity
theory. Leadership models such as Graen and Uhl-Bien’s
(1995) study the characteristics of the leader, especially the
relationship between the leader and the follower (i.e., LMX).
Cultural background and how employees interact with the
leader should also be studied. Leadership styles need to be
adapted to different environments and cultures in order to

have an effective impact (Dorfman et al. 1997). Hofstede
(1993) divided different groups of nations into various cul-
ture clusters where each has its own characteristic due to the
history, culture, and tradition of the country. Resick et al.
(2011) further labeled the Asian countries as the Asian
Confucius cluster that shared the common traits of collec-
tivism, team orientation, and harmonious relationships. Out
of the Asian Confucius cluster, China seemed to be the most
influenced by the Confucian ideology where workplaces
were shaped into close hierarchy relationships, with the
C. Yang (&)
Institute of Business and Management, National Chiao Tung
University, 4F., No. 118, Sec. 1, Zhongxiao W. Rd.,
Zhongzheng
Dist., Taipei 100, Taiwan, ROC
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Bus Ethics (2014) 123:513–525
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1852-6

subordinates having great respect and honor to the leaders as
a child would behave to a father. For other Asian countries,
which had a stronger influence to Western business cultures
such as Hong Kong or Taiwan, that demonstrated some
characteristics similar to the U.S. respondents, the overall
behavior and perception of employees’ ethics were still
shaped and impacted by traditional Chinese values.
The proposed model in this study observes the ethical
leadership in Taiwan and the well-being of employees
while building propositions based upon sophisticated
models such as social identity theory and leadership
member exchange (LMX) theory. In addition, the rela-
tionship of an individual’s satisfaction at work and how it
affects one’s life satisfaction is often discussed, as work
has become an important part of our life. Since ethical
leadership’s affect on life satisfaction has not yet been
discussed, we hope to examine the role of life satisfaction
in our theoretical framework. In fact, the relationship of

ethical leadership in the Chinese culture and employee
work outcomes has not yet been studied until recently.
Walumbwa et al. (2011) noted that the Chinese people held
an environment in which the cultural values were becom-
ing diverse due to the mixture of traditional Chinese
teachings and the influence of Western thinking and called
for more studies of ethical leadership and employee out-
comes in the Chinese culture. Furthermore, Resick et al.
(2011) also noted that ethical leadership across Asian,
American, and European countries have different meanings
to employees that have different values and cultural sys-
tems and such divergence requires more understanding.
Indeed, extending the research of ethical leadership and its
implications would be useful in a Chinese context due to
the increasing business ties of Western countries and Asia.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Defining Ethical Leadership
Ethical leadership is defined as the behavior of appropriate

conduct through personal actions and interpersonal rela-
tionships. Ethical leadership was first conceptualized by
Brown et al. (2005) as a type of leadership that emphasizes
honesty and integrity. Before the ideology of ethical lead-
ership was introduced, the area of organization behavior did
not have a specific genre that could fully explain this concept.
However, there are some other forms of leadership similar to
ethical leadership due to its nature. These leadership styles
will be discussed and clarified clearly to distinguish the
differences.
Transformational leadership leaders possess an influence
over others by demonstrating personal charisma and inspi-
ration. Followers develop a set of moral principles that are
similar to the transformational leader (Brown et al. 2005;
Mayer et al. 2009; Treviño et al. 2003). Having an idealized
influence on followers, transformational leaders can align
the moral beliefs and standard of others to behave ‘‘the right
way’’ and fall in line with the organization culture. Never-

theless, the moral standards of the leader could be very dis-
tantly linked with the welfare of the society and people,
leading to harmful consequences that are influenced by the
decision of personal will instead of value beliefs (Price
2003). Therefore, although there seems to be a certain
resemblance between transformational leadership and ethi-
cal leadership, there is no necessary linkage among them
(Bass and Steidlmeier 1999).
Leader honesty (Brown et al. 2005) also known as
authentic leadership (Avolio and Gardner 2005; Gardner
et al. 2005) is also similar in some characteristics to ethical
leadership since. Although honesty is an important factor
that makes up ethical leadership, it is only one of the many
factors necessary for an ethical leader (Howell and Avolio
1992). Mayer et al. (2009) discussed authentic leadership as
another type of leadership that can be often confused with
ethical leadership due to similar characteristics of being true
and authentic. The definition of authentic leadership by

Avolio et al. (2004) was to know oneself and reflect one’s
personal values onto the actions and behavior of oneself
without intentional changes. Indeed, authentic leaders are
leaders who remain true to themselves and choose to act upon
these values under most circumstances and scenarios.
Despite the similarity of attributes such as honesty and
trustworthiness in the above-mentioned leadership styles,
these types of leadership contribute to only a part of ethical
leadership and cannot represent the full concept. Further-
more, another important resemblance in ethical leaders is
their tendency to use reward and punishment as a mechanism
to encourage ethical behaviors in the organization and that
they are often the role model of the organization. Mayer et al.
(2012) studied ethical leadership by addressing the crucial
influence of ethical leadership and raised the question of why
ethical leadership matters. Using the social learning theory in
which individuals pick up and learn behaviors by observing
the environment and their companions, their study results

suggest ethical leadership as an important factor since the
leaders are looked up to as a role model on how to behave in
an organization. The culture and style of an organization can
be set by the leader to either develop as an honest and morally
ethical company, or an unethical one.
Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory explains the social phenomenon of
individuals forming a sense of recognition and belonging
toward the organization, company, or group of people in
which one belongs. Tajfel (1982) introduced the social
514 C. Yang
123
identity theory in his study of interpersonal relations,
stating that individuals gain the feeling of belonging to a
group which in turn divides their social world into two
halves: ‘‘us’’ versus ‘‘them.’’ For example, a basketball fan
may define himself according to which group he belongs to

such as a New York Knicks or California Lakers fan and
easily gain recognition from the group for supporting the
same team (Ashforth and Mael 1989).
Walumbwa et al. (2011) incorporated social identity
theory to explain the relationship of ethical leadership on
employee outcomes, proposing this theory to be able to
capture the complex situation of studies on ethical lead-
ership. Social identification leads to behaviors that are
congruent with the organization’s beliefs, or identity that
one is assigned to in a group (Ashforth and Mael 1989). As
a result, employees are likely to act similar to other
members of the organization, and more importantly, feel
proud of their social identity. People who choose to stay
within a group strive to achieve a sense of satisfaction with
their social identity (Brown 2000) and maintain a state of
subjective well-being. Also, Brown and Mitchell (2010)
have stated that leaders’ values have a power to shape the
organizational culture, whereas Giberson et al. (2005)

reported that leaders tend to surround themselves with
subordinates and employees who have similar ethical val-
ues and standings. We believe that this can also help
explain the relationship of ethical leadership and employee
well-being.
Leader–Member Exchange Theory
The leader–member exchange theory is unique, since it is
one of the few theories that focus on the interaction of
managers and their subordinates (Fairhurst and Chandler
1989). LMX theory is most often used to analyze teamwork
development in organizations. This theory is useful due to
its explanation of how workplace behavior functions, with
a subgroup of the same unit working in harmony with the
leader and the other group outcast as the out-group. The
quality of the relationship between the employee and the
supervisor is the predictor of outcomes of not only the
individual, but also of the subunit and organization
(Gerstner and Day 1997). Defining quality of communi-

cation, it means that the subset of subordinates who are
loyal and have high performance (the ‘‘in-group’’) usually
receive encouragement, rewards, and more attention from
the managers (DuBrin 2010). In contrast, the other subset,
which is labeled as the ‘‘out-group’’ by the leader receive
less encouragement. Studies describe the comparison of in-
group and out-group as those that lead the role of a trusted
assistant, and the others that are treated formally like a
hired worker (DuBrin 2010). In the organization employees
working under an ethical leader will likely share the same
values and beliefs and become one of the ‘‘in-group’’ if
they fit in. Nevertheless, if employees do not meet the
expectations of the ethical leader, it is likely that they
receive less attention and feel like an outsider in the
organization.
A high-quality relationship between the leaders of an
organization and its members is crucial since it decides the
fate of the subordinate as those who have a better rela-

tionship with the leader have a higher chance of being
promoted and mentored (Sparrowe and Liden 1997). For
instance, Yukl (2013) noted that leaders differ their
behavior according to different groups of subordinates with
those who are favored receiving obvious tangible benefits
such as pay increase, better work schedule, special benefits,
and bigger office space. Though most studies on LMX
theory explain the relationship of other factors with LMX,
few have specifically examined if employees in organiza-
tions reflect the ethical status of their supervisors. Due to
this context of the LMX theory, we build our proposed
model accordingly to observe the relationship of ethical
leaders and their subordinates.
Ethical Leadership and its Influence on Subjective
Well-Being of Employees
Subjective well-being is sometimes defined as the state of
happiness (Easterlin 1995; Ryff 1989; Wright et al. 2007)
or a positive emotional state in which negative feelings

such as fear, anxiety, or anger is not present (Diener et al.
2009). Recent studies have found that well-being benefits
one’s personal life, and also is a helpful factor in the
workplace. The importance of subjective well-being is
crucial since empirically it has been shown that a happy
worker is more likely to be successful in many aspects. For
instance, happy workers usually have higher incomes
(Diener and Biswas-Diener 2002), help their coworkers at
work (George and Brief 1992), and are also more favored
by their boss (Cropanzano and Wright 2001). Moreover,
there is convincing evidence that workers with a positive
state of emotion and mood are more likely to stay in good
health (Argyle 1997) which could lower the cost of human
resources and maintain an efficient work schedule.
There are reasons to believe that ethical leadership may
lead to subjective well-being. First, researchers state that
employees feel obligated to return beneficial favors by
performing better on their work behavior (M. E. Brown and

Mitchell 2010). Prior studies have shown that the man-
ager’s ethical leadership can influence the employee’s
organizational loyalty and also ethical behavior in the
workplace (Cullen et al. 2003; Koh and El’fred 2004;
Schminke et al. 2005). Next, the moral atmosphere in a
workplace forms a group experience where individuals feel
the support of coworkers when facing a moral decision
Ethical Leadership 515
123
(VanSandt and Neck 2003). The manager’s support for
ethical behaviors can increase the level of job satisfaction
(Koh and Boo 2001) which is a determining factor for
employee well-being. Consequently, individuals are more
likely to experience job satisfaction and maintain a good
state at work while working for ethical leaderships. For
instance, a study on nurses’ job satisfaction and ethical
climate in Israel showed a strong relationship and proposed

that training programs that emphasized ethics at work
should be conducted to increase job satisfaction in these
employees (Goldman and Tabak 2010). Ilies et al. (2005)
conducted a study on the impact of authentic leadership by
proposing that leaders with authentic attributes not only
influence the well-being of the leader, but also the well-
being of the employee. Third, ethical leadership can
influence dynamic relationships in the workplace (Mayer
et al. 2012). Ethical leaders tend to exhibit active respon-
siveness; therefore, two-way communication in an ethical
leadership environment encourages work atmosphere. For
example, according to the social learning theory, these
behaviors demonstrated by ethical leaders ‘‘trickle down’’
for employees to imitate. A higher level of liking and
sharing are common in the work environment and creates a
pleasant environment for the workers.
Related to this, prior studies examining the relationship
of ethical leadership and employee outcomes by Toor and

Ofori (2009) have stated that ethical leadership plays a
mediating role between organization culture and employee
outcomes. Employees who work for ethical leaders usually
are satisfied toward the leader and organization whereas the
moral conduct of the employee can also be significantly
increased (Toor and Ofori 2009). Valentine et al. (2006)
studied the effect ethical leadership had on employee job
response, finding that employees have more favorable
attitudes toward an ethical organization. By developing a
corporate ethic culture, employees also feel more con-
nected with the company.
Using data obtained from participants recruited from
college alumni, In this study, we focus on the direct
supervisor of the employees since many studies have stated
that local foci (i.e., relationship with supervisor) have a
larger impact on the employee’s work outcome than global
foci (i.e., relationship with top manager) (Becker 1992;
Becker et al. 1996; Brandes et al. 2004). Direct managers

are important in organizational study due to the role of
linkage they play. Serving as linkages between the top
managers they report to and the subordinates that they
supervise, employees look to these managers as a role
model (Lam et al. 2010).
Hypothesis 1 Ethical leadership of the direct supervisor
will be positively related to the employee well-being of an
individual.
Ethical Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Life
Satisfaction
Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) defined job satisfaction
as the attitude that people hold toward their jobs, based
upon the comparison of the expected outcome with the
actual outcome. We expect job satisfaction to mediate
ethical leadership and employee well-being. Investigating
the link between ethics and job satisfaction, Koh and Boo
(2001) found ethical climate of an organization to be
positively associated to the employee’s job satisfaction.

The preference for organization ethics implicates that
leaders who can directly influence the ethical climate can
also impact the job satisfaction of employees (Koh and Boo
2001). Addressing the concern of unethical behavior
Management Information Systems (MIS) professionals
were facing, Vitell and Davis (1990) choose MIS profes-
sionals as study subjects and found that workers who faced
unethical situations at work had lower job satisfaction.
Pettijohn et al. (2008) also suggested that the manager’s
ethical behavior could influence how the employees per-
ceive job satisfaction, which could influence the organi-
zation performance and turnover rate. The subjective well-
being of an individual is decided significantly by the status
of job satisfaction. Indeed, job satisfaction has been viewed
by prior studies as an important indicator of employee
well-being (De Jonge et al. 2000). For example, a sales
person who has not reached his monthly goal would likely
feel pressured and spend personal time in distress due to

this cause. The effect of job satisfaction on employee well-
being has been studied by several researches. For instance,
Pugliesi (1999) conducted a study on emotional labor
finding job satisfaction to be having a negative impact on
the workers’ well-being. Also, Page and Vella-Brodrick
(2009) studied the importance of employee well-being and
noted that job satisfaction should be included as an
important indicator of employee well-being. As a result, it
is important to recognize how job satisfaction can affect
people in terms of their subjective well-being and analyze
the role of job satisfaction as a mediator between ethical
leadership and employee well-being. Through the follow-
ing proposition, we wish to examine the discussed issues:
Hypothesis 2 The relationship between ethical leadership
of the direct supervisor and employee well-being will be
positively mediated by job satisfaction.
To this point, we have discussed the relationship of ethical
leadership, employee well-being, and job satisfaction. In an

effort to complete our theoretical model on the impact of
ethical leadership, we discuss life satisfaction by suggesting
that ethical leadership should be related to life satisfaction
through the effect it has on job satisfaction (Fig. 1). Nowa-
days, work takes up much of our life and the emotion or
516 C. Yang
123
psychology of a person is very much influenced by the work
situation (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005). Past studies have shown
job and life satisfaction to be highly correlated, since most
people contribute a large amount of time to their career and,
therefore, feelings about their job can influence their life
satisfaction (Tait et al. 1989). Satisfaction with one’s life has
been defined as a general state of life as a whole. While this
concept has been discussed often by prior studies, the scale to
assess life satisfaction was first conceptualized by Diener
et al. (1985) with questions measuring the overall assessment

of individuals’ life. Although some would agree that certain
components of our lives (i.e., health, finance, or psychology)
are important in defining whether we lead a satisfactory life
or not, each individual has a unique criteria of life satisfac-
tion. Therefore, life satisfaction is the judgment of one’s
quality of life which varies according to each individual.
Moreover, previous studies have pointed out that job satis-
faction has a significant influence on life satisfaction espe-
cially through extrinsic outcomes such as pay and prestige at
the company (Steiner and Truxillo 1987). Since ethical
leadership leads to extrinsic outcomes in behavior that can
also exist outside work, we propose that job satisfaction acts
as a mediator between ethical leadership and the employee’s
life satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3 The relationship between ethical leadership
of the direct supervisor and life satisfaction will be posi-
tively mediated by job satisfaction.
Methodology

Write about how focuses on ways in which managers and leaders can .docx

Write about how focuses on ways in which managers and leaders can .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Write about how focuses on ways in which managers and leaders can .docx

Similar to Write about how focuses on ways in which managers and leaders can .docx (20)

More from ericbrooks84875

More from ericbrooks84875 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Write about how focuses on ways in which managers and leaders can .docx