Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Original Article
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
The Benefits of Ethical Behaviors of Leaders
Carmen Tanner,1
Adrian Brügger,2
Susan van Schie,1
and Carmen Lebherz1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland,
2
School of Psychology, University of Exeter, UK
Abstract. Ethical scandals in business have led to calls for more ethical or moral leadership. Yet, we still know very little about what
characterizes ethical leadership and what its positive consequences actually are. We argue that the major question is not about what leaders value,
but rather whether their ethical values are regularly reflected in behavioral patterns across situations and situational challenges. To address this,
we have begun to build the Ethical Leadership Behavior Scale, which is based on behaviors reflecting concrete manifestations of ethical values
(e.g., fairness, respect) across occasions and situational barriers. A study with 592 employees of 110 work units in two departments provided a
first test of this scale and demonstrated that the level of ethical leadership behavior predicts important work-related attitudes (job satisfaction,
work engagement, affective organizational commitment) and outcomes (health complaints, emotional exhaustion, absenteeism).
Keywords: ethical leadership, ethical behavior, ethical values, job attitudes, work outcomes
Ethical scandals in business, the current financial crisis, and
examples of misuse of power by prominent leaders have
contributed to widespread attention on ethics and led to calls
for more ethical or moral leadership. This has raised impor-
tant questions: What constitutes ethical leadership? How can
it be measured? How does ethical leadership affect follow-
ers’ attitudes and performances? Yet, we still know very lit-
tle about what characterizes ethical leadership and what its
effects actually are. To date, very little research has empiri-
cally examined ethical leadership (Brown, Treviño, &
Harrison, 2005; Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2003).
Given that leadership is inevitably value-laden, leader-
ship scholars have emphasized the role of moral develop-
ment and values for the emergence of ethical leadership
and have called for research to examine such issues (Russell,
2001; Schmidt & Posner, 1982; Sosik, 2005). Consequently,
discourses in many arenas have centered on values and on
the questions of which personal values are important and
how they affect behavior (see Meglino & Ravlin, 1998).
Ethical values essentially imply adherence to standards of
morally right or good behaviors, as opposed to morally
wrong or bad behaviors. However, leaders’ values only mat-
ter to organizations and followers if they convey those
beliefs and values through their actions. As Ciulla (1999)
pointed out, ‘‘leaders sometimes lack the ability or the moral
courage to act on their values’’ (p. 169). In this work, we call
for more focused attention on the question of whether and
how ethical values are reflected in behavioral patterns, and
whether people act upon these values cross-situationally
and despite situational challenges, because: actions speak
louder than words. Specifically, we suggest that an ethical
leadership instrument that assesses leaders’ ethical behavior
across settings and difficulties has more potential to serve as
a diagnostic and educational tool.
The main goal of the following research is to build and
test a first version of an Ethical Leadership Behavior Scale
(ELBS). The intention is to expand upon previous assess-
ments of ethical or authentic leadership by assessing con-
crete ethical manifestations of varying difficulties.
Furthermore, as there is little empirical evidence on the
potential positive effects of ethical behaviors, a second goal
is to examine the extent to which ethical leadership behavior
contributes positively to followers’ job attitudes and work
outcomes.
Issues in Ethical Leadership
Conceptualization
Although most scholars agree that all major forms of lead-
ership should be based on some ethical foundation (Bass
& Steidlmeier, 1999; Kanungo, 2001), moral dimensions
of leadership behavior have at best played an implicit or
indirect role. Ethical standards of leadership have only
recently been discussed and investigated more explicitly
and directly. However, discussions differ as to what should
be expected from an ethical leader. In their initial frame-
work, Brown and colleagues (Brown et al., 2005; Brown
& Treviño, 2006) asserted that ethical leadership involves
promoting normatively appropriate conduct through role
modeling and interpersonal relationships. They stated that
ethical leaders are perceived as trustworthy, fair, and con-
cerned about others, that they set clear ethical standards
! 2010 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2010; Vol. 218(4):225–233
DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409/a000032

and use rewards and punishments to promote ethical
conduct.
Furthermore, approaches toward authentic leadership
typically assert that (moral) authenticity is achieved when
individuals act in accordance with their ‘‘true self,’’ express-
ing themselves in ways that are in line with internal thoughts
and feelings (e.g., Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, &
Walumbwa, 2005; Harter, 2002). Recently, Walumbwa
and colleagues (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, &
Peterson, 2008) characterized an authentic leader as some-
body who transparently presents one’s self, demonstrating
self-awareness, moral self-regulation, and balanced informa-
tion processing.
Our approach is clearly related to, but also distinct from
these conceptualizations. Our perspective shares Brown
et al.’s view that ethical leadership includes role modeling
through visible actions, but we see trustworthiness as an out-
come of ethical behavior rather than a feature of ethical lead-
ers themselves. Moreover, we share with conceptualizations
of authentic leaders the claim that people have to act in con-
cert with their deep personal (moral) values and convictions,
but instead of focusing on intrapersonal processes (e.g., self-
awareness, self-regulation), we emphasize the importance of
demonstrating the pursuit of ethical values on a regular basis
to be perceived as morally authentic by followers. Specifi-
cally, we wish to highlight the following three core compo-
nents of ethical leadership.
Adherence to Ethical Values
Values are stable beliefs about desirable states or conducts of
behaviors, which serve as normative standards to judge and
justify actions (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Since val-
ues guide choices and behaviors, appropriate values are seen
as being at the root of ethical conduct (Lord & Brown,
2001). For example, Schmidt and Posner (1982) asserted
that managerial values are the ‘‘silent power’’ in personal
and organizational life. We therefore wish ethical leaders
to be aware of and committed to ethical values. However,
the ultimate question to be answered is ‘‘which values’’
the leader should convey. The literature reveals that the val-
ues considered as essential to the value system of good lead-
ers primarily include honesty, integrity, concern for others,
encouragement and fairness (e.g., Reave, 2005; Resick,
Hanges, Dickson, & Mitchelson, 2006; Russell, 2001).
Ethical leaders are expected to be guided by altruistic values
and to protect the rights and dignity of others (e.g., Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999; Kanungo, 2001).
Consistency Across Time and Situations
Various researchers have emphasized that being an ethical
leader also encompasses efforts to convey ethical values
through visible actions, not just words (Treviño, Hartman,
& Brown, 2000). As Ciulla (1999) pointed out, ‘‘the ques-
tion is not so much about what a leader values, but what
a leader actually does to demonstrate his or her values’’
(p. 166). Thus, we also expect ethical leaders to act on these
values. Even more, we wish them to act on their values on a
regular basis. Fundamental to our conception is the idea that
consistency between words and actions has to be demon-
strated repeatedly, that is, across time and situations. The
more a leader maintains a similar ethical stance over time
and situations, and the more predictable and transparent
his or her behavior, the more likely observers will come
to characterize the leader as credible, trustworthy, possessing
integrity – as authentic (see also Gardner et al., 2005). This
view draws somewhat from Kelley’s (1972) attribution the-
ory, according to which observers are more likely to attribute
the behavior to a person and to infer personal traits if the
individual’s conduct toward a recipient generalizes across
time/settings (consistency is high) and across many recipi-
ents (distinctiveness is high).
Ethical Behavior Despite Barriers
Clearly, there may be many good reasons why leaders with
moral intentions may choose not to act ethically, including
that of avoiding unpopularity or preserving their own career
survival (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003). Whether or
not leaders act on their values is influenced by their moral
courage, that is, the conviction to do what they believe in
despite potentially unpleasant consequences. Similarly, we
believe that (authentic) ethical leaders are more likely to
reveal moral courage and to take a stand even in the face
of external obstacles. We expect them to be more likely to
behave ethically even when it is costly. Tanner and col-
leagues (Tanner, Berkowitsch, Gibson, & Wagner, 2010;
Tanner, Gibson, Wagner, & Berkowitsch, 2010) found sup-
port for this view in experiments investigating choices
between honest and dishonest behaviors in the context of
business settings. Notably, the results revealed that people
strongly committed to the value of honesty were more likely
to sacrifice (real) money in favor of behaving honestly.
Hence, leaders are likely to differ in their commitment and
courage to act upon their ethical values.
Overall,wedefineethicalleadershipasinvolving(a)ethical
awareness and adherence to morally upright values, (b) the
ability to act in accordance with those values over varying
settings, and doing so (c) despite the risk of unpleasant con-
sequences. By no means do we imply that these are all
necessary components of ethical leadership. However, we
believe that a more explicit focus on these components in
the concept and measurement of ethical leadership is crucial
and can supplement previous work on ethical leadership.
Issues in Ethical Leadership
Measurement
Recently, Brown et al. built an Ethical Leadership Scale
(ELS, 10 items) that directly assesses whether the leader
can be characterized as trustworthy, fair, or caring (e.g.,
‘‘can be trusted,’’ ‘‘makes fair and balanced decisions’’)
226 C. Tanner et al.: Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2010; Vol. 218(4):225–233 ! 2010 Hogrefe Publishing

and whether the leader shows efforts to communicate and
demonstrate ethical behavior (e.g., ‘‘sets an example of
how to do things the right way in terms of ethics,’’ ‘‘con-
ducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner’’) (Brown
et al., 2005; Treviño, et al., 2003). Rowold, Borgmann,
and Heinitz (2009) recently developed a German version
of Brown et al.’s scale, but were unable to replicate the
one-factor structure of the English version.
Despite Brown et al.’s seminal efforts in the area of eth-
ical leadership, we believe that their instrument has some
essential limitations: First, although the authors emphasize
the relevance of visible actions, many of the questions are
rather abstract and do not really focus on visible behaviors.
For example, asking whether the leader sets an example of
how to do things the right way or whether the leader con-
ducts an ethical life leaves open what it means ‘‘to do things
the right way’’ or to ‘‘conduct an ethical life.’’ That is, the
measure does not sufficiently specify the behaviors through
which somebody is ethical. Second, many items are precar-
ious in that they implicitly expect respondents (e.g., employ-
ees) to be competent about what characterizes ethical
conduct or ethical standards (e.g., when asked to evaluate
leaders’ ethical life). Such knowledge, however, is not
self-evident. Third, we believe that whether a leader can
be trusted or not should be better seen as an outcome rather
than a feature of the ethical leadership scale. In particular,
given the abstract level, the measure’s potential to reveal
deeper insights into individual differences and its capacity
to assist training and changes is rather limited.
To be useful for research and practical purposes alike, we
suggest that a valid and reliable measure is needed that takes
better account of (1) the large variety of ethical behaviors,
and (2) the fact that individuals differ considerably with
respect to behaviors, moral commitment, and courage. In
particular, in terms of developing ethical leadership, a mea-
sure would be helpful that (3) allows information to be
deduced about how to improve ethical leadership.
Such goals can be more fully achieved by an instrument
that spans a larger spectrum of specific manifestations of
ethical values, across situations and difficulties. By focusing
explicitly on visible actions in the questions, the use of eth-
ical terms can be avoided, thus reducing the problem of
demanding ethical knowledge or competences from the
respondents. In addition, by including a large set of behav-
iors of varying difficulties, such a measure may later serve
as a powerful and practical tool to advance changes and
reflect effects of interventions.
The present research seeks to provide a first step of such
an ELBS. To attain such an instrument, we also suggest
making use of the probabilistic measurement approach of
the Rasch model.
Research Goals
The instrument we strive for should (1) encompass a variety
of behaviors that represent valid examples of manifestations
of ethical values in various settings, (2) allow us to assess
leaders’ level of ethical behavior across many occasions,
and (3) include behaviors of varying difficulty in order to
gain an idea of leaders’ willingness to overcome barriers
and resistance. To achieve (1), we began by conducting
qualitative interviews with employees and supervisors in
order to generate items that assess behavioral manifestations
of ethical values. To ensure content validity, categorization
tasks were employed to identify those behaviors that best
convey these values. The final items were then used to
develop the ELBS. To attain (2) and (3), we promote the
application of a model from the Rasch family. The Rasch
model has been successfully used in the past to develop
behavior measures in various domains (e.g., Haans, Kaiser,
& de Kort, 2007; Kaiser, 1998; Tanner, Kaiser, & Wölfing
Kast, 2004).
The Rasch approach provides two separate measures: (a)
the person’s performance level (h) and (b) the difficulty for
each behavior (see Bond & Fox, 2007). A behavior diffi-
culty (d) is defined as the probability that anybody will
behave in a certain way, regardless of his or her specific atti-
tude or motivation to act. It is estimated by counting the
number of people who behave in a certain way. The under-
lying assumption is that the lower the likelihood that a per-
son will manifest a particular behavior, the more costly the
behavior, and thus the more difficult the behavior and vice
versa (Haans et al., 2007; Kaiser, 1998). For example, a dif-
ficult item may be one in which leaders acting ethically
would put their own career at risk.
A leader’s performance level (h), in turn, isassessed by the
number of behavior difficultiessomebodyactuallyovercomes
(e.g.,Haansetal.,2007;Kaiser,1998).Thegreatertheamount
of increasingly difficult and ethically relevant tasks a leader
masters, the more he or she generally behaves ethically. Con-
versely, the level of a leader’s ethical behavior tends to be low
when the tiniest difficulty is enough to inhibit him or her from
acting ethically. Higher personal scores in ethical leadership
behavior also reflect that this person is more likely to act eth-
ically despite external pressures. In other words, higher per-
sonal scores reflect higher moral courage, as demonstrated
by stronger adherence to moral principles.
Relating item difficulties (d) and person performance
levels (h) to each other is one of the greatest assets of the
Rasch model. Sometimes, the probability of performing a
certain behavior is also expressed as endorsement probabil-
ity (p) (Bond & Fox, 2007). Unlike d, the values of p are
more sample-dependent, but in return more comprehensible.
In the interest of clarity and simplicity, we will therefore
later rely on p rather than d for the description of item
difficulty.
The aim of the present paper is twofold. First, we will
develop the ELBS, which encompasses a variety of value-
based ethical behaviors and makes use of behavior difficul-
ties. Based on the Rasch measurement approach, a study in
two related Swiss organizations will provide a first test of
the instrument’s construct validity. Second, we then investi-
gate the ability of the ELBS to predict followers’ job atti-
tudes and work outcomes. For this purpose, we will assess
three common job attitudes (job satisfaction, affective
commitment, work engagement) and three work outcome
variables (health complaints, emotional exhaustion,
absenteeism). Specifically, we hypothesize that leaders
C. Tanner et al.: Actions Speak Louder Than Words 227

manifesting higher levels of ethical behavior will directly
contribute to higher job satisfaction, commitment to the
organization, and work engagement, because such leaders
are perceived by followers as more trustworthy, credible,
virtuous, and caring. By supporting desirable job attitudes,
we further assume that higher levels of ethical behavior indi-
rectly contribute to fewer health complaints and less emo-
tional exhaustion and absenteeism.
Item Generation for the ELBS
Several steps were conducted for item generation: (a) In-
depth interviews with employees and supervisors were con-
ducted to verify a core set of ethical values and to identify
concrete behaviors that convey these values. (b) Based on
the results of the interviews and on previous literature, we
generated a large pool of value-based behavioral items. (c)
To ensure that the items represented unequivocally behav-
ioral demonstrations of the values that we intended, we then
performed an exploratory categorization study with 442 stu-
dents, asking them to assign each item to the value from a
given list that they thought fit the scenario best. We then
selected the more prototypical items, that is, those behaviors
that were assigned most unanimously to the intended value.
(d) To further assess the adequacy of the items, students
(with work experience) were asked to shorten and simplify
the items and to eliminate redundant ones. We finally
focused on items that represented behavioral examples of
the following four central values: honesty, fairness, respect,
and support. After several revisions, a preliminary pool of
74 items remained. (e) To ensure content validity again, a
sample of 23 students was asked to assign each behavioral
item to one of four given value categories. Only items that
were classified in the same category by at least 70% of
the participants were included in the survey. Through this
procedure, the item pool was reduced from 74 to 49 items.
The following investigation was designed to (a) test the
construct validity of the ELBS and (b) investigate its ability
to predict employee job attitudes and work outcomes.
Method
Participants and Procedure
We collected data from two samples (n1 = 419, n2 = 173) of
two Swiss federal police departments through an online sur-
vey, over a span of 2 months. Participation was encouraged
by the management but completely voluntary and confiden-
tial. Incomplete datasets fromemployeeswhohadbeenwork-
ing for less than 2 years in the organizations or who reported
interacting only very rarely (less than once a month) with the
supervisor were eliminated. Because no differences in charac-
teristics between the samples were found, we decided to com-
bine them. Our final sample consisted of 592 employees
(81.5%) from 110 work groups. They were 85% male and
14% female (1% did notindicate theirgender), and their mean
age was M = 41 years (SD = 1.1). On average, they had been
working with their supervisor for M = 4.9 years (SD = 3.8).
Nearly three-quarters of the respondents reported being in
daily contact with their line manager.
The survey contained two parts: We first assessed the
ethical behaviors of the employees’ direct supervisors and
then the employee job attitudes and work outcomes.
Measures
Ethical Leadership Behavior
In line with standard procedures, we assessed supervisors’
ethical behavior from followers. This was done in two steps.
First, we used the scores of all 592 employees to calibrate
the scale, based on the ‘‘partial-credit Rasch model’’ (Bond
& Fox, 2007). Second, we then examined the within-group
agreement of ELBS scores in order to verify that leaders’
ethical behavior reflects observed behaviors and not merely
employees’ response tendencies.
Employees were given the proposed 49-item measure to
assess leaders’ ethical behavior. They were asked to rate the
extent to which they agreed that their supervisor demon-
strated particular behaviors, using a 5-point rating scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) including the
response option not applicable. Based on analyses with dif-
ferent numbers of response categories, we recoded the
responses from a 5-point into a 3-point format (with the
new response categories ‘‘strongly disagree,’’ ‘‘moderately
agree,’’ and ‘‘strongly agree’’), since this format provided
better fit statistics.
Based on the partial-credit Rasch model, we were able to
successfully calibrate the ELBS. Due to poor item fit
(.7 ! mean square (MS) " 1.35) and missing values, 14
out of 49 items had to be excluded. Among the remaining
35 items, 6.86% of all statements were missing or not appli-
cable. All 35 items (see Table 1) fit the model prediction
with reasonable mean square (MS) values between 0.72
and 1.25 (for reference values, see Wright & Linacre,
1994). Of the participants, 53 (9.12%) did not fit well with
the mode prediction (t " 1.96). The Rasch-model-based
reliability of the ELBS consisting of 35 items turned out
to be good, with rel = .95 (N = 592), indicating high inter-
nal consistency. The analyses suggest that all 35 behaviors
represent one single dimension.1
In Table 1, the specific behaviors are ordered according
to their difficulty (endorsement probabilities, p). To recall
the underlying assumption based on the Rasch model: The
lower the likelihood that followers agreed that their supervi-
sors demonstrated a particular behavior, the lower the likeli-
hood that the supervisors manifested this particular behavior,
1
Comparing a model describing a four-dimensional leadership behavior versus a model consisting of a single dimension revealed that the
dimensions in the four-dimensional model were strongly correlated (rs > .89). Fit statistics and scale reliabilities were very similar for both
models. For the sake of parsimony, we favored the model with only one dimension.

which in turn reflects a costly or difficult behavior. Table 1
displays the probabilities that participants agreed ‘‘moder-
ately’’ (p1) or ‘‘strongly’’ (p2) that their supervisors mani-
fested a particular behavior. As can be seen, the high
endorsements of p1 for nearly all particular behaviors sug-
gest that this response category only poorly discriminates
between the single items. In contrast, endorsements of p2
strongly vary across the particular behaviors, indicating that
only this response category helps to discriminate between
the items. More specifically, a behavior at the top of the list
indicates that only a few followers ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that
the corresponding supervisors demonstrate this behavior,
reflecting that relatively few supervisors manifest this
behavior. In contrast, a behavior at the bottom of the list
indicates that many participants ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that the
corresponding supervisors demonstrate the respective
behavior. This, in turn, suggests that almost every supervisor
manifests this behavior.
In addition, let us recall that the Rasch approach suggests
counting the number of behavior difficulties somebody actu-
allymasterstoassesspersonalscores(h),thatis,aleader’seth-
ical behavior levelacrosssituations. In this study, to derive the
individual ELBS score, we first had to aggregate employee
ratingsofmutualsupervisorstothegrouplevel(seebelow,test
of inter-rater agreement). This finally resulted in an ELBS
with M = 2.14, SD = 1.43; range: #.68 to 6.23 (N = 110).
The higher the personal score, the more likely that the respec-
tive leader generally behaves ethically.
Inter-Rater Agreement
We examined within-group agreement of ELBS scores using
intraclass correlations (ICC) (McGraw & Wong, 1996) and
the rwg method (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). To ensure
appropriate aggregation statistics, we included only groups
Table 1. Ethical Leadership Behavior Scale (ELBS)
Items p1 p2
1 Vouches for his collaborators, despite potentially unpleasant consequences (s) 0.97 0.09
2 Takes time to instruct new staff members (s) 0.98 0.10
3 Stands by the employee if he or she makes a mistake (s) 0.98 0.11
4 Ensures that unpopular tasks are assigned to everyone (f) 0.99 0.12
5 Takes employees’ input seriously (r) 0.99 0.13
6 Discusses difficulties and problems openly (h) 0.99 0.15
7 Helps to resolve team conflicts (s) 0.99 0.15
8 Admits to making mistakes (h) 0.98 0.16
9 Includes employees in decisions that affect them (r) 0.98 0.17
10 Takes time for employees even when overloaded with work (s) 0.99 0.17
11 Admits when he or she does not know how to carry out a task (h) 0.98 0.18
12 Evaluates employees’ performance as objectively as possible (f) 0.99 0.19
13 Recognizes the effort staff members are making for the company (r) 0.99 0.19
14 Comes to the aid of the employees in difficult situations (s) 0.99 0.21
15 Has an open ear for private matters (s) 0.99 0.24
16 Judges people according to personal sympathies (f) 0.99 0.24
17 Prefers certain employees (f) 0.97 0.26
18 Avoids discussions that might uncover his or her own mistakes (h) 0.96 0.27
19 Appreciates employees’ work (r) 1.00 0.27
20 Only promotes employees he or she likes (f) 0.98 0.35
21 Keeps his/her word (h) 1.00 0.36
22 Always lands the same employees with unpopular tasks (f) 1.00 0.39
23 Purposefully only passes information on to certain employees (f) 0.99 0.43
24 Ignores the opinion of employees (r) 0.99 0.46
25 Sticks to agreements (h) 1.00 0.46
26 Does not even think of assisting in accomplishing tasks (s) 0.99 0.59
27 Claims success for himself (h) 0.99 0.61
28 Claims all the glory for himself (h) 0.99 0.62
29 Has no sympathy for personal problems (s) 0.99 0.62
30 Reacts irritably when asked for help (s) 1.00 0.64
31 Leaves the employees out in the rain (s) 0.99 0.67
32 Lets the employees down (s) 1.00 0.70
33 Does not hesitate to lie to others’ faces (h) 0.99 0.72
34 Discriminates against individual employees (f) 0.99 0.73
35 Insults coworkers while others are present (r) 0.99 0.75
Note. p refers to the probability that participants agreed ‘‘moderately’’ (p1) or ‘‘strongly’’ (p2) that the supervisor manifested a particular
behavior. Items in italics were reversed in their coding prior to analysis. The letters in brackets refer to the ethical values, such as
support (s), fairness (f), honesty (h), and respect (r).

of three or more employees. Overall, for 86 out of 110
teams, we had data from three or more employees. The
ICC(1) score was .78 (F(86, 466) = 4.47, p < .001), the
mean rwg was .95. These estimates suggest that there were
generally high levels of inter-rater agreement, providing sup-
port for aggregation.
Employee Attitudes and Outcomes
Job Satisfaction
We used Bruggemann, Groskurth, and Eberhard (1975)
7-item scale (e.g., ‘‘I hope that my work situation always
stays as good as it is now’’). Participants rated all items
on a 7-point scale (1 = hardly ever, 7 = mostly).
Affective Organizational Commitment
This was measured with the affective organizational com-
mitment subscale of Felfe et al.’s Commitment Scale (Felfe
et al., 2005). This subscale contains five items and measures
the positive emotional attachment of employees to the orga-
nization (e.g., ‘‘I sense a strong feeling of belonging to my
organization’’), using a 5-point response format (1 = not at
all true, 5 = completely true).
Work Engagement
We used the shortened version of the Utrecht Work Engage-
ment Scale developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003). The
9-item scale contains three subscales: Absorption (‘‘When I
am working, I forget everything else around me’’), vigor
(‘‘When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work’’),
and dedication (‘‘I am enthusiastic about my job’’), using a
7-point response format (1 = never, 7 = every day).
Emotional Exhaustion
We used the 12-item scale by Hacker and Reinhold (1999)
(e.g., ‘‘Sometimes I feel burned out’’). Participants rated all
items on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all true, 7 = completely
true).
Health Complaints
To assess respondents’ health state, we applied Zerssen’s
(2004) medical condition list (9 items). Respondents were
asked to indicate to what extent they suffer from various
health problems (e.g., sleep disorders, low energy), on a
3-point scale (1 = not at all, 3 = strongly).
Absenteeism
We measured absenteeism by a single item: ‘‘How many
days have you been unable to work due to illness in the last
twelve months?’’
Results
Table 2 reports the scale means, standard deviations, reliabil-
ities, and intercorrelations among the aggregated variables.
On the individual level, we also examined the correlations
with employee tenure (years) and interaction frequency
(with supervisor). As can be seen, the ELBS correlated pos-
itively with all three job attitude variables (rs > .26,
ps < .01) and negatively with all three work outcome vari-
ables (rs > #.19, ps < .05). These correlations provide first
evidence that the level of ethical leader behavior is associ-
ated with employee dimensions. It appears that the three
job attitude variables (job satisfaction, commitment, work
engagement), and at least two of the work outcomes vari-
ables (health complaints, emotional exhaustion) form sepa-
rate blocks of variables. Little evidence is given that
employee tenure or interaction frequency plays a crucial
role.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the
construct validity of the ELBS and its ability to predict fol-
lowers’ job attitudes and work outcomes. We first examined
the appropriateness of the measurement model, and then
tested the hypothesized relationships. Because our data were
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Ethical leader behaviora
2.14 1.43 (.95)
2 Job satisfactiona
5.21 0.70 .39** (.81)
3 Affective commitmenta
3.91 0.46 .26** .66** (.88)
4 Work engagementa
4.52 0.59 .34** .74** .63** (.95)
5 Emotional exhaustiona
2.45 0.51 #.19* #.39** #.22* #.40** (.89)
6 Health complaintsa
1.39 0.21 #.21* #.51** #.24** #.38** .46** (.74)
7 Absenteeisma
1.99 0.69 #.19* #.29** #.33** #.32** .19* .32**
8 Employee tenureb
4.12 3.85 #.03 .07 .01 .04 #.11** #.08* #.05
9 Interaction frequencyc
1.39 .71 #.17** #.06 #.11** #.09* #.01 #.07* #.04 .09
Note. a
N = 110 groups, b
N = 572 individuals, c
N = 585 individuals; Cronbach’s a (individual level) in parentheses.
*p < .05, **p < .01.

from single sources, common method variance (CMV)
could be a concern. To assess the magnitude of this potential
bias, we therefore compared models with and without a first-
order CMV factor extracting variance from all indicators (cf.
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
In the first step, we examined a measurement model with
all of the variables in order to assess the relationship
between the latent variables and their manifest items that
served as indicators. Because a large number of indicators
can create problems in SEM, we used item parcels as indi-
cators for the latent variables (Little, Cunningham, Shahar,
& Widaman, 2002). Parceling can also be deemed as appro-
priate since all criterion variables are based on well-estab-
lished scales. The fit statistic indicated that it fitted well:
v2
(120) = 186.82, v2
/df = 1.56, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07,
and SRMR = .06. Factor loadings between the indicators
and the latent constructs were .71 and higher. Inclusion of
a CMV factor led to a marginal but statistically significant
improvement of the fit indices, v2
(107) = 152.67, v2
/
df = 1.43, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .06,
Dv2
(13) = 34.15, p < .001. However, none of the factor
loadings between CMV factor and indicators was signifi-
cant, and the factor loadings between the indicators and
the latent variables also hardly changed (max. |.06|).
In the second step, we compared three alternative struc-
tural models to ascertain whether our ideas have merit. For
conceptual reasons and due to significant intercorrelations
(see Table 2), we allowed the residuals from all three job
attitudes (job satisfaction, commitment, and work engage-
ment) to correlate. The first model examined direct links
from ELBS to each job attitude and work outcome variable.
The second model specified a mediated model in which the
effects of ELBS were predicted to influence the work out-
come variables indirectly through the job attitude variables.
The third model, which is presented in Figure 1, was only
different from the second in that absenteeism was separated
from the block of the other work outcome variables (health
complaints, emotional exhaustion). The residual covariances
from the measurement model were retained. A v2
difference
test comparing these models indicated that both Models 2
and 3 provided the best fit of the data (see Table 3). Its fit
indices were good: v2
(139) = 229.77, v2
/df = 1.65, CFI =
.95, RMSEA = .08, and SRMR = .07.
Including the CMV factor within model 3 significantly
improved the fit indices, v2
(125) = 192.36, v2
/df = 1.54,
CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07, and SRMR = .07, Dv2
(14) =
37.41 p < .001. Most importantly, inclusion of the CMV fac-
tor did not cause any loss of statistical significance among
the causal paths, and the standardized coefficients changed
only slightly (max. |.13|). We therefore believe the effects
of CMV to be minimal.
Figure 1 shows the standardized coefficients of the
model. Most important to our concerns is how ethical lead-
ership behavior contributes to followers’ job attitudes and
work outcomes. As hypothesized, the results revealed that
ELBS positively predicted job satisfaction, affective com-
mitment, and work engagement (bs > .29, ps < .05). In addi-
tion, we found that ethical leadership behavior did not
.01
.12
-.73*
-1.33**
.53*
.50*
-.24 HEALTH
COMPLAINTS
EMOTIONAL
EXHAUSTION
.33
WORK
ENGAGEMENT
JOB
SATISFACTION
AFFECTIVE
COMMITMENT
.23
.37
.31
.82
.76
.67
.40***
.29**
.36***
ABSENTEEISM
.92*
.17
ETHICAL
LEADERSHIP
BEHAVIOR
Figure 1. Standardized coefficients
of the structural equation analysis
(Model 3).
*p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001.
Table 3. Fit statistics for different structural models
v2
df v2
/df RMSEA CFI SRMR p Dv2
Model 1 298.58 144 2.07 .10 .91 .17 < .001
Model 2 226.07 138 1.64 .08 .95 .06 < .001 #72.51
Model 3 229.77 139 1.65 .08 .95 .07 < .001 #68.81
Note. Model 1 included direct links from ELBS (Ethical Leadership Behavior Scale) to job attitudes and work outcome variables. In
Model 2, the influence of ELBS on work outcome variables was mediated through job attitudes. Model 3 also described a mediated
influence of ELBS on work outcome but separated absenteeism from the other two outcome variables (health complaints and emotional
exhaustion, see also Figure 1).

influence health complaints and emotional exhaustion
directly, but indirectly through the job attitude variables.
Separate mediation analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986) con-
firmed that all job attitude variables fully mediated the
effects from ethical leadership behavior to health complaints
and emotional exhaustion (further details can be obtained
upon request). Ethical leadership behavior, however, had
direct effects on absenteeism. Overall, the results support
the assumption that ethical leadership behavior contributes
positively to job attitudes and work outcomes.
Discussion
In this research, we presented a measure of ethical leadership
that clearly differs from previous measures of ethical or
authentic leadership by its explicit focus on the behaviors
through which somebody is ethical. Our approach shares core
features with alternative ethical and authentic leadership the-
ories, such as that ethical leaders are motivated by altruistic
concerns and moral principles, or the importance of consis-
tency between words and actions. Central to our conception
is also the idea that ethical manifestations have to be demon-
strated on a regular basis: Role modeling is about observed
behaviors in many settings. In line with this, we believe trust-
worthiness or authenticity to be an outcome of demonstrating
ethical behavior over settings rather than a direct component
oftheethicalleadershipscale.Furthermore,incontrast toclas-
sical approaches, the application of the Rasch model to the
measurement of behavior allows the inclusion of behaviors
of varying difficulty. Both measures of the Rasch approach,
the behavior difficulties (item scores) and the level of leaders’
ethical behavior (personal scores), can be used for detecting
which ethical behaviors are more difficult and why (Kaiser,
1998), and which leaders are more likely to exhibit moral
courage. By paying closer attention to behavioral manifesta-
tions, such a measure has the potential to serve as a powerful
diagnostic and educational tool in the future.
In addition, the research presented here offers initial
insights regarding the potential relationship between leaders’
ethical behavior and followers’ job attitudes and work out-
comes. The results indicated that the level of leaders’ ethical
conduct was positively related to job satisfaction, affective
organizational commitment, and work engagement. Further-
more, the level of leaders’ ethical conduct contributed
(mostly indirectly) to fewer health complaints, and less
emotional exhaustion and absenteeism. Thus, the findings
provide initial evidence that ethical leaders may contribute
to social and economic benefits. They highlight the need
to consider leaders’ ethical conduct as an important factor
of sustainable development.
Several limitations of this study offer avenues for future
research. Although our analyses provided little evidence that
the results were affected by common method biases, it would
be useful in further studies to collect data of ELBS and
dependent variables from separate sets of employees within
the same work group. In addition, as is the case with any
new measure, further research with more samples is needed
to improve the measurement of the newly proposed ELBS.
For example, although reliability and internal consistency
of the scale were fully satisfactory, the finding that only the
last response category (‘‘strongly agree’’) was able to reveal
the distinct behavior difficulties suggests that the behavioral
items involved in the instrument tend to be too easy. Further
steps should therefore include more difficult behaviors. It
should also be noted that while the current scale and personal
score reflects consistency across situations (by counting the
number of behavior difficulties a leader actually masters), it
does not reflect consistency over time. To fill this gap, an idea
for future studies may be to ask participants to rate the fre-
quency of the ethical behavior (instead of examining the
extent of agreement). Furthermore, interdisciplinary collabo-
ration may be important to ensure the normative implications
of ethical behaviors, and to reduce the risk of merely deeming
common sense as sufficient to decide which behaviors are
ethically adequate (Ciulla, 2004). Philosophical approaches
are important for the discussion of which behaviors are mor-
ally appropriate and how leaders ought to behave. Of course,
a next challenge must also be to compare the ELBS with
other established scales in order to determine discriminant
validity, and to demonstrate how these constructs differ from
each other and how the ELBS contributes to knowledge and
explained variance.
Overall, we believe that such an instrument, based on the
application of the Rasch model, with its possibility to focus
simultaneously on items and on individuals, and its focus on
concrete behaviors, has great potential to be highly useful
for practical purposes. Given the many ethical business
scandals, research about the antecedents and consequences
of ethical leadership is needed more than ever.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Swiss National Science
Foundation (Grant No. PP001-102845). We wish to thank
Lynn Pirktl for her dedicated help and assistance in conduct-
ing the study, and Florian Kaiser for his valuable advice and
methodological support.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Con-
ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and
authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 181–217.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch model:
Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership:
A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly,
17, 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct
development and testing. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

Bruggemann, A., Groskurth, P., & Eberhard, U. (1975).
Arbeitszufriedenheit [Work satisfaction]. Bern, Switzerland:
Hans Huber.
Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers.
Ciulla, J. B. (1999). The importance of leadership in shaping
business values. Long Range Planning, 32, 166–172.
Felfe, J., Six, B., Schmook, R., & Knorz, C. (2005). Fragebogen
zur Erfassung von affektivem, kalkulatorischem und normat-
ivem Commitment gegenüber der Organisation, dem Beruf/
der Tätigkeit und der Beschäftigungsform (COBB). In A.
Glöckner-Rist [Questionnaire for the assessment of affective,
calculatory and normative commitment regarding the orga-
nization, profession/occupation and form of occupation].
(Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch
sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente. Version
9.00. Mannheim, Germany: Zentrum für Umfragen,
Methoden und Analysen.
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 authentic leader and follower development.
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.
Haans, A., Kaiser, F. G., & de Kort, Y. A. W. (2007). Privacy
needs in office environments: Development of two behavior-
based scales. European Psychologist, 12, 93–102.
Hacker, W., & Reinhold, S. (1999). Beanspruchungssystem bei
Humandienstleistungen (BHD-System). Manual [Demand
system for human services. Manual]. Frankfurt, Germany:
Swets Test Services.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, & S. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating
within-group interrater reliability with and without response
bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395–422.
Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and
transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 18, 257–265.
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution
process. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E.
Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiv-
ing the causes of behavior (pp. 1–26). Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F.
(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the
question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling,
9, 151–173.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and
subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12,
133–152.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J.
(2003). Developing the moral component of authentic
leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247–260.
McGraw, K.O., & Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about
some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Meth-
ods, 1, 30–46.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in
organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal
of Management, 24, 351–389.
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 reme-
dies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to
leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655–
687.
Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K.
(2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of
ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 345.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Rowold, J., Borgmann, L., & Heinitz, K. (2009). Ethische
Führung–Gütekriterien einer deutschen Adaptation der
Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS-D) von Brown et al. (2005)
[Ethical leadership–quality criteria for a German adaptation of
Brown’s (2005) Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS-D)]. Zeitschrift
für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 53, 57–69.
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22, 76–83.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). The Utrecht work
engagement scale: Preliminary manual. Utrecht, The Neth-
erlands: Utrecht University.
Schmidt, W. H., & Posner, B. Z. (1982). Managerial values and
expectations: The silent power in personal and organiza-
tional life. New York, NY: Amacom.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Sosik, J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic
leadership of corporate managers: A model and preliminary
field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 221–244.
Tanner, C., Berkowitsch, N., Gibson, R., & Wagner, A. (2010).
Sacred values and ethical decision making. In E. H. Witte & T.
Gollan (Eds.). Sozialpsychologie und Ökonomie. Beiträge des
25. Hamburger Symposiums zur Methodologie der Sozialpsy-
chologie (pp. 112–125). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.
Tanner, C., Gibson, R., Wagner, A. F., & Berkowitsch, N. A. J.
(2010). How much for your honesty? Implications of honesty
as a protected value for business choices. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Tanner, C., Kaiser, F. G., & Wölfing Kast, S. (2004). Contextual
conditions of ecological consumerism: A food-purchasing
survey. Environment & Behavior, 36, 94–111.
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualita-
tive investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership:
Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite.
Human Relations, 55, 5–37.
Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral
person and moral manager: How executives develop a
reputation for ethical leadership. California Management
Review, 42, 128–142.
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.
Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-
square-fit-values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
Zerssen, D. (2004). Die Beschwerden-Liste. Manual [Complaint
list. Manual]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Carmen Tanner
University of Zurich
Department of Psychology
Binzmühlestrasse 14
8050 Zurich
Switzerland
Tel. +41 44 635-7175
Fax +41 44 635-7179
E-mail c.tanner@psychologie.uzh.ch

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Similar to Actions Speak Louder Than Words (19)

More from Sarah Marie

More from Sarah Marie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Actions Speak Louder Than Words