Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies 20(1) 38 –48.docx

Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
20(1) 38 –48
© Baker College 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051811429352
http://jlo.sagepub.com
Introduction
Repeated scandals involving corporate and public sector
leaders over the past decade have increased interest in
studying ethical leadership (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006;
Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). Ethical values and behavior are
an important aspect of several currently prominent theories
in the leadership literature, including servant leadership
(e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, &
Henderson, 2008; Russell & Stone, 2002; Smith, Montagno,
& Kuzmenko, 2004), spiritual leadership (Frey, Hannah,
Noel, & Walumbwa, 2011; Fry, 2003), and authentic leader-
ship (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005).
Research on ethical leadership lagged behind other subjects
for most of the past half century (Cuilla, 1998), but in the
past decade, interest in studying the antecedents, outcomes,
and processes of ethical leadership has been growing steadily.
Ethical leadership has been described in a variety of
ways. Kanungo (2001) noted that ethical leaders engage in
acts and behaviors that benefit others, and at the same time,
they refrain from behaviors that can cause any harm to others.
Brown, Treviño, and Harrison (2005) suggested that the

combination of integrity, ethical standards, and fair treat-
ment of employees are the cornerstones of ethical leadership.
Treviño and Brown (2004) proposed that ethical leadership,
in its true sense, promotes ethical conduct by practicing as
well as managing ethics and holding everyone account-
able for it. Khuntia and Suar (2004) suggested that ethical
leaders incorporate moral principles in their beliefs, values,
and behaviors.
The construct domain of ethical leadership is broad, and
several different types of values may be relevant including
altruism, compassion, honesty, fairness, and justice. Ethical
leadership is also indicated by behaviors reflecting these
values. Examples include being very supportive and helpful
when someone has a problem, being fair when distributing
rewards and benefits, being open and honest when commu-
nicating to people, making sacrifices to benefit others, talk-
ing about the importance of values, setting clear ethical
standards for the work, keeping actions consistent with
espoused values, and holding people accountable for ethical
and unethical actions.
It is obvious that ethical leadership behavior overlaps to
some extent with relations-oriented behavior constructs in
the leadership literature, such as providing supportive or
considerate leadership, empowering leadership, developing
429352 JL
O20110.1177/1548051811429352Yukl et al.Journal of
Leadership
& Organizational Studies
© Baker College 2013
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany,
NY, USA
2Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA
3Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Rubina Mahsud, Management Department, Albers School of
Business
and Economics, Seattle University, 901, 12th Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98122-1090, USA
Email: [email protected]
An Improved Measure of Ethical Leadership
Gary Yukl1, Rubina Mahsud2, Shahidul Hassan3,
and Gregory E. Prussia2
Abstract
The appropriate way to define and measure ethical leadership
has been a source of conceptual confusion in the leadership
literature. Different measures have been developed, but they all
have limitations. Some questionnaires are missing key
indicators of ethical leadership, or they include behaviors that
do not seem directly relevant. In this study, the authors
assess the validity of a new questionnaire for measuring
essential aspects of ethical leadership independently of other
types of leader behavior. The research also examines how
ethical leadership is related to leader–member exchange and
work unit performance. Although the primary purpose of these
analyses is to assess criterion-related validity for the new
questionnaire, the results help answer important questions about
the benefits of ethical leadership. The authors found that
ethical leadership makes a small but significant contribution to
the explanation of leader–member exchange and managerial
effectiveness.

Keywords
ethical leadership, leadership behavior, leadership effectiveness
at Ashford University on November 30,
2015jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jlo.sagepub.com/
Yukl et al. 39
subordinate skills and self-confidence, and representing sub-
ordinate interests (Yukl, 2010). A few questionnaires have
been developed in recent years to measure aspects of ethical
leadership, but they differ in important ways and they all
have limitations. The question of how to define and measure
ethical leadership has not been resolved, and there is sub-
stantial conceptual confusion about this construct. The
purpose of our research was to identify the most essential
qualities to include in a measure of ethical leadership and to
develop a measure that minimizes confounding with other
constructs. We begin by reviewing earlier measures of ethi-
cal leadership and research on the consequences of ethical
leadership. We then describe the development of an
improved measure of ethical leadership called the Ethical
Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) and provide validation
evidence for it.
Review of Research on
Measures of Ethical Leadership
Three instruments designed to directly measure ethical lead-
ership include the Ethical Leadership Survey (Brown et al.,
2005), the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (Craig
& Gustafson, 1998), and the Ethical Leadership Work

Questionnaire (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Two other
instruments were designed to measure types of leadership
that include some ethical values and behaviors: the Authentic
Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner,
Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) and the Servant Leadership
Questionnaire (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Each instrument
will be described and the limitations identified.
Ethical Leadership Survey
Treviño, Brown, and Hartman (2003) asked people to describe
characteristics of ethical leaders, and the descriptors
included honesty, fair treatment, communication of ethical
values, role modeling of ethical behaviors, rewarding ethical
behavior, and holding subordinates accountable for unethi-
cal conduct. Their investigation showed that ethical leader-
ship is not only about traits such as integrity and honesty
but also about efforts to make subordinates accountable for
behaving ethically. Similar results were found in a second
study, and based on these findings and earlier literature,
Brown et al. (2005) developed a new questionnaire to mea-
sure these characteristics called the Ethical Leadership Scale
(ELS). The ELS has 10 items, each with a 5-point Likert-
type response format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree). The validation research found support for the ELS,
and a leader’s overall score on the ELS predicted outcomes
such as perceived effectiveness of leaders, employees’ sat-
isfaction with job, employees’ willingness for putting extra
effort into their work, and reporting problems. However,
one limitation is that some relevant aspects of ethical
leadership (e.g., honest communication, behavior consistent
with espoused values, fair allocation of assignments and
rewards) were not explicitly included. Another limitation is
that two of the items (i.e., listens to what employees have
to say, has the best interests of employees in mind) were
rated more representative of consideration than of ethical

leadership. Finally, the test for discriminant validity with
honesty was flawed because (unlike the ELS items) honesty
was only measured with two negatively worded items; it is
likely that positively worded items would load primarily on
the ethical leadership factor.
Perceived Leader Integrity Scale
Craig and Gustafson (1998) reviewed literature on ethical
aspects of leadership and developed a questionnaire to mea-
sure integrity called the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale
(PLIS). The objective in selecting items was to measure
ethical aspects of behavior that can be observed by a lead-
er's subordinates. The PLIS has 31 items describing several
types of unethical and abusive behavior (e.g., is vindictive,
would lie to me, would blame me for his/her mistakes,
would steal from the organization, would take credit for my
ideas, gives special favors to “pet” employees). The four
response choices indicate how accurately the items describe
the supervisor (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = very much,
4 = exactly). Favorable validation evidence was obtained in
their initial study and a follow-up study (Parry & Proctor-
Thompson, 2002). However, one major limitation of the
PLIS is the lack of positively worded items. The absence of
unethical behavior does not necessarily imply a high level
of ethical behavior. Another limitation is the use of vague
conditional wording (“would steal”) for many items, which
involves an inference about possible behavior rather than
wording that describes actual observed behavior. Finally, a
questionnaire that only has negatively worded items is less
likely to be answered by respondents who worry that it may
have adverse consequences for themselves or their bosses.
Ethical Leadership Work Questionnaire
De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) conducted a study of
Dutch managers using interviews and questionnaires. The
researchers developed a preliminary questionnaire to mea-

sure ethical leadership, and it was used in a study of ethical
leadership in top management teams. The factor analysis
found that morality and fairness was distinct from power-
sharing behavior and also from negatively worded despotic
behaviors (e.g., punitive, vengeful, and tyrannical). Some
limitations of the early questionnaire include the use of
items with multiple components and vague wording and
mixing of positive and negatively worded items in a way
that can confuse respondents and complicate data analyses
(Rorer, 1965; Schriesheim & Eisenbach, 1995).
40 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 20(1)
Follow-up research (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh,
2011) was conducted with a revised and extended question-
naire called the Ethical Leadership Work Questionnaire
(ELW). The questionnaire had 38 items, and each item
had a 7-point anchored Likert-type response format (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The ELW has seven
subscales: fairness, integrity, ethical guidance, people ori-
entation, power sharing, role clarification, and concern for
sustainability. The three subscales that seem most relevant
for ethical leadership are fairness (e.g., my leader has clear
favorites among subordinates), integrity (5 items; e.g., my
leader keeps his/her promises), and ethical guidance (e.g.,
my leader clearly explains integrity-related codes of con-
duct). The subscales for role clarification, power sharing,
and people orientation are similar to leadership behaviors
that have been studied for decades. Role clarification is a
core task behavior, and the other two subscales are rela-

tions behaviors. These behaviors are not inherently ethical,
and they can be used for unethical purposes. The subscale
for sustainability involves social issues, and it is only one
of many social issues that leaders may elect to endorse and
support (e.g., democracy, free speech, global health, free
enterprise, animal rights, world peace). The definition and
measurement of ethical leadership should not be compli-
cated by debates about which social issues deserve to be
included in the definition.
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire
The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire was developed
to measure the core qualities of authentic leadership
(Walumbwa et al., 2008). The Authentic Leadership
Questionnaire includes four scales (self-awareness, rela-
tional transparency, internalized moral perspective, and bal-
anced processing), each with four items that describe leader
behavior and have a frequency response format. Walumbwa
et al. (2008) found some overlap between measures of
authentic leadership and ethical leadership. Two subscales
appear especially relevant for ethical leadership. An inter-
nalized moral perspective means that leader behavior is
guided by internal moral standards and personal values (e.g.,
makes decisions that are based on core beliefs, expresses
beliefs that are consistent with actions). Relational transpar-
ency means that the leader reveals values and beliefs accu-
rately (e.g., says exactly what he/she means, admits mistakes
openly). However, the other two components of authentic
leadership do not appear to describe essential aspects of
ethical leadership. Self- awareness appears similar to trait
and skills included in emotional maturity and emotional
intelligence. A leader can be self-aware without also being
honest, caring, or open with others, and a leader can be caring
and open without having a full understanding of unconscious
reasons for his or her core beliefs and values. Balanced pro-
cessing refers to objectivity and pragmatic openness to

relevant information and ideas when making decisions. This
quality involves personality traits and cognitive skills that
can facilitate problem solving but do not necessarily result
in decisions that are ethical. Moreover, the flexibility
implied by being highly receptive to new information and
ideas seems inconsistent with some aspects of ethical lead-
ership, such as communicating values in a strong, persua-
sive way and insisting on their application in the work
involved.
Servant Leadership Questionnaires
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed a questionnaire to
measure servant leadership, and it includes five subscales:
altruism, organizational stewardship, persuasive mapping,
wisdom, and emotional healing. Each scale has four to five
items that have a 4-point Likert-type response format (1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = somewhat dis-
agree, 4 = strongly disagree). The subscale for altruism
involves behaviors that reflect altruistic values and is very
relevant for ethical leadership (e.g., puts my best interests
ahead of his/her own, does everything he/she can to serve
me, sacrifices his/her own interests to meet my needs,
goes above and beyond the call of duty to meet my needs).
Organizational stewardship involves social responsibility
values and the belief that the organization should contribute
to society (e.g., believes that it needs to play a moral role in
society, encourages me to have a community spirit in the
workplace, is preparing the organization to make a positive
difference in the future). Not all scholars will agree that
ethical leadership should be defined so broadly as to include
advocacy of corporate social responsibility objectives. The
remaining three servant leadership scales do not seem very
relevant for ethical leadership. “Persuasive mapping” is an
interpersonal skill involving ability to influence people, and
“wisdom” involves situational awareness and social intel-

ligence. Both these skills can be used for either ethical or
unethical purposes. “Emotional healing” is a very special-
ized and probably somewhat rare interpersonal skill that
could be useful for some leaders but is not essential for
ethical leadership.
Overview
In summary, the prior theory and research on ethical leader-
ship has created substantial conceptual confusion about the
scope of the ethical leadership construct domain and the
appropriate way to measure it. The topics that appear most
relevant for a specific focus on ethical leadership include
(a) honesty and integrity (including consistency of actions
with espoused values), (b) behavior intended to communi-
cate or enforce ethical standards, (c) fairness in decisions
and the distribution of rewards (no favoritism or use of
rewards to motivate improper behavior), and (d) behavior
Yukl et al. 41
that shows kindness, compassion, and concern for the needs
and feelings of others (rather than attempts to manipulate,
abuse, and exploit others for personal gain). Except for
some supportive behaviors, these qualities appear distinct
from the types of behavior included in most prior research
on effective leadership.
Consequences of Ethical Leadership
Previous research has investigated how ethical leadership is
related to a variety of outcomes, including deviant behavior

(Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012; Mayer,
Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009), task perfor-
mance (Walumbwa et al., 2011), voice behavior (Walumbwa
& Schaubroeck, 2009), and organizational citizenship behav-
ior (Mayer et al., 2009). Our validation research involves
two specific indicators of leadership influence that are well
established in the organizational behavior literature, namely,
leader–member exchange (LMX) and overall effectiveness.
Leader–Member Exchange
LMX quality depends on the degree of emotional support
and exchange of valued resources between a leader and a
subordinate (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Sparrowe &
Liden, 1997). A high-quality exchange relation has benefi-
cial effects for both the leader and the subordinate (Erdogan,
Liden, & Kraimer, 2006; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick,
2002). A high-quality exchange relationship is more likely
to occur for a leader who is honest, trustworthy, fair, and
genuinely concerned about the well-being of followers
(Erdogan et al., 2006; Wayne et al., 2002).
Several studies have examined how leaders can influence
LMX. In one study, transformational behavior influenced
LMX, which then mediated the effects of leader behavior
on employee performance (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, &
Chen, 2005). Another study (Yukl, O’Donnell, & Taber,
2009) examined the effects of several specific behaviors,
including relations-oriented and change-oriented compo-
nents of transformational leadership. LMX was related to
four specific relations-oriented behaviors (supporting, rec-
ognizing, consulting, delegating) and leading by example
(which can be viewed as an indicator of integrity).
Research on the implications of ethical leadership for
LMX is still sparse. One recent study found a strong posi-
tive association between ethical leadership and LMX

(Walumbwa et al., 2011), and LMX partially mediated the
effects of ethical leadership on ratings of subordinate per-
formance by the leader. Another study by Mahsud, Yukl,
and Prussia (2010) found that a six-item measure of ethical
leadership had both direct and indirect effects on LMX, and
the indirect effects were partially mediated by relations-
oriented behavior.
Managerial Effectiveness
Leadership effectiveness is a multidimensional construct,
but an important aspect is the manager’s influence on work
unit performance. Ethical leadership that increases follower
loyalty and trust may result in more follower effort, and one
survey study found a relationship between ethical leadership
and employee effort (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, &
Folger, 2010). However, there are several reasons why an
improvement in unit performance may not occur. Member
motivation is not the only determinant of work unit perfor-
mance, and leaders can influence the determinants in several
ways (Yukl, 2009). Three broad categories of leadership
behavior relevant for influencing performance include task-
oriented behaviors (e.g., clear roles, challenging goals,
coordination, efficient use of resources), relations-oriented
behaviors (e.g., empowering, coaching, praise and recogni-
tion), and change-oriented behaviors (strategy formation,
enhancing collective learning). The relevance of specific
aspects of these behavior metacategories depends on the
situation. The change-oriented behaviors are usually more
important for executives, whereas the task-oriented behav-
iors are usually more important for lower level leaders.
Several studies (see Judge & Piccolo, 2004) found positive
association between composite scores of transforma-
tional leadership and measures of effectiveness, and the
composite scores usually include a mix of relations-oriented
and change-oriented behaviors. As yet no study has exam-

ined the extent to which ethical leadership can enhance
work unit performance independently of relevant leader-
ship behaviors.
A leader’s influence on work unit performance also
depends on how he or she balances competing objectives
(Quinn, 1988; Yukl, 2010). In some situations ethical lead-
ership may have negative effects on work unit performance,
and sometimes unethical leadership has positive effects, if
only for a limited time. For example, some decisions made
to reduce costs and increase profits may not be viewed as
ethical leadership by employees. In recent years, many
leaders of companies and public sector organizations have
been trying to cut costs by reducing employee rights and
benefits or by outsourcing many jobs. Sometimes the pro-
cess involves a lack of honest communication, failure to
honor commitments, and unfair treatment for different
groups of employees. Other leaders try to improve unit per-
formance with practices that are clearly unethical. Examples
from past scandals include the following: selling products
known to be defective, charging customers for unnecessary
auto repairs or parts not actually provided, inflating reports
of income from agreements for future delivery of services,
denying a weakness that make a product dangerous, and fal-
sifying information on applications for loans or mortgages.
If ethical leaders (“whistle-blowers”) dare to challenge
these practices, they are likely to be punished or dismissed

by the organization. The influence of unethical practices on
unit performance depends in part on the time frame used to
assess effects. Unethical practices may boost performance
indicators in the short term but are likely to have negative
effects that will only become apparent over a longer period
of time. All these complexities make it difficult to deter-
mine how ethical or unethical leadership will influence unit
performance.
Empirical studies on the consequences of ethical and
unethical leadership for work groups or organizations are
still limited. Several studies have found a positive linkage
between ethical leadership and perceived leader effective-
ness (Brown et al., 2005; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 1998;
Kalshoven et al., 2011). Most studies only examined relation-
ships for a composite measure of ethical leadership rather
than assessing how each ethical component is independently
related to the criterion variables. However, Kalshoven et al.
(2011) reported results for component scales. In the multiple
regression analysis, leader ratings of subordinate performance
were predicted by only two of the seven ELW subscales,
namely, fairness and power sharing. As noted earlier, fair-
ness is a relevant component of ethical leadership, but
power sharing is a leadership behavior that has been studied
for more than half a century and is not necessarily ethical
(it can be used in a very manipulative way). Subordinate
ratings of leader effectiveness were predicted by two essen-
tial aspects of ethical leadership (integrity and ethical guid-
ance) and by two leader behaviors (role clarification and
people orientation) that are not necessarily ethical. Role clar-
ification is a task-oriented behavior, and people orientation
is a relations-oriented behavior similar to consideration.
Summary
No previous study has investigated how ethical leadership
is related to LMX and overall leader effectiveness while

simultaneously controlling for a comprehensive measure of
task, relations, and change behaviors. In survey studies, it
is important to include other relevant behaviors and identify
their separate and joint effects on unit performance.
Research Objectives
The primary objective of the current study was to assess the
validity of a new questionnaire for measuring ethical lead-
ership. Discriminant validity is demonstrated when subor-
dinates can rate the ethical leadership of their immediate
boss independently from their ratings of how much the boss
uses leadership behaviors that do not directly involve ethi-
cal issues. Evidence of criterion-related validity is provided
by showing that ethical leadership can explain additional
variance in indicators of the leader’s influence on the quality
of relationships with subordinates and on unit performance.
There are credible explanations and some prior evidence
to support the proposition that an ethical leader will elicit
more trust and have more favorable exchange relationships
with subordinates. However, the implications of ethical
leadership for work unit performance are much less certain.
Examining these relationships is only an exploratory aspect
of the research, and the study was not designed to formally
test any specific hypotheses about them.
Method
Sample and Data Collection Procedures
The sample for this study were 192 graduate students, 147 of
whom were enrolled in the MBA program of a private uni-
versity in the northwestern part of the United States and
45 respondents were enrolled in the Master of Public
Administration program of a large public university in the
Midwestern part of the United States. The students had full-
time jobs during the day, and they rated their immediate

supervisor. Almost half of the respondents were between 25
and 30 years old, and the average amount of time respon-
dents had worked for their current organization was 2 to 4
years. The average work experience ranged from 7 to 10
years. The gender composition of the respondent sample was
49% males, and 44% of the supervisors rated by respondents
were females. More than half of the respondents (55%) held
professional/technical jobs, 26% held first-level manage-
ment positions (team leader, supervisor, and section head),
14% held middle-management positions, and only 3% were
upper level executives. The respondents represented diverse
organizations; 51% of them worked for medium to large
corporations, 32% worked for government or nonprofit orga-
nizations, and 14% worked for small businesses. The organi-
zations were from a large variety of industries (e.g., aerospace,
technology, pharmaceutical, media, consulting, retail, soft-
ware, telecommunications, banking, government, and non-
profit). This student sample is unique in the sense that they
attended only one or two classes per week and kept their
full-time job as prime responsibility. Being entry- to mid-
level managers their education was mostly funded by their
employers.
Data were collected in two time periods to reduce biases
that typically manifest when same source data are used to
assess both the predictor and criteria measures (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In the first wave of
data collection, respondents completed the ELQ and a
behavior description questionnaire. Two weeks after the
first wave of data collection, respondents completed another
questionnaire about the quality of their exchange relation
with their supervisors as well as the overall managerial
effectiveness of their boss and unit performance.

Yukl et al. 43
Measures
The ELQ was measured with 15 items, and each item has a
6-point Likert-style format (the ELQ is shown in the appen-
dix). The items describe several different aspects of ethical
leadership, including honesty, integrity, fairness, altruism,
consistency of behaviors with espoused values, communi-
cation of ethical values, and providing ethical guidance. To
maintain some continuity with the earlier research, when-
ever possible we tried to adapt items from earlier scales on
ethical leadership, including the ELS (Brown et al., 2005),
the PLIS (Craig & Gustafson, 1998), and the morality and
fairness scale developed by De Hoogh et al. (2008). However,
we did not include any items that appear to be confounded
with task and relations-oriented behaviors (e.g., clarifying
roles and responsibilities, empowering and developing sub-
ordinates) or with items in the LMX-7 scale (e.g., trust the
leader to defend your interests).
Leader task, relations, and change-oriented behaviors
were measured with 33 items from the Managerial Practices
Survey (MPS) developed by Yukl and colleagues (Kim &
Yukl, 1995; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002). All items have
the same 5-point response format with an anchor for each
choice indicating how much the behavior described by the
item is used by the focal manager (1 = Not at all, 5 = To a
very great extent) and with a “Don’t Know or Not Applicable”
option. Relations-oriented behaviors (supporting, recogniz-
ing, developing, consulting, and delegating) were measured
with 13 MPS items (α = .95). Task-oriented behaviors (clari-

fying roles, short-term planning, and monitoring operations)
were measured with 10 MPS items (α =.86). Change-oriented
behaviors (envisioning change and encouraging innovative
thinking) were measured with 10 MPS items (α = .92).
LMX was measured with the LMX-7 instrument devel-
oped by Scandura and Graen (1984; see also Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995). Each item had five anchored response
choices with unique anchors that are appropriate for the
item. The wording for the response choices in a few items
was slightly changed to reduce ambiguity. Sample items
included (a) how well does your boss understand and appre-
ciate your talents and potential, (b) how much confidence
does your boss have in your ability to do the work, (c) how
willing are you to do extra work to help your boss deal with
a difficult problem, and (d) how would you describe the
relationship between you and your boss? Internal reliability
consistency for this scale was high (α = .91).
Overall leader effectiveness was measured with four
items (α =.74). The first two items asked subordinates to rate
the overall effectiveness of their manager in carrying out his
or her job responsibilities (1 = The least effective manager I
have known and 9 = The most effective manager I have
known) and in terms of his or her overall effectiveness as a
manager (1 = Ineffective and 9 = Very effective). Each
item had a 9-point anchored scale (1 = The least effective
manager and 9 = The most effective manager). The other
two items asked subordinates to assess their manager’s work
unit performance relative to past performance (1 = Increased
a lot and 7 = Decreased a lot) and comparing it with similar
work units (1 = Much better and 7 = Much worse). These
two items were recoded such that higher values reflected
greater effectiveness. To equalize the influence of items with
different score ranges and variances, the scores for each item

were standardized before computing a composite score on
overall leader effectiveness.
Results
Factor Analyses
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to
assess discriminant validity for the ELQ. The exploratory
factor analysis using principle components and oblique
rotation resulted in four distinct factors corresponding to
task, relations, and change behaviors and ethical leadership.
The factor loadings for the ELQ are shown in Table 1 and
demonstrate a clear distinction among the items. Only three
ELQ items had cross-loadings on the MPS relations-
oriented factor that exceeded .30, and none of those load-
ings reached .40.
Confirmatory factor analysis for the proposed four-factor
model (see Table 2, Model 1) showed adequate fit given the
number of indicators per construct. We then compared the
four-factor model with three possible alternative models:
(a) a model with a single underlying construct suggesting
common method variance (Podsakoff et al. 2003), (b) a
two-factor model with MPS items in one factor and ethical
Table 1. Factor Loadings for ELQ Items
ELQ Item
Ethical
Leadership
Relations
Behaviors
Change
Behaviors

Task
Behaviors
1 .82 .22 .10 .01
2 .65 .15 .10 .16
3 .83 .18 .05 .07
4 .81 .20 .11 .10
5 .75 .26 .17 .19
6 .72 .23 .14 .08
7 .72 .21 .17 .25
8 .83 .18 .12 .11
9 .68 .36 .24 .19
10 .72 .15 .21 .07
11 .65 .25 .27 .18
12 .80 .13 .03 .07
13 .71 .35 .15 .15
14 .70 .34 .13 .09
15 .71 .08 .14 .10
Note: ELQ = Ethical Leadership Questionnaire. Factor loadings
on ELQ
items are shown in bold. Three items that had cross-loadings on
the MPS
relations oriented factor also are shown in bold.
Table 2. Fit Indices for Alternative Measurement Models

Models χ2 df NNFI CFI IFI RMSEA Δχ2 Δdf
1. Baseline four-factor model 1804.29* 1,074 .97 .97 .97 .06
2. Single-factor model 6148.52* 1,080 .79 .80 .80 .16 4344.23*
6
3. Two-factor model 3220.33* 1,079 .91 .91 .91 .11 1416.04* 5
4. Three-factor model 4398.68* 1,079 .86 .87 .87 .14 2594.39*
5
NOTE: NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit
index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation. The
two-factor model differentiated Managerial Practices Survey
items from Ethical Leadership Questionnaire items; the three-
factor model differentiated
among Change, Task, Relations, and Ethical Leadership
Questionnaire items.
*p < .05.
leadership items in the other, and (c) a three-factor model
with ethical leadership loading on relations behavior and
separate factors for task and change behaviors. The fit indi-
ces for the proposed four-factor model (see Table 2) were
better than for any of the rival models.
Correlations and Regression Analyses
Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, correlations,
and internal reliability estimates (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha) for
all six measures included in the study. Although composite
scores for all measures were slightly negatively skewed,
the differences between the average scores and the scale
midpoints were not very large. Furthermore, the standard
deviations for all of the measures were relatively high,
indicating adequate variability in the data sufficient for
further analysis.

Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were con-
ducted to assess the effect of ethical leadership on LMX and
overall leader effectiveness. Table 4 summarizes results of
the regression analysis for LMX. In the first step, relations
and task-oriented leader behaviors were found to be signifi-
cant predictors of LMX, and they accounted for 52% of the
criterion variance (F = 60.63, p < .05). In the second step,
after controlling for the effects of the three leader behaviors,
ethical leadership was a significant predictor of LMX (β =
.38, p < .05), and it explained an additional 7% criterion
variance (F = 61.40, p < .05).
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation
Coefficients of Measures
Measures Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Task-Oriented Behaviors 3.18 0.70 (.86)
2. Relations-Oriented Behaviors 3.09 0.86 .46 (.95)
3. Change-Oriented Behaviors 3.55 0.96 .51 .67 (.92)
4. Ethical Leadership 4.68 1.05 .38 .60 .52 (.96)
5. Leader–Member Exchange 3.90 0.83 .47 .72 .53 .66 (.91)
6. Overall Leader Effectiveness 6.43 1.71 .55 .62 .59 .67 .80
(.74)
NOTE: All correlations are significant at p < .05 or better.
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Leader–Member
Exchange
Step 1 Step 2
Measures β t β t

Task Behaviors .20 3.15* .15 2.62*
Relations Behaviors .57 7.81** .40 5.50**
Change Behaviors .06 0.82 .01 0.13
Ethical Leadership .36 5.55**
R2 .52 .59
F 69.07** 61.40**
NOTE: β is standardized regression coefficient; N = 198.
*p < .05. **p< .01.
Table 5 summarizes results of the hierarchical regres-
sion analysis for overall leader effectiveness. In the first
step of the regression analysis, the three leader behaviors
together accounted for 46% variance in leader effective-
ness. In the second step, after controlling for the effects of
the three types of leader behaviors, ethical leadership was
found to be a significant predictor of leader effectiveness
(β = .39, p < .05), and it explained an additional 10% vari-
ance in leader effectiveness (F = 41.55, p<.05). The regres-
sion analyses provided evidence for the criterion-related
validity of the ELQ.
Yukl et al. 45
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Overall Leader
Effectiveness
Step 1 Step 2
Measures β t β t

Task Behaviors .28 3.65** .21 2.97**
Relations
Behaviors
.30 3.51** .10 1.13
Change
Behaviors
.24 2.66* .20 2.45*
Ethical
Leadership
.39 4.98**
R2 .46 .56
F 39.92** 41.55**
NOTE: β is standardized regression coefficient; N = 198.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Discussion
Researchers are paying increasing attention to the impor-
tance of ethical leadership in both private and public sector
organizations. However, progress in this research is impeded
by problems in the questionnaires used to measure ethical
leadership. One limitation of the earlier measures is overlap
with other leadership constructs such as supportive and
empowering leadership, which are known to be related to
LMX. When a correlation is found between a confounded
measure of ethical leadership and LMX, it is difficult to
interpret the results. Another limitation in earlier studies was
the use of an ethical leadership measure that did not include

some relevant aspects of ethical leadership. The relationship
between ethical leadership and outcomes such as LMX and
unit performance may be underestimated by an incomplete
measure of ethical leadership.
Based on previous theory and research, we developed
and assessed a new ELQ designed to provide a more useful
and valid measure. The ELQ is comprehensive with regard
to the most important elements of ethical leadership, includ-
ing integrity, honesty, fairness, communication of ethical
values, consistency of behavior with espoused values, ethi-
cal guidance, and altruism. At the same time, with only 15
items and one composite score, the ELQ is parsimonious
and easy to administer.
Our study showed that the ELQ has high reliability as
well as discriminant and criterion-related validity. The fac-
tor analyses confirmed that the items in the ELQ are distinct
from task- and change-oriented leader behaviors, and there
is minimal overlap with relations-oriented leader behaviors
such as supportive and empowering leadership.
As in a few earlier studies that used different measures,
we found that ethical leadership is significantly related to
LMX and leader effectiveness. Unlike the earlier studies,
our study minimized any confounding between ethical
leadership and other relevant predictors such as support-
ive leadership. After controlling for the effects of task-
oriented, relations-oriented, and change-oriented leader
behaviors, the ELQ explained additional variance in both
LMX and overall leader effectiveness. Similar to Zhu,
May, and Avolio (2004), our finding that ethical leader-
ship is related to an effectiveness measure that includes
unit work performance provides evidence that being ethi-
cal is not only commendable but also effective.

Limitations and Future Research
There are four particular limitations of the current study.
First, like any survey study, the results reflect correlations
rather than causation. A strong test of causality requires a
research design with experimental manipulation of indepen-
dent variables. It is difficult to manipulate ethical leadership
in a field setting, but a scenario study could be used for a
laboratory experiment on some research questions about
ethical leadership.
A second limitation of this research is the possibility of
same-source bias. To reduce such bias, we separated the col-
lection of the independent and dependent variables of our
study by approximately 2 weeks (Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar,
Roberts, & Chonko, 2009), and we used different response
formats for the predictor and criterion measures (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis
results suggested that our data were better explained by the
proposed four-factor model than by a common factor or
plausible alternative models. Finally, Doty and Glick (1998)
and Spector (2006) have concluded that problems caused by
common method variance are overstated and seldom serious
enough to invalidate research findings based on the type of
methods used. Just the same, future investigations should
conduct longitudinal research using independent measures
of the predictors and outcome variables derived from differ-
ent sources to further limit potential problems associated
with common method variance.
The third limitation of our study was the assessment of
leader attributes from the perspective of a single subordi-
nate. The ratings of leader ethical behaviors may be biased
by a subordinate’s general evaluation of the leader, but the
alternative of using leader self-ratings of ethical behav-
iors entails an even greater likelihood of biased responses.

Having multiple subordinates rate each leader’s ethical con-
duct could provide a more accurate assessment of ethical
behavior. Future research should ask leaders to provide
behavior self-assessments and then check for agreement
with the ratings of leader behaviors made by subordinates,
peers, and bosses. The study can be nested within a multi-
source feedback intervention that includes other relevant
behaviors and competencies.
A final limitation is that we did not include other common
measures of leadership (e.g., transformational leadership).
However, most leader behaviors captured by these other
measures are included in the MPS. Nonetheless, future
research should include alternative measures of leader
behaviors to further examine the discriminant, incremental,
and predictive validity of the ELQ.
Another future study that would be worthwhile is to com-
pare different ethical leadership scales with regard to their con-
tent validity and accuracy in predicting different criterion
variables. It would also be useful to assess how consistent the
ELQ fits conceptions of ethical leadership in different cultures,
and for different types of leaders in both the private and public
sector. Finally, dilemmas involving competing values and the
needs of different stakeholders deserve more attention in future
theory, research, and applications. Ethical leadership is more
than a list of best practices; it also involves the way ethical

dilemmas are resolved and what is done when all the available
options have negative consequences. We should avoid the
temptation to oversimplify the meaning of ethical leadership
by equating it to the composite score on a short questionnaire.
Conclusions
To be effective, leaders should demonstrate ethical leader
behaviors in addition to task-, relations-, and change-oriented
leader behaviors. The ELQ measure developed in this
study has several advantages over earlier versions. It
includes the key types of ethical behaviors, it is not con-
founded by other leader behaviors, and it is short and easy
to use. The ELQ can be used along with other measures of
behavior and skills in feedback workshops for leaders, and
it can be adapted for use as a self-monitoring instrument.
Appendix
Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)
Instructions: This questionnaire is designed to study the
relevance of ethics to effective leadership. The term “unit”
refers to the team, department, division, or company for
which your boss is the formal leader, and the term “mem-
bers” refers to the people in the unit who report directly to
your boss. Please indicate how well each of the following
statements describes your current boss by selecting one of
the following response choices. Write the number of the
choice on the line provided. Leave the item blank if you do
not know the answer.
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Moderately Disagree
3. Slightly Disagree
4. Slightly Agree
5. Moderately Agree
6. Strongly Agree

My boss:
1. _ Shows a strong concern for ethical and moral
values.
2. _ Communicates clear ethical standards for
members.
3. _ Sets an example of ethical behavior in his/her
decisions and actions.
4. _Is honest and can be trusted to tell the truth.
5. _ Keeps his/her actions consistent with his/her
stated values (“walks the talk”).
6. _ Is fair and unbiased when assigning tasks to
members.
7. _ Can be trusted to carry out promises and com-
mitments.
8. _ Insists on doing what is fair and ethical even
when it is not easy.
9. _ Acknowledges mistakes and takes responsibility
for them.
10. _ Regards honesty and integrity as important per-
sonal values.
11. _ Sets an example of dedication and self-sacrifice
for the organization.
12. _ Opposes the use of unethical practices to increase

performance.
13. _ Is fair and objective when evaluating member
performance and providing rewards.
14. _ Puts the needs of others above his/her own self-
interest.
15. _ Holds members accountable for using ethical
practices in their work.
Copyright © by Yukl (2010).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Avolio, J. B., & Gardner, L. W. (2005). Authentic leadership
development: Getting to the root cause of positive forms of
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development
and
construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organi-
zation Management, 31, 300-326.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership:

A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly,17,
595-616.
Yukl et al. 47
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical
lead-
ership: A social learning perspective for construct development
and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97, 117-134.
Cuilla, J. (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B (1998). Perceived Leader
Integrity
Scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of
leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 127-145.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and
despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social respon-
sibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’
optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19,
297-311.
Doty, G. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias:
Does
common method variance really bias results? Organizational
Research Methods, 1, 374-406.

Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and
leader–member exchange: The moderating role of organiza-
tional culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 395-406.
Frey, L. W., Hannah, T. S., Noel, M., & Walumbwa, O. F.
(2011).
Impact of spiritual leadership on unit performance. Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 259-270.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership.
Leader-
ship Quarterly, 14, 693-727.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., &
Walumbwa, F. O.
(2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authen-
tic leadership and follower development. Leadership Quar-
terly, 16, 343-372.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship based
approach
to leadership: Development of leader member exchange theory
(LMX) of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level,
multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and
transac-
tional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).
Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development
and validation of a multi-dimensional measure. Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 51-69.
Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and

trans-
formational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 18, 257-265.
Khuntia, R., & Suar, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leader-
ship for Indian private and public sector managers. Journal
of Business Ethics, 49, 13-26.
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of self-reported and
subordinate reported leadership behaviors to managerial
effectiveness and advancement. Leadership Quarterly, 6,
361-377.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–
member
exchange theory: The past potential for the future. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47-119.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008).
Ser-
vant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure
and multilevel assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy,
ethical
leadership, and relation-oriented behaviors as antecedents of
leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Managerial Psy-
chology, 25, 561-577.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M.
(2012). Who displays ethical leadership and why does it mat-
ter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethi-
cal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151-171.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., &
Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow?

Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13.
Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., &
Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical lead-
ership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business
Ethics, 90, 157-170.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thompson, S. B. (2002). Perceived
integ-
rity of transformational leaders in organizational settings.
Journal
of Business Ethics, 35, 75-96.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R.
(2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job
characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259-
278.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N.
P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering
the
paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response style myth.
Psychological
Bulletin, 63, 129-156.
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant
leader-

ship attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 23, 145-157.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of
initial
leader member exchange status on the effects of a leadership
intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Eisenbach, R. J. (1995). An exploratory
and confirmatory factor analytic investigation of item wording
effects on the obtained factor structures of survey question-
naire measure. Journal of Management, 21, 1177-1193.
Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or culture
mat-
ters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 243-256.
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004).
Trans-
formational and servant leadership: Content and contextual
comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
10(4), 80-91.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in
leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Review,
22, 522-552.
Spector, P. E. (2006) Method variance in organizational

research:
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9,
221-232.
Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical:
Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 18, 69-204.
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M. E., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A quali-
tative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership:
Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human
Relations, 56, 5-38.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T.
S., &
Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and
validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management,
34, 89-126.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H.,
Workman, C.,
& Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to
employee performance: The roles of LMX, self-efficacy, and
organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 115, 204-213.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality
traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical
leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1275-1286.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X.
(2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the rela-
tionship between transformational leadership and followers’
performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 48, 420-432.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E.
(2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions
of organizational support and leader–member exchange.
Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership and organizational learning: An
eval-
uative essay. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 49-53.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical
taxonomy
of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior
research. Journal of Leadership & Organization Studies, 9, 15-
32.
Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Leader behaviors
and
leader member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
24, 289-299.
Zhu, W., May, R. D., & Avolio, J. B. (2004). The impact of
ethical
leadership behavior on employee outcomes: The roles of psy-
chological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leader-
ship & Organizational Studies, 11, 16-26.
Bios
Gary Yukl received a PhD in Industrial-Organizational
Psychology from the University of California at Berkeley. He
is

currently a Professor of Management at UAlbany, and his
research
interests include leadership, influence processes, and
management
development. He has published many journal articles and is the
author or coauthor of several books, including Leadership in
Organizations, 7th edition (Prentice-Hall, 2010). He has
received
several awards for his research and is a fellow of the American
Psychological Association, the American Psychological Society,
the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, and the
Academy of Management. His leadership development
programs
are used in many organizations.
Rubina Mahsud, Assistant Professor, PhD, New York State
University at Albany, MPH, New York State University at
Albany,
Masters in Social Sciences, University of Birmingham (UK),
M.D., Jinnah Medical College (Pak). Her areas of expertise are
Strategy, strategic leadership, and Corporate Social
Responsibility,
Global Business Integrated. She joined Albers in 2007 where
she
teaches MBA’s capstone courses on competitive strategy and
senior synthesis classes on Business Policy and Strategy. Prior
to
Albers Business School, she held a visiting position at the
Tobin
College of Business Administration at St. John’s University,
New
York. Dr. Mahsud published on determinants of firm
performance,
flexible leadership, ethical leadership, and corporate social
responsibility topics in journals including JLOS, JMP, The
Independent Review, and Consulting Psychology Journal.

Shahidul Hassan currently serves as an assistant professor of
Public Management at the John Glenn School of Public Affairs
at
The Ohio State University. He received his PhD in Public
Administration and Policy from the Rockefeller College of
Public
Affairs at the University at Albany. His research focuses on the
role
of leadership and management practices on motivation, commit-
ment and performance of employees in public and non-profit
orga-
nizations. Dr. Hassan’s research has appeared in journals such
as
International Public Management Journal and Public
Management
Review. He is a member of the Academy of Management and
Public Management Research Association and serves on the
Editorial Board for the International Public Management
Journal.
Gregory E. Prussia teaches in the Management Department and
holds the O’Brien Chair in the Albers School of Business and
Economics at Seattle University. He has a BA in Economics and
an MBA from California State University, Chico, and a PhD in
Human Resource Management from Arizona State University.
His
publications appear in several journals including Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal
of Applied Psychology, and Personnel Psychology. He is a
mem-
ber of the Academy of Management, the American
Psychological
Association, and the Decision Sciences Institute, and serves on
the
Editorial Board for the Academy of Management Journal.

Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies 20(1) 38 –48.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies 20(1) 38 –48.docx

Similar to Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies 20(1) 38 –48.docx (20)

More from priestmanmable

More from priestmanmable (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies 20(1) 38 –48.docx