Case Study CarlosMolly provided a brief description of

Case Study: Carlos
Molly provided a brief description of her background during the
initial intake. She is the second oldest of five children born in a
traditional Hispanic family. She was raised in the Catholic
faith. Her parents divorced when she was 12 years old. Molly’s
mother is a preschool teacher and her father is a mechanic.
Molly’s father is also re-married and has two young children
with his wife. Her father and stepmother live in a near-by state.
Molly has not seen them since Carlos was seven years old but
speaks to her father by phone a few times per year.
Molly’s older brother is currently incarcerated on drug related
changes and is expected to be released in the next five years.
Her younger sister died in a car accident returning home from a
high school dance her senior year in high school. Molly’s
youngest two siblings have families of their own and live out of
state.
Molly stated that she gave birth to Carlos when she was 19
years old. She met Carlos’ father in high school. They dated on
and off before the pregnancy. She did not seek immediate
medical attention when she realized she was pregnant but was
prompted by a friend at around 6 months to see an obstetrician.
Carlos’ father, Mike, was the youngest of two boys born in a
Caucasian family. His parents divorced when he was very small.
He does not know his father well as he distanced himself from
the family following the divorce. His mother remarried shortly
after and Mike reports a turbulent relationship with his
stepfather. Mike began attending the alternative school after

being caught trying to sell street drugs in 8th grade.
Molly reported a turbulent relationship with Carlos’ father. She
stated that he drank alcohol often. He was violent towards
Molly at times and would grab, yell, and push her. Molly’s
mother did not approve of their relationship and cut ties with
Molly after learning of the pregnancy. She lived with Carlos’
father for most of the pregnancy but there were times when she
would have to seek shelter with friends when he was violent or
kicked her out of the apartment. She further reports that she
smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol to the point of intoxication
prior to learning of the pregnancy.
Molly indicated that the pregnancy and delivery were relatively
uneventful. Carlos was 7 pounds at birth. She states that she had
a difficult time nursing him and at the time, the pediatrician
reported that Carlos was behind the normal growth pattern. She
also reported that Carlos cried a lot and was often difficult to
console.
When Carlos was approximately 9 months old, Molly sought
assistance from a local battered women’s organization. Molly
and Carlos were placed in a group home with other mothers and
their children. She returned to live with Carlos’s father when
Carlos was approximately 1-year- old but had to return to the
group home shortly thereafter. She worked as a waitress during
this time. Molly relied on friends to care for Carlos while she
worked and reported that he did not have stable daycare until he
was 2 years old when he began attending the daycare center
where Molly’s mother worked. Molly remembered that Carlos
did not seem upset when left with friends nor was he excited
when she returned. She described this behavior as Carlos being
“a good baby”. Carlos’ father took Molly to court to secure
visitation. Carlos would spend some weekends with his paternal
grandparents but much less time with his father. She was
awarded $200.00 a month child support. Molly stated that over

the years she receives much less and often doesn’t receive any
child support to help with expenses.
When Carlos was approximately three years old, they returned
to live with her mother. Molly continued to work as a waitress.
Carlos would stay with friends or attend daycare while Molly
was at work. The assistance that Molly received from her
mother was very helpful but at times would lead to
disagreements about how best to care for Carlos.
When Carlos turned five years old, Molly relocated across town
into a two-bedroom apartment. She indicated that Carlos
regressed when they moved into the new apartment by speaking
“baby-talk” and had a couple of weeks in which he had several
incidences of enuresis. She stated that she used punishment at
the time and that helped end the accidents at night. Carlos was
behind his peers academically when he began kindergarten
because he did not know his colors except for primary colors;
he couldn’t count to 20 consistently; and he did not know the
alphabet in full. He would interact with the other children for
only brief periods of time and most of these interactions ended
with Carlos getting angry. Molly stated that the teachers as well
as Carlos’ pediatrician indicated at the time that this was
normal.
Molly reports that she married Carlos’ stepfather when Carlos
was 6 years old. Carlos continued to see his paternal
grandparents until he was five years old, but these visits have
tapered off significantly. Carlos now sees his biological father
once every 3-6 months for brief visits. Carlos has two younger
sisters both of which are under 3-years-old. Molly stated that
she is currently working at a preschool and her husband delivers
appliances.
Carlos is currently in the 4th grade. Molly indicated that Carlos
accepts that his stepfather is in authority but does not seem to
have the relationship she thinks he should with his stepfather.

Carlos tends to be an average student but struggles to maintain
even a B/C average. Molly has noticed that it takes Carlos more
time to grasp concepts and believes this is because he is not
very interested in school. She stated that his teachers have
indicated that Carlos appears very shy and not engaged most of
the time. Carlos generally complies with directions but will, at
times, talk back. Teachers report that Carlos can do the work
but often does not appear interested. He tends to stay to himself
and when he interacts with other children, it ends quickly with
Carlos appearing upset or angry. At home, Carlos is generally
compliant but will talk back or slam doors when asked to
complete a chore. He tends to be dismissive of his younger
sisters.
Your initial impression of Carlos is one of a quiet and
respectful little boy. He sat quietly next to his mother as she
discussed her concerns. When interacting with you, Carlos was
initially hesitant, but he appropriately answered questions. As
his mother tended to the younger siblings, Carlos handed her
necessities out of the diaper bag and sat quietly on the coach.
Carlos reported that he has few friends at school. Molly
reported that Carlos is uncoordinated and physically smaller
than other boys his age. Carlos tends to spend a lot of time
alone which Molly attributes to the busy work schedules she and
her husband have. He usually plays video games or draws. He
indicated that he is made fun of at school and on the bus. He
would like to be a professional baseball player when he grows
up because his dad likes baseball too. Carlos expressed to you
his desire to not get into trouble at school anymore and to do
better with his studies. Overall, Carlos was engaging and
responsive throughout the initial interview.
German Journal of
Human Resource Management

2016, Vol. 30(3-4) 225 –245
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2397002216649855
gjh.sagepub.com
Ethical leadership’s
potential and boundaries
in organizational change:
A moderated mediation
model of employee silence
Kai C Bormann
TU Dortmund University, Germany
Jens Rowold
TU Dortmund University, Germany
Abstract
In this present study, we develop a model in which four forms
of employee silence (acquiescent,
quiescent, prosocial and opportunistic silence) mediate the
relationship between ethical
leadership and affective commitment to change. We argue that
ethical leadership lowers all
four forms which in turn influence employees’ commitment to
change initiatives. We also
examine the role of politics perceptions and personal change
impact as moderators. The
sample consisted of 263 employees from different organizations
and occupations in Germany
all facing organizational changes. Our results indicate that

ethical leadership lowers only
acquiescent silence, which in turn predicts affective
commitment change. However, the effect
diminished with high levels of politics perceptions and high
levels of personal change impact.
We discuss implications for theory, future research and
organizational practice.
Keywords
Affective change commitment, employee silence, ethical
leadership, politics
Introduction
In today’s business world, the ability to adapt to change is
becoming increasingly
important. With the advancement of globalization and shortened
technology life cycles,
Corresponding author:
Kai C Bormann, TU Dortmund University, Center for Higher
Education, Hohe Straße 141, D – 44139
Dortmund, Germany.
Email: [email protected]
649855GJH0010.1177/2397002216649855German Journal of
Human Resource ManagementBormann and Rowold
research-article2016
Article
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F23970022
16649855&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-08-24
226 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

continually developing environments leave an imprint on most
organizational lives. How
organizations’ employees perceive those changes and react to
them has been found to be
a crucial determinant of change success (Oreg et al., 2011). Due
to their influential posi-
tion, much academic attention has been paid to organizational
leaders and how they can
guide followers towards attitudes and behaviours that support
change initiatives. Only
recently, the role of leadership ethicality was introduced to the
change literature (Burnes
and By, 2012; Sharif and Scandura, 2014). Ethical leadership
stresses the normative
appropriateness of leadership conduct and the reinforcement of
such behaviours among
followers (Brown et al., 2005). Sharif and Scandura (2014)
argued that ethical leadership
is especially important in times of organizational change, as
ethical leaders increase
employees’ trust and reduce uncertainty. They also showed that
ethical leadership fos-
ters organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), job satisfaction
and performance in
times of change. While Sharif and Scandura provided
preliminary empirical insights,
several avenues for ethical leadership research during change
remain uncharted. Most
notably, change literature stresses the importance of applying
change-related criteria as
well as providing support for underlying psychological
processes (Meyer and Hamilton,
2013; Oreg et al., 2011). Therefore, the present study further
develops the application of
ethical leadership through the use of a more change-related

criterion, namely affective
commitment to change (ACC) (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002).
Existing research indi-
cates that ACC is a crucial predictor of change success (Meyer
and Hamilton, 2013).
In order to elucidate the process of how ethical leadership
furthers employees’ ACC,
we explore the role of the emerging construct of employee
silence as a potential media-
tor. Employee silence (Knoll and van Dick, 2013) refers to the
organizational phenome-
non of withholding concerns and opinions about work-related
issues. Employees do so
because of feelings of resignation (Acquiescent Silence), fear
(Quiescent Silence), altru-
istic goals (Prosocial Silence) or self-serving goals
(Opportunistic Silence). Past research
has shown the organizational relevance of silence. It is, for
example, negatively related
to employee well-being and positively related to perceived
strain (Knoll and van Dick,
2013). Silence is also of particular importance for
understanding barriers to change as it
reduces the potential range of input and critical feedback
necessary for change success
(Morrison and Milliken, 2000). While the leadership–voice
relationship has been
addressed repeatedly (Avey et al., 2012; Wegge et al., 2010),
the effects of (ethical) lead-
ership on different motives of employee silence add a new,
unmapped perspective
(Frömmer et al., 2014). Discretionary behaviours such as voice
are drivers for change
success (Meyer and Hamilton, 2013). The primary aim of our
study is, therefore, to

examine the effect of ethical leadership on ACC through the
mediating effect of reducing
employees’ desire to withhold opinions.
The secondary aim of this article is to explore the potential
boundaries of ethical
leadership impact. We expect that the proposed indirect effect
varies as a function of
organizational climate and individual change impact. Following
this rationale, we
develop a model in which politics perceptions (Ferris and
Judge, 1991) and the impact
of change initiatives on an individual’s job (Fedor et al., 2006)
attenuate the indirect
effect of ethical leadership on ACC based on the shifted focus
and cognitive demands
each factor entails. We argue that these factors diminish the
potential for ethical leader-
ship behaviour. Figure 1 shows the proposed research model.
Bormann and Rowold 227
This study contributes to existing literature in several ways. For
the first time,
employee silence is introduced as the tying link between ethical
leadership and follow-
ers’ ACC. This further develops the application of ethical
leadership and employee
silence to organizational change. In doing so, we also provide
additional support for the
beneficial impact of both leadership and silence on an
organization. Furthermore, by
linking ethical leadership to employee silence, this study is one
of the first to examine

antecedents of silence. Lastly, by considering potential
moderators we add to the grow-
ing but still small body of research on conditions of ethical
leadership impact as well as
silence emergence and impact.
Ethical leadership, employee silence and affective change
commitment
Ethical leadership, as defined by Brown et al. (2005: 120), is
‘the demonstration
of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions
and interpersonal rela-
tionships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers
through two-way commu-
nication, reinforcement, and decision-making’. The normative
appropriateness of
personal actions and interpersonal relationships refers to leader
attributes such as
dependability, honesty and integrity. Exceeding simple
altruistic characteristics, an
ethical leader promotes the ethical conduct of followers by, for
instance, rewarding
ethical and disciplining inappropriate behaviour. Past research
has shown ethical
leadership to be related to a plethora of organizational outcomes
(Bedi et al., in press;
Ng and Feldman, 2015).
According to Brown et al. (2005: 120), one beneficial effect of
ethical leadership is
that through conveying high moral standards ethical leaders
‘provide followers with
voice’. They involve followers in transparent decision-making
and appreciate their opin-
ions. Consequently, different studies found a positive

relationship between ethical lead-
ership and measures of employee voice (Avey et al., 2012;
Walumbwa and Schaubroeck,
2009). However, there may be instances where employees
observe violations of personal
standards (e.g. inefficacy or harassment), but fail to raise these
issues. Withholding opin-
ions and concerns is discussed in the literature under the
headings of organizational
(Morrison and Milliken, 2000) and, more recently, employee
silence (Brinsfield, 2013;
Knoll and van Dick, 2013). For several reasons, employees
decide not to invest their
resources in improving organizational procedures. Following
the conception by Knoll
Figure 1. Research model.
and van Dick (2013), we differentiate between four forms.
Silence can result from feel-
ings of resignation that an opinion is neither wanted nor valued
by superiors (acquiescent
silence). The second form of silence (quiescent silence) refers
to protective motives.
Employees withhold their opinions as they fear that speaking up
might lead to unpleasant
consequences. Withholding concerns might also occur as a
result of prosocial motives
(prosocial silence). Employees remain silent in order to help
and benefit others. Lastly,
silence can stem from egoistic motives (opportunistic silence).
Employees withhold

opinions and information to serve their own interests by
disguising or misleading others.
Despite the fact that there may be a connection between
employee silence and voice,
van Dyne et al. (2003) established that both constructs are not
polar opposites but dif-
ferent and unique constructs. More precisely, compared to
voice, silence provides fewer
behavioural cues and is more ambiguous to observe, its motives
are more likely to be
misattributed, and it has more incongruent outcomes. Based on
these findings and a
dearth of related studies, we see an inevitable need to expand
research on the ethical
leadership–discretionary support relationship with regard to
employee silence.
Linking ethical leadership to different forms of employee
silence, we draw on social
learning theory (SLT) (Bandura, 1977, 1991) as a theoretical
framework. According to
this theory, employees emulate a leader whose behaviour serves
as an attractive role
model. Consequently, with regards to an ethical leader,
employees receive just and car-
ing treatment and are urged to display responsible and
thoughtful behaviours them-
selves. Employees reporting to an ethical leader should, for
example, have less incentive
to withhold opinions and concerns out of a feeling of
resignation (acquiescent silence).
They enjoy more work-related latitude compared to employees
of less ethical leaders
(Piccolo et al., 2010), which should result in them having a
certain amount of influence
on workplace practices themselves. Furthermore, they

experience fair decision-making
(Brown and Trevino, 2006), which gives rise to the probability
that concerns are raised
with the leader in the belief that they will address these issues
properly. Besides silence
out of a feeling of resignation, we expect ethical leadership to
reduce silence out of fear
of potential consequences (quiescent silence). On the one hand,
ethical leaders instil
trust in their followers by strengthening self-efficacy in
challenging situations (Ng and
Feldman, 2015). On the other hand, ethical leaders enhance
followers’ perceived sense
of accountability: it is everybody’s duty to speak up when
violations of personal stand-
ards are observed (Brown et al., 2005). Similarly, we draw on
followers’ enhanced sense
of responsibility to propose a negative relationship between
ethical leadership and
prosocial silence. Reporting colleagues’ errors might be
perceived negatively as a form
of betrayal or whistleblowing. In contrast, ethical leaders strive
to do the right thing,
basing actions on higher moral principles. They urge their
followers to do the same.
Therefore, we expect followers to be more open to reporting
colleagues’ violations of
work-related standards (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Ethical
leaders lower potential
thresholds for breaking prosocial silence as employees are
assured that colleagues
whose errors they reveal will be treated with care and not be
exposed to excessive pun-
ishment (Brown et al., 2005). With regard to opportunistic
silence, we also expect a
buffering effect of ethical leadership. Ethical leaders promote

altruistic values at the
workplace and, according to SLT, these motivational patterns
trickle down to employ-
ees who also exhibit more altruistic thinking and actions
(Schaubroeck et al., 2012).
Accordingly, employees’ motives for remaining silent due to
egoistic motives should be
at least partly reduced.
Morrison and Milliken (2000) argued that silence may lead to
less effective organiza-
tional change processes due to a reduced range of input and
critical feedback. The
intriguing idea about examining motivated non-behaviour such
as different forms of
silence is that it sheds light on what wittingly or unwittingly
guides individuals in their
decision making. In other words, individuals may have different
work-related targets or
foci they relate to in their attitudes and behaviours. Based on
the examination of these
motivational patterns we argue that it is also possible to draw
inferences about individu-
als’ propensity to be emotionally tied to change initiatives at
work. The latter aspect has
been discussed in the literature as a part of commitment to
change (Herscovitch and
Meyer, 2002). Based on the three-component model of
organizational commitment
(Allen & Meyer, 1990), Herscovitch and Meyer (2002)
illustrated that employees

develop different kinds of bonds with change initiatives
(affective, normative and con-
tinuance commitment to change). While all three components
have been shown to be
unique and relevant to an organization, affective commitment to
change has emerged as
the strongest correlate to important change-related outcomes
such as discretionary sup-
port and coping with change, and turnover intentions
(Cunningham, 2006; Herscovitch
and Meyer, 2002). Affective commitment to change is defined
as ‘a desire to provide
support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits’
(Herscovitch and Meyer,
2002: 475). Although the four silence motives capture different
aspects and do not neces-
sarily coincide (van Dyne et al., 2003), we expect the ‘bottom-
line’ effect regarding
affective attitudes towards change initiatives to stay the same.
If employees have reason-
able motivation to withhold their opinions regarding work-
related issues, their emotional
bond with change initiatives will be weak.
If employees show acquiescent silence, resignation has spread.
This may go as far as
giving up on organizations. Past experiences have led
employees to conclude that their
opinion is neither wanted nor valued (Knoll and van Dick,
2013). Accordingly, striving
for self-protection may deter employees from investing any
further personal resources
for the sake of the organization (Hanisch and Hulin, 1990).
However, additional personal
investment would certainly be necessary to overcome change
challenges (Meyer and

Hamilton, 2013). Hence, it is very unlikely that employees
exhibiting high levels of
acquiescent silence have the willingness to develop emotional
ties to change initiatives.
For the relationship between quiescent silence and affective
commitment to change, the
motive for self-protection may play an even larger role. When
individuals remain silent
out of fear of the consequences, this presents a high degree of
self-protective impetus.
Such individuals have the incentive to avoid situations of
uncertainty which challenge
the status quo. Change, however, might cause such uncertainty,
which again could bring
negative consequences like change of routines or loss of
resources. Accordingly, if
employees exhibit quiescent silence it is highly unlikely for
them to embrace change and
develop high levels of affective change commitment. Prosocial
silence highlights an
individual’s affiliative or cooperative motivation. When
individuals fail to report col-
leagues’ negative behaviour they signal that they value
affiliation or the maintenance of
social capital over their contribution to organizational goals
(Knoll and van Dick, 2013).
We expect that this cue is also important for understanding the
emergence of affective
change commitment. Consequences of change initiatives (such
as altered routines of col-
laborating with colleagues) likely collide with an individual’s

interest in maintaining
social capital. Accordingly, prosocial motives for (non-
)behaviour deter individuals from
developing high levels of affective change commitment. Lastly,
remaining silent due to
opportunistic motives signals that an individual places egoistic
goals above organiza-
tional ones. Individuals guided by opportunistic motives tend to
develop informal ties to
promote their self-centred, hidden agenda (Ferris and Judge,
1991). This includes, for
instance, forming alliances to influence resource or task
allocation. Here, change comes
as a threat as established routines and schemes might be broken
up. It appears very
unlikely that individuals guided by opportunistic motives will
develop emotional ties to
change initiatives. While a psychological tie to change
initiatives seems possible when
that change also serves egoistic goals, we argue that such
commitment would be more
calculative than emotional (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002).
In conclusion, we expect ethical leadership to reduce all four
silence motives, which
are all detrimental to employees’ affective commitment towards
change initiatives.
Given previous findings supporting other mediators with regard
to ethical leadership
impact, such as trust in the leader (Ng and Feldman, 2015), we
propose partial mediation
with regard to the present study:
Hypothesis 1: Employee silence (1a: acquiescent silence; 1b:,
quiescent silence; 1c: prosocial
silence; 1d: opportunistic silence) partially mediates the

relationship between ethical leadership
and affective change commitment.
Moderating influences of politics perceptions and personal
change impact
Organizational research indicates that employee attitudes and
behaviours are largely
dependent on the social context in which they are embedded
(Kuenzi and Schminke,
2009; Rosen et al., 2009). An important aspect of social context
is the climate governing
practices, policies and procedures within an organization. These
climates can take differ-
ent shapes and affective tones. One such embodiment is the
extent of organizational poli-
tics. According to Ferris and Judge (1991), organizational
politics include behaviours by
organizational actors that are intended to promote and protect
self-interest. A climate of
politics is characterized by behaviours such as forming informal
alliances, using power
to influence decision-making, or fostering a personal agenda at
the expense of legitimate
organizational goals (Ferris and Judge, 1991; Hochwarter et al.,
2003). Past empirical
research has shown that politics perceptions have detrimental
effects on employees’ job
satisfaction, commitment, strain and turnover intention (Chang
et al., 2009; Miller et al.,
2008). There are preliminary insights that ethical leadership and
politics perceptions are
also related constructs (Kacmar et al., 2011, 2013).
We propose that politics perceptions moderate the relationship
between ethical leader-

ship and employee silence so that the buffering effect of ethical
leadership is disrupted by
high levels and enhanced by low levels of politics perceptions.
Organizations character-
ized by self-serving politicking signal to employees that
egoistic behaviours (e.g. with-
holding information to protect their own resources or forming
informal coalitions) are
encouraged and required for success at work. In such a context,
promoting altruistic
behaviours through ethical leadership appears less promising as
a means of making
employees speak up as compared to a context where politics are
less apparent. Accordingly,
politicking represents an extraneous cognitive demand that
impairs the information-
processing act of perceiving leadership (Maurer and Lord,
1991). An environment with
political activity blurs the perceived performance–reward
relationship, effectively ques-
tioning the fairness and appropriateness of decision making,
which in turn may signal to
employees that management and ethical leaders in particular are
not offering proper
levels of guidance (Hochwarter et al., 1999). Ethical leaders
may emerge in such a con-
text. However, their potential to reinforce ethical behaviour of
followers is likely to be at
least partly overruled by informal structures favouring self-
serving and pondering think-
ing. Alternatively, if a working context is characterized by low

levels of politics percep-
tions, the opportunity for ethical leaders to influence followers
is much more favourable
and less challenging. In sum, we propose the following
moderating hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The indirect effect of ethical leadership on
affective change commitment through
reducing employee silence (2a: acquiescent silence; 2b:
quiescent silence; 2c: prosocial silence;
2d: opportunistic silence) is moderated by politics perceptions
so that the relationship between
ethical leadership and employee silence is weaker when politics
perceptions are high, attenuating
the indirect effect.
In environments with high levels of politics perceptions, ethical
leaders are unlikely
to promote employees’ affective change commitment through
reducing silence motives,
as followers are less amenable to altruistic leader behaviours.
Ethical leadership should
be more promising in situations with low levels of politics.
However, we argue that this
effect is also contingent on the impact the change initiative has
on the individual. More
precisely, we expect that the impact of the change on the
individual’s job (Fedor et al.,
2006; Herold et al., 2008) moderates the second stage of our
mediation relationship
between ethical leadership, employee silence and ACC so that
the relationship between
silence and ACC is weaker when the impact of change is high.
We expect silence to
reduce emotional commitment to change initiatives. When an
individual is highly

impacted by change he or she faces major challenges (a) to
accept the loss of estab-
lished routines and resources that shaped an individual’s social
identity, and (b) to
adjust to a new and uncertain environment. In such instances, an
individual is focused
on coping with these challenges (Oreg, 2003) and is less
capable and less likely to
assist the change by breaking silence on critical matters. In
other words, coping with
high-impact change ties available psychological resources and
superimposes other
work-related motivational cues such as self-protective,
prosocial or self-serving
motives. In line with this rationale, Fedor et al. (2006) showed
that employees were
most committed to high levels of change, which they viewed as
valuable, only when
the implications for their own jobs were low. In a similar vein,
despite the fact that
alternative leadership styles are concerned, the results from
Herold et al. (2008) indi-
cate that the significant positive main effects of
transformational and change leader-
ship tend to wane when the level of individual change impact
increases. Therefore, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: The magnitude of the indirect effect of ethical
leadership on affective change
commitment through reducing employee silence varies by
politics perceptions (stage 1) and

change impact for the individual (stage 2) so that the indirect
effect is (a) weaker when politics
perceptions are high regardless of the degree of change impact,
(b) weaker when politics
perceptions are low and change impact is high, and (c) stronger
when both moderators are low.
Method
Participants and procedure
Data for this study were obtained from employees from
different organizations in
Germany. Respondents were contacted via email and informed
about the research
project. As it was our goal to investigate the leadership process
during organizational
change, a prerequisite for respondents to participate was the
occurrence of a change
initiative at the time of the enquiry or shortly beforehand. To
reduce common method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012), the survey was carried out in two
waves. In the first
wave, respondents rated their line manager’s leadership
behaviour. About two weeks
after the first survey, participants were again contacted and
asked to answer a second
questionnaire. This questionnaire covered questions regarding
perception of politics,
silence motives, nature of organizational changes, respondents’
affective commitment
to those initiatives and the control variable of cynicism.
Responses to both question-
naires were matched using an individualized coding scheme.
The final sample consisted of 263 respondents. Fifty percent of

the respondents were
male and the average age was 32 years (SD = 12). The
respondents mainly worked in
profit-orientated (73%) organizations. Out of the rated leaders,
73% were male. Nineteen
percent belonged to lower-level management, 43% to middle-,
and 38% to upper-level
management. On average the respondents had worked for their
immediate leader for
three years (SD = 2), and the majority of respondents (53.1%)
spent less than six hours
per week in direct contact with this leader. Reported changes
referred to organizational
restructuring (e.g. new team or organizational structure), work
processes (e.g. new rou-
tines or clients) and technological advances (e.g. new software).
Measures
Ethical leadership. Ethical leadership was captured using Brown
and colleagues’ ethical
leadership scale (ELS) (2005) in its German validated version
by Rowold and colleagues
(2009). The scale comprises nine items to be answered on a 5-
point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A
sample item is ‘The leader I
rate listens to what employees have to say’.
Employee silence. For the assessment of the four different
silence motives, we used Knoll
and van Dick’s (2013) measure. Each motive of employee
silence was captured using
three items (sample item for acquiescent silence: ‘I remained
silent at work because
nothing will change anyway’; quiescent silence: ‘I remained

silent at work because of
fear of negative consequences’; prosocial silence: ‘I remained
silent at work because I do
not want others to get into trouble’; opportunistic silence: ‘I
remained silent at work so
as not to give away my knowledge advantage’). A 7-point
Likert-type scale was used
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Affective change commitment. ACC was measured using six
items from Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) in a German version that had been used in
previous studies (e.g.
Abrell-Vogel and Rowold, 2014). Sample items included ‘I
believe in the value of the
change’ or ‘This change serves an important purpose’. The
questionnaire was answered
on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Perceptions of politics. We assessed politics perceptions using a
six-item scale developed
by Hochwarter et al. (2003) in a German translation, which was
carried out using the
translation–back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980). Sample
items were ‘There is a lot
of self-serving behaviour going on’ and ‘People are working
behind the scenes to ensure
that they get their piece of the pie’. A 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was applied.

Change impact. We captured the impact of change on the
individual with a single item
measure based on work by Herold et al. (2008) and Caldwell et
al., (2004). Specifically,
we asked employees how the change initiative influenced their
daily working routines.
The answering scheme ranged from 1 (not affected at all) to 5
(very strongly affected).
Controls. We controlled for the effects of transformational and
transactional leadership
(measured in wave 1), as well as employee cynicism (measured
in wave 2) on all mediat-
ing and dependent variables, to rule out an alternative
explanation for the results (Bernerth
and Aguinis, 2016). Past research linking transformational and
to change-related attitudes suggests that heightened levels of
ACC might also be due to
leaders inspiring followers through a compelling future vision
(Abrell-Vogel and Rowold,
2014) or not relying on a contingent reward approach that
cannot be maintained through
change (Conway and Monks, 2008). Additionally, both
leadership styles have been noted
to show overlaps with ethical leadership (Brown and Trevino,
2006). We measured these
leadership styles using the 26-item Transformational Leadership
Inventory (Podsakoff
et al., 1990) in its German validated version (Heinitz and
Rowold, 2007; Krüger et al.,
2011) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). In addition, we also controlled for effects of employee
cynicism on the silence

motives and ACC. As change disrupts job routines and
inevitably entails uncertainty and
fear of loss, members of an organization often react sceptically
and cynically to given
change initiatives (Reichers et al., 1997). As a result, especially
low levels of silence and
ACC might be explained by higher levels of cynicism. Cynicism
was captured with
seven items developed by Cole et al. (2006) to be answered on a
7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Analytical procedure
Our hypothesized model of moderated mediation was tested
using Haye’s SPSS macro
PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). We estimated the direct effects of
ethical leadership on the
different silence motives and on ACC, the direct effects of the
silence motives on ACC,
the indirect effects of ethical leadership on ACC, as well as the
interaction effects regard-
ing the two moderators. To account for the influence of our
control variables, we simul-
taneously estimated the effects of transformational leadership,
and cynicism on the silences motives and on ACC. In order to
avoid biasing effects
resulting from multicolinearity when examining interaction
effects, we standardized all
predicting variables prior to entering them into our model

(Cohen et al., 2003).
Results
Factor structure, descriptive statistics and reliability
Prior to testing our hypotheses, we conducted confirmatory
factor analyses (CFAs) to
determine the distinctiveness of our measures. Our target model
consisted of 10 factors
(ethical leadership, four silence variables, ACC, politics
perceptions, and the control
variables of transactional and transformational leadership as
well as employee cynicism)
with all items loading on the intended factor. To reduce the
number of items in our model
as regards transformational leadership, we first built the six
facets according to Podsakoff
et al. (1990) and used them as indicators of the higher-order
construct. With regard to
generally accepted cut-off values for model fit (Hu and Bentler,
1999), the CFA revealed
a satisfactory fit of our model (χ² = 2,130.34, p < .01; df =
1,083; Δχ² = 4,117.87, p < .01;
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) = 36,234.07; ΔAIC =
4,029.57; Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .05, Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual
(SRMR) = .07) and superior fit compared to the baseline model
where all items loaded
on a single factor (χ² = 6,248.21, p < .01; df = 1,127; AIC =
40,263.64; RMSEA = .13,
SRMR = .16).
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, bivariate
correlations and reliability

scores for the variables studied.
Hypotheses test
All direct and indirect effects are depicted in Tables 2 and 3
respectively. As posited in
Hypothesis 1, ethical leadership was positively related to ACC
through the mediating
effect of reducing employees’ silence. However, ethical
leadership was only significantly
related to acquiescent silence (β = −.21, p < .05). Acquiescent
silence was also signifi-
cantly related to ACC (β = −.39, p < .01). Accordingly, the
indirect effect of ethical
leadership through acquiescent silence on ACC was significant
and in the intended direc-
tion (estimate = .09, p < .01). As ethical leadership did not
significantly predict the three
remaining silence motives, none of the remaining indirect
effects was significant. In
sum, only Hypothesis 1a could be supported. As ethical
leadership still had a significant
effect on ACC (β = .23, p < .01) in the presence of the four
silence motives, our results
indicate partial mediation.
In Hypothesis 2, we expected politics perceptions to moderate
stage 1 of the media-
tion between ethical leadership, employee silence and ACC. As
shown in Table 2, the
interaction between ethical leadership and politics perceptions
on acquiescent silence

T
a
b
le
1
.
M
ea
ns
, s
ta
nd
ar
d
de
vi
at
io
ns
, r
el
ia
bi
lit

ie
s
an
d
co
rr
el
at
io
ns
.
C
o
ns
tr
uc
t
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
1
. C
yn
ic
is
m
3.
07
1.
09
.8
0
2
. T
ra
ns
fo

rm
at
io
na
l l
ea
de
rs
hi
p
3.
48
0.
72
−
.3
4*
*
.9
4
3
. T
ra

ns
ac
ti
o
na
l l
ea
de
rs
hi
p
3.
66
1.
03
−
.2
9*
*
.7
5*
*
.8
9

4
. P
o
lit
ic
s
pe
rc
ep
ti
o
ns
2.
56
0.
96
.6
7*
*
−
.1
4*
−
.1

5*
.9
1
5
. P
er
so
na
l c
ha
ng
e
im
pa
ct
3.
45
1.
38
−
.0
8
.0

5
−
.0
2
−
.0
3
6
. E
th
ic
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
3.
58
0.
80
−
.3

1*
*
.7
7*
*
.6
4*
*
−
.1
7*
*
.0
2
.8
9
7
. A
cq
ui
es
ce
nt

s
ile
nc
e
3.
30
1.
67
.4
0*
*
−
.3
6*
*
−
.3
1*
*
.3
1*
*
−
.0

6
−
.3
8*
*
.8
6
8
. Q
ui
es
ce
nt
s
ile
nc
e
3.
13
1.
35
.2
8*

*
−
.0
6
−
.1
0
.3
4*
*
.0
2
−
.1
1
.5
2*
*
.8
7
9
. P
ro

so
ci
al
s
ile
nc
e
3.
83
1.
68
.1
0
−
.0
3
−
.0
5
.1
3*
.0
2
.0

1
.3
1*
*
.4
9*
*
.8
7
10
. O
pp
o
rt
un
is
ti
c
si
le
nc
e
2.
46

1.
25
.3
5*
*
−
.0
5
−
.0
6
.3
5*
*
−
.0
3
−
.1
0
.5
0*
*
.5

5*
*
.3
9*
*
.7
4
11
. A
ffe
ct
iv
e
ch
an
ge
c
o
m
m
it
m
en

t
3.
63
0.
95
−
.1
7*
*
.1
3*
.1
0
−
.1
3*
.0
5
.2
3*
*
−
.4
1*

*
−
.1
9*
*
−
.1
4*
−
.1
6*
*
.8
9
N
=
2
63
. C
ro
nb
ac
h’
s

α
a
re
in
di
ca
te
d
in
it
al
ic
s.
*p
<
.0
5;
*
*p
<
.0
1;
t
w

o
-t
ai
le
d
te
st
s
o
f
si
gn
ifi
ca
nc
e.
was significant (β = .14, p < .01). We plotted the interaction and
conducted simple
slope analyses to interpret the effect. As indicated in Figure 2,
ethical leadership had a
negative relationship with acquiescent silence only when
perceptions of politics were
low (β = −.34, p < .01); the effect was insignificant when
perceptions of politics were

high (β = −.07, ns). None of the interaction effects regarding the
three remaining
silence motives was significant, leading to the rejection of
Hypotheses 2b–2d. Our
moderated mediation analyses (see Table 3) revealed that the
indirect effect of ethical
leadership on ACC through acquiescent silence was positive and
significant when per-
ceptions of politics were low (–1 SD; estimate = .14, p < .01).
The indirect effect was
no longer significant when perceptions of politics were high (+1
SD; estimate = .03,
ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was supported.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that the indirect effect of ethical
leadership on ACC through
employee silence is dependent on both politics perceptions
(stage 1) and personal
change impact (stage 2). We first tested whether change impact
moderated the silence–
ACC relationship. As shown in Table 2, the interaction between
acquiescent silence
and change impact was marginally significant (β = .13, p = .06).
The interaction is
plotted in Figure 3. As expected, the negative relationship
between acquiescent
silence and ACC was stronger when change impact was low (β =
−.52, p < .01) as
Table 2. Bootstrapping results.
AS QS PS OS ACC
Controls
Cynicism .25** .09 .02 .25** −.04
Transformational

leadership
−.08 .12 −.04 .10 −.16
Transactional leadership −.02 −.08 −.06 .01 −.07
Politics perceptions (PP) .11 .28** .12 .20*
Change impact (CI) .04
Independent variable
Ethical leadership (EL) −.21* −.08 .10 −.07 .23**
Mediators
Acquiescent silence (AS) −.39**
Quiescent silence (QS) .04
Prosocial silence (PS) −.09
Opportunistic silence (OS) .07
Moderators
EL x PP .14** −.05 .00 .06
AS x CI .13†
QS x CI −.15*
PS x CI −.06
OS x CI .09
R² .26 .13 .02 .16 .22
N = 263; ACC: affective change commitment; SD: standard
deviation.
**p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .10; two-tailed tests of significance.
opposed to high (β = −.27, p < .01).1 Next, we estimated the
conditional indirect effect
of ethical leadership through acquiescent silence at specific
values of the moderators.
In line with our argumentation, when politics perceptions were

high, the effect of
ethical leadership on ACC through reducing acquiescent silence
was insignificant at
all levels of change impact (–1 SD; estimate = .04, ns; +1 SD;
estimate = .02, ns). In
contrast, when perceptions of politics were low, the indirect
effect was stronger when
change impact was low (–1 SD; estimate = .18, p < .01) as
opposed to high (+1 SD;
estimate = .09, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3a was
supported.
Discussion
Changing environments present some of the most frequent
challenges to organizational
success. Accordingly, research is needed to understand how
employees’ reactions to
change evolve. This present research addressed this call and
examined how ethical
leaders can strengthen employees’ ACC through reducing
employee silence, and how
this process is influenced by politics perceptions and change
impact on the individual.
Our results revealed that ethical leadership reduced employees’
motives to remain
silent because of feelings of resignation, which, in turn,
predicted ACC. However, we
also revealed important boundaries of this effect. As politics
perceptions increased,
the effect diminished. Even when politics perceptions were low,
high levels of change
impact on the individual reduced the magnitude of the indirect
effect of ethical leader-
ship on ACC.

Table 3. Bootstrap analyses of the conditional indirect effects of
ethical leadership on affective
change commitment.
Indirect effects through Acquiescent Silence
PE SE CaL95 CaU95
Unconditional
indirect effects
.09** .04 .01 .17
Low PP (–1 SD) .14** .05 .05 .26
Medium PP .08** .04 .02 .19
High PP (+1 SD) .03 .04 −.04 .13
Low PP (–1 SD)
Low CI (–1 SD) .18** .07 .07 .34
Medium CI .14** .05 .06 .26
High CI (+1 SD) .09* .05 .02 .23
High PP (+1 SD)
Low CI (–1 SD) .04 .05 −.08 .15
Medium CI .03 .04 −.06 .12
High CI (+1 SD) .02 .03 −.03 .11
PP: politics perceptions; CI: change impact; PE: point estimate;
SE: standard error; CaL95: 95% confidence
interval lower limit; CaU95: 95% confidence interval upper
limit.
**p < .01, *p < .05; two-tailed tests of significance.
Implications for organizational literature

This study provides important insights into the beneficial
impact of ethical leadership
during organizational change. To our knowledge, this is only
the second study to inves-
tigate ethical leadership impact in a change context. While
Sharif and Scandura (2014)
showed that employees’ job satisfaction, OCB and performance
can be furthered
Figure 2. Interaction effect of ethical leadership and politics
perceptions on acquiescent
silence.
PP: politics perceptions.
Figure 3. Interaction effect of acquiescent silence and change
impact on affective commitment
to change (ACC).
CI: change impact.
through exhibiting ethical leadership, we extend findings by
incorporating a change-
related outcome in ACC. If leaders display honest, just and
caring leadership behav-
iours, they are capable of strengthening followers’ emotional
bond with change
initiatives. Our study also reveals important insights into the
tenets underlying this pro-
cess. Sharif and Scandura (2014) attributed the beneficial
impact to increased trust and
reduced uncertainty. Our results indicate that it is also the
reduction of employee silence

due to feelings of resignation that drives the beneficial impact.
That ethical leadership
is effective in change also corroborates findings from past
research highlighting the role
of perceptions of justice. Several studies, including quasi -
experimental approaches,
have established a causal link between fair management
practices and employees’ atti-
tudes to change (Oreg and van Dam, 2009). Transferring this
justice perspective to the
role of organizational leaders, we have shown that ethical
leadership behaviour which
highlights just and balanced decision-making lowers employees’
motives to remain
silent and encourages them to commit to change initiatives.
Further strengthening our
proposed role of ethical leadership during change, we also
controlled for the related
leadership styles of transformational and transactional
leadership. Consequently, ethi-
cal leadership’s beneficial impact came above and beyond the
influences of those
related leadership constructs. With this, we address recent calls
(Bedi et al., 2015) to
provide empirical evidence to contrast ethical leadership’s
effects with those of other
leadership styles (e.g. Brown and Trevino, 2006).
Our analyses revealed that not all four forms of employee
silence are equally impor-
tant. More precisely, only acquiescent silence was significantly
influenced by ethical
leadership and predicted ACC. The remaining three forms of
silence were not correlated
with either independent or dependent variables in our regression
models. This demands

some further consideration. Most importantly, we found strong
support for the crucial
role of acquiescent silence. When employees work for leaders
who show ethical leader-
ship, they are less likely to withhold concerns because of
feelings of resignation com-
pared to employees who work for less ethical leaders. We
attribute this to experienced
work-related latitude (Piccolo et al., 2010) and fair decision-
making (Brown and Trevino,
2006), which suggests that concerns are raised with the leader
in the belief that they will
address these issues properly. The negative effect of
acquiescent silence on ACC is also
in line with previous findings linking negative affective
attitudes with lower levels of
change success (Reichers et al., 1997). Our findings regarding
the different motives for
employee silence corroborate those of Knoll and van Dick
(2013). In their study, out of
all four silence motives, acquiescent silence was the strongest
correlate regarding job
satisfaction, organizational identification and turnover
intentions. However, it was still
unexpected that in our study ethical leadership was unrelated to
quiescent, prosocial and
opportunistic silence. A possible explanation could be that the
effect of ethical leadership
is less proximal and more distal. For instance, with regard to
opportunistic silence, we
hypothesized that ethical leaders who set an example of fair and
altruistic behaviour
should directly reduce followers’ opportunistic motives for
(non-)behaviour via social
learning. While we found no support for this assumption,
follower cynicism and percep-

tions of politics did positively predict opportunistic silence. The
more the social climate
within a work unit is characterized by cynical thinking and
politicking, the more an
individual’s behaviour or non-behaviour is guided by
opportunistic motives. As ethical
leadership was also negatively related to cynicism and politics,
it is possible that ethical
leadership negatively impacts opportunistic silence in an
indirect manner. In other words,
ethical leadership influences the social context in which
followers are embedded (Kuenzi
and Schminke, 2009). They shape team climates of reduced
cynicism and politics which,
in turn, trigger individual silence motives. Alternatively, it may
be possible that the rela-
tionship between ethical leadership and silence is more
conditional and that there are
moderators masking any direct association. Possible avenues
following this path will be
discussed in the context of the implications for future research.
There is a growing but still thin body of research on moderators
of the ethical leader-
ship–outcome relationship. Our results indicate that with
increasing levels of politics
within teams, ethical leaders appear to be losing their grip on
their employees. The
reducing effect of ethical leadership on acquiescent silence is
absorbed. We attribute this
effect to the self-serving nature of political environments,

where employees come to
believe that the altruism an ethical leader demonstrates is not
the kind of behaviour to
mimic in terms of achieving goals within an organization.
Kacmar et al. (2011) used an
organizational politics perspective to argue why ethical
leadership’s effect on OCB
increases with higher levels of politics perceptions. They
interpreted OCB as an embodi-
ment of political behaviour serving egoistic goals. Their results
confirmed this proposed
effect for men only. Our study had a different approach as we
elucidated motives behind
behaviours such as (not) speaking up. Our study, therefore,
extends insights into the ethi-
cal leadership–OCB relationship by showing that, when
considering motives underlying
(non-)behaviour, effects can be identified for women and men
alike.
Another boundary of ethical leadership effects was the impact
of changes on the indi-
vidual’s job. Our results indicated that with increasing levels of
personal impact of the
change the beneficial effect of ethical leadership on ACC
through acquiescent silence
decreased. This echoes past research which argued that
organizational members approach
other-induced change initiatives with scepticism and refusal
(Meyer and Hamilton, 2013).
A possible explanation is the role of cognitive overloads during
change (Maurer and Lord,
1991). Individuals tend to be self-absorbed when coping with
these challenges (Oreg
et al., 2011; Reichers et al., 1997) and therefore may be less
amenable to leadership.

Limitations and directions for future research
There are several limitations in our research design with
implications for future work.
First of all, we relied on cross-sectional data which prohibits
any causal claims to be
made. To strengthen causal claims, researchers are
recommended to pursue experimental
approaches to address this limitation in the future. Although we
used multiple measure-
ment waves to reduce common method bias, a second limitation
is the reliance on
employee ratings only. Thirdly, we gathered data on employees
from different organiza-
tions with different forms and magnitudes of change initiatives.
Hence, insights into
specific forms of change and their implications for leadership
and employee silence
could not be gained. As this limitation also holds for the study
of Sharif and Scandura
(2014), future work that examines the impact of ethical
leadership during change within
single organizations with specific changes is urgently needed. A
fourth limitation refers
to the measurement of the stage 2 moderator of change impact.
This aspect was measured
with a single item due to the length of the questionnaire, and
the interaction with acqui-
escent silence was only marginally significant. As personal
change impact has been

measured on multi-item scales in the past (Caldwell et al., 2004;
Herold et al., 2008), we
encourage researchers to replicate our interaction effect using
validated measures.
Based on our results, we confirmed partial mediation regarding
ethical leadership,
employee silence and ACC, meaning that there are other
mechanisms whereby ethical
leadership fosters ACC. Future work could investigate
mediating variables apart from
employee silence. For instance, Sharif and Scandura (2014)
proposed enriched trust
and reduced uncertainty as mediating mechanisms, which to
date still needs empirical
validation.
With regard to the emerging construct of employee silence, our
study also presents
some intriguing avenues for future work. Comparing all four
forms of silence, the results
indicated that acquiescent silence is, by a large margin, the
most important one. With the
strongest correlations with our remaining focal variables we
found similar relational pat-
terns to those of Knoll and van Dick (2013). Considering these
results, two different
conclusions can be drawn. On the one hand, acquiescent silence
could be the most rele-
vant form of silence to organizations. On the other hand, as
more of a methodological
argument, it might simply be the most accessible motive.
Confessing feelings of resigna-
tion might be more socially acceptable than betraying highly
valued colleagues or reveal-
ing egoistic motives. Here, future work is needed to disentangle

methodological from
content-driven arguments. As indicated earlier, the insignificant
relationships between
ethical leadership and quiescent, prosocial and opportunistic
silence might also be due to
moderators. As our results have shown that cynicism and
perception of politics were
related to several forms of silence, it is possible that there are
further aspects of the social
context (Rosen et al., 2009) that influence the aforementioned
relationships. Climates
with different affective tones such as a focus on idea generation
(Ekvall, 1996) or safety
practices (Zohar, 2000) could be tested in upcoming work. Such
moderators could also
have been the reason for the insignificant relationships between
affective change com-
mitment and quiescent, prosocial, as well as opportunistic
silence. Alternatively, other
change-related criteria – possibly with a stronger focus on
supportive behaviours
(Bouckenooghe, Schwarz and Minbashian, 2014) – could be
applied in future work to
further examine the role of silence in change contexts.
Lastly, the role of organizational leadership could be examined
further. For instance,
shared (Pearce et al., 2010) or instrumental (Rowold, 2014)
leadership could be tested as
predictors for employee silence. Shared leadership highlights
the emergence of informal
leaders among peers without formal leadership responsibilities.
It is potentially fruitful
as its informal and team-bound nature should foster a team
climate of mutual trust, which
lowers perceived barriers to raising voice on critical matters.

Alternatively, instrumental
leadership captures contents of strategic leadership and work
facilitation. Especially the
latter aspect, which builds on classic path–goal leadership
theory, could be relevant to
silence. One the one hand, if leaders point out to followers what
needs to be done to
achieve given goals and what each individual’s responsibilities
are, a climate of obliga-
tion to raise voice on critical matters could develop. On the
other hand, with its strong
focus on task orientation, close or intimate leader–follower
relationships are less likely
to evolve, which could bolster opportunistic and reduce
prosocial motives.
Implications for practitioners
As organizational change poses a major challenge to today’s
corporate world, organiza-
tions are in need of dedicated and committed employees. Ethical
leadership has been
shown in this study to be a crucial driver for change success.
Accordingly, organizations
should be eager to further the display of ethical leadership
among leaders. One way of
doing this could be a stronger focus on ethical leadership during
leader selection processes.
For instance, the potential for ethical leadership could be
assessed in the course of assess-
ment centres where ethical challenges could be simulated in role
play, job interviews or

case studies. It is important that organizations also foster the
development of current lead-
ers. Ethical leadership could be the topic of leadership training.
Past research on the train-
ability of leadership behaviours showed promising results
(Abrell et al., 2011). As our
analyses have revealed, ethical leadership had a unique impact
above and beyond the
effects of transformational and transactional leadership, and
training programmes need to
be developed that focus explicitly on the display of ethical
leadership behaviours.
Another way of getting employees committed to change
initiatives is by reducing
their incentives to remain silent because of feelings of
resignation. While this study has
shown that ethical leadership is one way of achieving reduced
acquiescent silence, there
may be other possible approaches. Organizations should have an
incentive to establish
structures that ensure appropriate and transparent
communication of decisions. In this
way, employees should have a better understanding for the
higher-order reasons for cer-
tain possibly unpleasant decisions and their consequences.
Possessing that knowledge
should then lead to reduced cynicism, which was also positively
related to acquiescent
silence in this study. Preventing employees from remaining
silent because of feelings of
resignation should also come from an organizational culture that
is characterized by trust
and appreciation. When employees experience that raising their
voice regarding critical
issues is valued highly by management and does indeed lead to

positive changes within
task structures, there should be much less incentive for
acquiescent silence, and vice
versa: A management’s inability to appreciate and take
advantage of employees’ input
fosters a culture of mistrust and resignation.
Note
1. We also found a significant interaction effect regarding
quiescent silence and change concern
(see Table 2; β = −.15, p < .05). However, as Hypothesis 3b
proposed an indirect effect of
ethical leadership through quiescent silence on ACC, and as
neither the direct effect of ethical
leadership on quiescent silence nor the indirect effect on ACC
through quiescent silence was
significant, we decided not to include the plot in this article.
References
Abrell C, Rowold J, Weibler J, et al. (2011) Evaluation of a
long-term transformational leadership
development program. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 25:
205–224.
Abrell-Vogel C and Rowold J (2014) Leaders’ commitment to
change and their effectiveness in change
– a multilevel investigation. Journal of Organizational Change
Management 27(6): 900–921.
Allen NJ and Meyer JP (1990) The measurement and
antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18.

Avey JB, Wernsing TS and Palanski ME (2012) Exploring the
process of ethical leadership: The
mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership.
Journal of Business Ethics
107(1): 21–34.
Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura A (1991) Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50(2): 248–287.
Bedi A, Alpaslan CM and Green S (2015) A meta-analytic
review of ethical leadership outcomes
and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI:
10.1007/s10551-015-2625-1.
Bernerth JB and Aguinis H (2015) A critical review and best-
practice recommendations for control
variable usage. Personnel Psychology 69(1): 229–283.
Bouckenooghe D, Schwarz G and Minbashian A (2014)
Herscovitch and Meyer’s three-compo-
nent model of commitment to change: Meta-analytic findings.
European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 24(4): 578–595.
Brinsfield CT (2013) Employee silence motives: Investigation
of dimensionality and development
of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(5): 671–
697.

Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and
written material. In: Triandis HC
and Berry JW (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Vol. 2: Methodology. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon, 349–444.
Brown ME and Trevino LK (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 595–616.
Brown ME, Trevino LK and Harrison DA (2005) Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspec-
tive for construct development and testing. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 97: 117–134.
Burnes B and By RT (2012). Leadership and change: The case
for greater ethical clarity. Journal
of Business Ethics 108(2): 239–252.
Caldwell SD, Herold DM and Fedor DB (2004) Toward an
understanding of the relationships
among organizational change, individual differences, and
changes in person–environment fit:
A cross-level study. The Journal of Applied Psychology 89(5):
868–882.
Chang C-H, Rosen CC and Levy PE (2009) The relationship
between perceptions of organiza-
tional politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A
meta-analytic examination.
Academy of Management Journal 52(4): 779–801.
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, et al. (2003) Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for

the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cole MS, Bruch H and Vogel B (2006) Emotion as mediators of
the relations between per-
ceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on
employee cynicism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 27(4): 463–484.
Conway E and Monks K (2008) HR practices and commitment
to change: An employee-level
analysis. Human Resource Management Journal 18(1): 72–89.
Cunningham GB (2006) The relationships among commitment to
change, coping with change,
and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 15(1):
29–45.
Ekvall G (1996) Organizational climate for creativity and
innovation. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 5(1): 105–123.
Fedor DB, Caldwell S and Herold DM (2006) The effects of
organizational changes on employee
commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology
59(1): 1–29.
Ferris GR and Judge TA (1991) Personnel/Human resources
management: A political influence
perspective. Journal of Management 17(2): 447–488.
Frömmer D, Wegge J and Strobel A (2014) Risiko durch
Verschlossenheit? Das Zusammenspiel
von Führung, Mitarbeiterschweigen und Managerversagen.
Wirtschaftspsychologie 3: 39–44.

Hanisch KA and Hulin CL (1990) Job attitudes and
organizational withdrawal: An examination of
retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 37(1):
60–78.
Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and
Conditional Process Analysis:
A Regression-based Approach. (Methodology in the Social
Sciences series). New York:
Guilford Press.
Heinitz K and Rowold J (2007) Gütekriterien einer deutschen
Adaptation des Transfor-
mational Leadership Inventory (TLI) von Podsakoff. Zeitschrif t
für Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie A&O 51(1): 1–15.
Herold DM, Fedor DB, Caldwell S, et al. (2008) The effects of
transformational and change lead-
ership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevel
study. The Journal of Applied
Psychology 93(2): 346–357.
Herscovitch L and Meyer JP (2002) Commitment to
organizational change: Extension of a three-
component model. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(3): 474–
487.
Hochwarter WA, Kacmar C, Perrewé PL, et al. (2003) Perceived
organizational support as a
mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and

work outcomes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 63(3): 438–456.
Hochwarter WA, Perrewé PL, Ferris GR, et al. (1999)
Commitment as an antidote to the tension
and turnover consequences of organizational politics. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 55(3):
277–297.
Hu L and Bentler P (1999) Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analy-
sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.
Kacmar KM, Andrews MC, Harris KJ, et al. (2013) Ethical
leadership and subordinate outcomes:
The mediating role of organizational politics and the
moderating role of political skill. Journal
of Business Ethics 115(1): 33–44.
Kacmar KM, Bachrach DG, Harris KJ and Zivnuska S (2011)
Fostering good citizenship through
ethical leadership: Exploring the moderating role of gender and
organizational politics.
Journal of Applied Psychology 96(3): 633–642.
Knoll M and van Dick R (2013) Do I hear the whistle … ? A
first attempt to measure four forms of
employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business
Ethics 113(2): 349–362.
Krüger C, Rowold J, Borgmann L, et al. (2011) The
discriminant validity of transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Personnel Psychology 10(2):
49–60.

Kuenzi M and Schminke M (2009) Assembling fragments into a
lens: A review, critique, and pro-
posed research agenda for the organizational work climate
literature. Journal of Management
35(3): 634–717.
Maurer TJ and Lord RG (1991) An exploration of cognitive
demands in group interaction as
a moderator of information processing variables in perceptions
of leadership. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 21(10): 821–839.
Meyer JP and Hamilton L K (2013) Commitment to
organizational change: Theory, research,
principles, and practice. In: Oreg S, Michel A and By RT (eds)
The Psychology of
Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employee’s
Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–64.
Miller BK, Rutherford MA and Kolodinsky RW (2008)
Perceptions of organizational politics: A
meta-analysis of outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology
22(3): 209–222.
Morrison EW and Milliken FJ (2000) Organizational sil ence: A
barrier to change and development
in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25(4):
706–725.
Ng TWH and Feldman DC (2015) Ethical leadership: Meta-
analytic evidence of criterion-related
and incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(3):
948–965.

Oreg S (2003) Resistance to change: Developing an individual
differences measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology 88(4): 680–693.
Oreg S and van Dam K (2009) Organisational justice in the
context of organisational change.
Netherlands Journal of Psychology 65(4): 127–135.
Oreg S, Vakola M and Armenakis A (2011) Change recipients’
reactions to organizational change:
A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 47(4):
461–524.
Pearce CL, Hoch JE, Jeppesen HJ, et al. (2010) New forms of
management: Shared and distrib-
uted leadership in organizations. Journal of Personnel
Psychology 9(4): 151–153.
Piccolo RF, Greenbaum R, Den Hartog DN, et al. (2010) The
relationship between ethical leadership
and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior
31(2–3): 259–278.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH, et al. (1990)
Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behav-
iors. The Leadership Quarterly 1(2): 107–142.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Podsakoff NP (2012) Sources
of method bias in social science

research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual
Review of Psychology 63(1):
539–569.
Reichers AE, Wanous JP and Austin JT (1997) Understanding
and managing cynicism about
organizational change. Academy of Management Perspectives
11(1): 48–59.
Rosen CC, Chang CH, Johnson RE and Levy PE (2009)
Perceptions of the organizational con-
text and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing
perspectives. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108(2): 202–217.
Rowold J (2014) Instrumental leadership: Extending the
transformational–transactional leadership
paradigm. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 28(3): 367–390.
Rowold J, Borgmann L and Heinitz K (2009) Ethische Führung
– Gütekriterien einer deutschen
Adaptation der Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS-D) von Brown et
al. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-
und Organisationspsychologie 53(2): 57–69.
Schaubroeck JM, Hannah ST, Avolio BJ, et al. (2012)
Embedding ethical leadership within and
across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal
55(5): 1053–1078.
Sharif MM and Scandura TA (2014) Do perceptions of ethical
conduct matter during organi-
zational change? Ethical leadership and employee involvement.
Journal of Business Ethics
124(2): 185–196.

van Dyne L, Ang S and Botero IC (2003) Conceptualizing
employee silence and employee voice
as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies
40(6): 1359–1392.
Walumbwa FO and Schaubroeck J (2009) Leader personality
traits and employee voice behav-
ior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group
psychological safety. Journal of
Applied Psychology 94(5): 1275–1286.
Wegge J, Jeppesen HJ, Weber WG, et al. (2010). Promoting
work motivation in organizations.
Journal of Personnel Psychology 9(4): 154–171.
Zohar D (2000) A group-level model of safety climate: Testing
the effect of group climate on
microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology 85(4): 587–596.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026618806201
Organization & Environment
2020, Vol. 33(2) 155 –174
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1086026618806201
journals.sagepub.com/home/oae

Article
Making It Personal: Developing
Sustainability Leaders in Business
Aoife Brophy Haney1 , Jenny Pope2,3,4,
and Zoë Arden5
Abstract
Sustainability challenges present organizations in many
industries with the need to change.
Leaders are critical to the process of becoming more
sustainable, and yet leading change
for sustainability requires new competencies. Learning at an
individual level is central
to developing new competencies; however, there has been
limited focus to date in the
literature on corporate sustainability on how leaders can learn to
respond to sustainability
challenges. In this article, we focus on how managers learn to
become sustainability leaders
in their organizations by exploring the phenomenon of
experiential learning programmes.
We do this by interviewing participants and organizers of four
programmes about what they
learned and how the programmes helped them achieve these
learning outcomes. We find
that the programmes supported the development of
understanding, personal connection,
and empowerment to act for sustainability. In particular, making
sustainability personal for
participants led to deep learning in each of these three areas.
We contribute to conversations
in the corporate sustainability literature on the potential for
individuals within organizations
to respond to and connect with sustainability issues in different

ways. We also contribute to
the literature on education for sustainability and provide
practical implications for experiential
learning programmes in business and business education.
Keywords
corporate sustainability, corporate social responsibility,
learning, sustainability leadership,
experiential learning
Introduction
Corporate sustainability confronts business with the challenge
of addressing not just commercial
but also environmental and social goals (Goleman &
Lueneburger, 2010). Leaders are crucial to
the process of organizational change that is needed for
organizations to become more sustainable
1ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
3Integral Sustainability, South Fremantle, Western Australia,
Australia
4North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
5University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability
Leadership, Cambridge, UK
Corresponding Author:
Aoife Brophy Haney, Group for Sustainability and Technology,
ETH Zurich, Weinbergstrasse 56/58, Zurich, 8037,
Switzerland.
Email: [email protected]
806201OAEXXX10.1177/1086026618806201Organization &
EnvironmentHaney et al.
research-article2018

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/oae
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1086 0266
18806201&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-10-21
156 Organization & Environment 33(2)
(Eccles & Perkins, 2012). But there is increasing
acknowledgement that addressing complex
sustainability challenges requires the development of new
leadership skills and attributes (Barth,
Godemann, Rieckmann, & Stoltenberg, 2007; Osagie,
Wesselink, Blok, Lans, & Mulder, 2016;
Ploum, Blok, Lans, & Omta, 2017; Rieckmann, 2012). Although
there has been some recent
research on how university programmes can be designed to
develop sustainability skills
(Hesselbarth & Schaltegger, 2014), there has been less focus on
the attainment of skills for sus-
tainability in business. In this article, we explore the particular
phenomenon of experiential learn-
ing programmes (ELPs) designed for sustainability
professionals from the business world, to
understand how these programmes support managers to become
effective sustainability leaders
in their organizations.
The interdependence of economic, environmental, and social
objectives at the heart of corpo-
rate sustainability requires an expansive view of the role of
business in society (Bondy, Moon, &
Matten, 2012; Gitsham, 2012; Quinn & Dalton, 2009).
According to this view, the financial or

economic imperative of business is intertwined with the
interrelated challenges of
(1) long-term viability of natural systems and the services they
provide for human existence; (2)
unacceptable social conditions at home and in communities
around the world; and (3) the potential
for local and global economies to create a modicum of wealth
and prosperity for all inhabitants of the
earth. (Ferdig, 2007, p. 26)
These challenges have significant implications for leaders
charged with setting the strategic
direction of their organizations in response (Coleman, 2013).
First, combining these different
goals is challenging for leaders in business because there are
often many tensions involved. For
example, just as there are tensions between competing goals
(Margolis & Walsh, 2003), there are
tensions between the traditional short-term focus of managerial
decision making and the long-
term focus that firms are increasingly expected to exhibit in
order to respond to big societal chal-
lenges such as climate change (Slawinski & Bansal, 2012;
Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, & Figge, 2014).
Second, sustainability challenges are often categorized as
“wicked problems,” that is, they are
complex, are ill-defined, and do not have clear solutions (Lans,
Blok, & Wesselink, 2014). Hence,
management approaches grounded in learning from past
experiences to predict and control the
future are increasingly found to be inadequate (Ferdig, 2007;
Rieckmann, 2012; Sterling, 2011;
Wesselink, Blok, van Leur, Lans, & Dentoni, 2015), because
knowledge structures based on past
experience may be too rigid to allow for innovative alternatives

to be recognized (Benner &
Tripsas, 2012; Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). Third, dealing with
these challenges requires engage-
ment with multiple stakeholders with different views, values,
and perceptions not only of the
problem (Lans et al., 2014), but also of the desirable goals or
objectives (Goleman & Lueneburger,
2010).
In the face of these challenges, it is increasingly recognized that
leadership that engages with
sustainability and seeks to promote sustainability outcomes
through business activities, often
referred to as “sustainability leadership” (Visser & Courtice,
2011), is both crucial (Eccles &
Perkins, 2012; Gloet, 2006) and different from traditional
business leadership (Gitsham, 2012;
Martin & Ernst, 2005). The role of the individual business
leader in sustainability has received
much less focus in the literature than institutional and
organizational dimensions (Aguinis &
Glavas, 2012). But there is increasing focus on individual
managers and a recognition that it is
important to understand the challenges they face (Allen,
Marshall, & Easterby-Smith, 2015), as
well as the potential they represent within their organizations to
think and act differently in
response to sustainability (Hahn & Aragón-Correa, 2015).
Businesses are also clearly recogniz-
ing the important role that informed, motivated, and empowered
business leaders can play in
driving change for sustainability through sponsoring their
participation in ELPs. In fact, many
organizations are now turning to intensive, field-based training
programmes designed to support

Haney et al. 157
sustainability leadership. These programmes, often described as
“‘experiential learning pro-
grammes” (Baden & Parkes, 2013), are based on bringing
participants close to sustainability
issues and providing opportunities to engage with a wide range
of people with different perspec-
tives (Gitsham, 2012). Most research on field-based learning
has focused on contexts such as
schools and universities or professions such as nursing and
teaching (Kolb & Kolb, 2005;
Quinn, 2000). Bringing business leaders into the field to
develop sustainability leadership has
only recently started to receive attention. There has been little
research to date that has sought
to understand how and to what extent ELPs support managers in
developing the competencies
needed for sustainability leadership (Gitsham, 2012).
Developing a better understanding of
ELPs can also contribute to general conversations in the
literature about the potential of indi-
vidual leaders to address sustainability within their
organizations and the educational means
through which to support this potential (Hahn & Aragón-Correa,
2015; Sharma & Hart, 2014;
Shrivastava, 2010).
In this article, we analyze the experiences of managers from a
range of different organizations
who have participated in ELPs for sustainability leadership, as
well as the perspectives of some
of the organizers of these programmes. Our research is based on
a series of semi-structured inter-

views to explore, first, what managers learned and, second, how
this learning occurred. We ask,
“How do ELPs support the development of sustainability
leadership?” In the following section,
we review the key literature on competencies for sustainability
leadership, and learning and edu-
cation for sustainability. We draw on this literature to articulate
the characteristics of effective
ELPs for sustainability leadership. In the subsequent section,
we illustrate how the programmes
selected for this research reflect these characteristics, and we
explain our research methodology
in more detail. We then show in the results section, first, the
learning outcomes of the pro-
grammes, and, second, how learning occurred, as experienced
by participants. Finally, we dis-
cuss our findings in the context of the literature on
sustainability leadership and corporate
sustainability more broadly.
Theoretical Background
Competencies for Sustainability Leadership
Much of the literature on the attributes of sustainability leaders
is focused on the competencies
such leaders require. The term competency has been used to
mean different things in different
contexts (Barth et al., 2007; Wesselink et al., 2015), and several
different schools of thought can
be distinguished (Osagie et al., 2016). There is broad
agreement, however, that a comprehensive
perspective of competency includes more than just cognitive
and functional dimensions such as
skills and knowledge; it also embraces attitudes, motives,
values, and ethics (Barth & Michelsen,

2013; Hesselbarth & Schaltegger, 2014; Osagie et al., 2016;
Ploum et al., 2017; Rieckmann,
2012; Svanström, Lozano-García, & Rowe, 2008; UNESCO,
2017; Visser & Crane, 2010;
Wesselink et al., 2015). In this article, we follow Wiek,
Withycombe, and Redman (2011) to
define competency as “a functionally linked complex of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that
enable successful task performance and problem solving” (p.
204). The purpose of the compe-
tency is then clearly linked to a task or a problem, in our case
related to sustainability.
In their discussion of sustainability leadership, Visser and
Crane (2010) also emphasize the
importance of personality traits and leadership styles. Arguably,
these softer, more intangible
dimensions are particularly important for sustainability
leadership since sustainability is essen-
tially a values-driven concept (Barth & Michelsen, 2013; Frisk
& Larson, 2011). It is noted that
the development of an ethical imperative, motivation (Sinatra,
Kardash, Taasoobshirazi, &
Lombardi, 2012) or “moral emotion” (Ferdig, 2007; Sekerka &
Stimel, 2012) to act for sustain-
ability is often associated with a particular value set (Svanström
et al., 2008), reflecting “more
ethical and more responsible values” (Linnenluecke & Griffiths,
2010, p. 358). Gaining compe-
tence for sustainability therefore involves both cognitive and
practical development in the form

of ability to deal with increasing complexity, and the learning
of values and ongoing reflection
on these (Barth & Michelsen, 2013; Savage, Tapics, Evarts,
Wilson, & Tirone, 2015).
While there have been numerous studies seeking to identify
competencies for sustainability,
Ploum et al. (2017) point out that many of these are conceptual
in nature and specifically seek to
inform the higher education sector (Barth et al., 2007;
Rieckmann, 2012; Wiek et al., 2011). For
example Wiek et al. (2011) identify five core competencies they
believe are required to address
sustainability challenges and to solve complex multidimensional
problems, namely, systems
thinking (“the ability to collectively analyze complex systems
across different domains . . . and
across different scales,” p. 207), anticipatory (“the ability to
collectively analyze, evaluate, and
craft rich ‘pictures’ of the future related to sustainability issues
and sustainability problem-solv-
ing frameworks,” pp. 207 and 209), normative (“the ability to
collectively map, specify, apply,
reconcile, and negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals,
and targets,” p. 209), strategic
(“the ability to collectively design and implement interventions,
transitions, and transformative
governance strategies toward sustainability,” p. 210), and
interpersonal (“ the ability to motivate,
enable, and facilitate collaborative and participatory
sustainability research and problem solv-
ing,” p. 211) competencies. In recent years, a number of studies
have been undertaken specifi-
cally within a professional context (Hesselbarth & Schaltegger,
2014; Lans et al., 2014; Osagie
et al., 2016; Wesselink et al., 2015). These studies are reviewed

by Ploum et al. (2017) who find
three competencies common to the four studies: strategic
(management) competence, systems
thinking competence, and interpersonal competence.
What is notable about these contributions, which have
proliferated in recent years, is that the
resulting lists of competencies are remarkably similar regardless
of whether they are conceptual
or empirical, or whether focused on the higher education or
business sectors. They all tend to
include both core competencies for sustainability and
competencies related to management skills,
many of which are similar to the leadership competencies
articulated by Martin and Ernst (2005)
for leadership in times of paradox and complexity more
generally. Osagie et al. (2016) suggest
that many of the competencies described in the literature are
somewhat instrumental and under-
play the importance of ethics. Based on their empirical study of
corporate social responsibility
professionals within business, they emphasize the importance of
“personal value-driven compe-
tencies” relating to the ability to apply personal ethics to a
business situation and to “strike an
appropriate balance between idealism and pragmatism” (p. 243).
They also emphasize the impor-
tance of motivation or “the moral transformation from a passive
attitude with respect to sustain-
ability issues into an active and engaged attitude” (p. 249). This
perspective is strongly aligned
with the views of Ferdig (2007), Sekerka and Stimel (2012),
Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010),
and Sinatra et al. (2012) discussed previously in relation to the
importance of motivation, moral
emotion, and ethical imperative in sustainability leadership.

Learning and Education for Sustainability Leaders
Sustainability leadership then requires the development of not
only cognitive and functional
competencies but also values-oriented competencies that help
leaders engage on sustainability
issues. Accordingly, there have been calls for new kinds of
education for sustainability, as evi-
denced by the United Nations’ Decade of Education for
Sustainability (2005-2015), and the
tertiary education sector has been the hub of research in this
area (see e.g., Barth et al., 2007;
Sipos, Battisti, & Grimm, 2008; Sterling, 2011; Svanström et
al., 2008). The education for sus-
tainability literature reports of various pedagogical approaches
designed to develop the knowl-
edge, skills, and values required by sustainability leaders,
including active and problem-based
learning (MacVaugh & Norton, 2012); authentic problems,
learning cycles, shared inquiry,
Haney et al. 159
transdisciplinarity, exploration, and engagement (Hull, Kimmel,
Robertson, & Mortimer, 2016);
and encouraging critical and reflective thinking about
sustainability paradigms (Stubbs &
Cocklin, 2008). While these and other similar contributions
emphasize the importance of per-
sonal values for sustainability, this approach has also been
challenged by those who believe that
universities are not the place for the “moral agenda” (Butcher,
2007). This debate aside, the

consensus in this body of work is that education for
sustainability requires less of a transfer of
information from educator to student and more of a process of
student-centred personal devel-
opment or transformation based on experiential learning
(Savage et al., 2015). The ELPs that
are the subject of our research embody similar pedagogical
philosophies but are targeted at
business professionals rather than students. In this section, we
briefly review two key bodies of
work in the education for sustainability field: “experiential
learning” and “transformative learn-
ing.” While neither of these terms has clear and commonly
accepted definitions, we see key
aspects of each reflected in the ELPs that are the focus of our
research.
“Experiential learning” is often equated with learning that is
learner-centred and based on
real-life experience or practical “learning by doing” (e.g., Barth
& Michelsen, 2013; Dieleman &
Huisingh, 2006; Gitsham, 2012). Illeris (2007) provides a useful
review of the concept of expe-
riential learning, exploring how it can be distinguished from
nonexperiential learning. He notes
that while many discussions on the topic refer back to the work
of Kolb (1984) and his experien-
tial learning cycle of concrete experience, reflective
observation, abstract conceptualization, and
active experimentation, in fact Kolb himself concluded that all
learning is experiential.
Illeris (2007) posits that three dimensions comprise all forms of
learning on a spectrum from
nonexperiential to experiential: “the content dimension of
knowledge, understandings, skills,

abilities, attitudes and the like, the incentive dimension of
emotion, feelings, motivation and voli-
tion, and the social dimension of interaction, communication
and cooperation—all of which are
embedded in a societally situated context” (pp. 87-88), arguing
that experiential learning occurs
when the three dimensions are in balance. This
conceptualization echoes the literature discussed
in the previous section by emphasizing that incentive is as
important as the development of skills
and knowledge in learning. Illeris’s content and incentive also
have some resonance with
Dieleman and Huisingh (2006)’s comprehension and
apprehension, where the former is cogni-
tive (right brain) and the latter involves “the tangible and felt
qualities of the immediate situa-
tion” (p. 838) (left brain).
“Transformation” through “transformative learning” is similarly
a common theme in the sus-
tainability education literature, where it is argued that it is
essential to shift learners from their
current ways of thinking into a new way of seeing the world
(Sipos et al., 2008; Sterling, 2011;
Wals & Corcoran, 2006). As discussed in the previous section,
particular values, attitudes, moti-
vations, frames, and ethical positions are often argued to be
essential to sustainability leadership.
Learning is thus understood not just as the development of
competencies “within existing (men-
tal) frameworks, norms, policies and rules” (Tosey, Visser, &
Saunders, 2012, p. 292) but as a
process that challenges and ultimately changes these mental
frameworks (or frames to use the
language of the previous section), norms, and policies, in a
process that has been called “concep-

tual change” (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). For example,
Argyris and Schön (1996) refer to
single- and double-learning,1 which is analogous to
Glasbergen’s distinction between technical
and conceptual learning (Glasbergen, 1996). Others go beyond
this dichotomy to distinguish a
broader range of learning types. For example, Sterling (2011)
presents a hierarchy of “levels of
knowing” ranging from actions at the simplest level, through
ideas/theories, norms/assumptions,
beliefs/values, paradigm/worldview, to metaphysics/cosmology
at the most complex, with the
implication that learning can occur in relation to each of these
levels. Illeris (2007) argues that
transformation is more likely when learning is experiential.
The notion of transformative learning is usually attributed to
Jack Mezirow (e.g., Mezirow,
1990, 1997) who developed the concept over a period of 30
years or more (see Kitchenham, 2008
for a comprehensive review of Mezirow’s work). While it is not
always clear that the term trans-
formative learning is used consistently in the sustainability
leadership literature or in line with
Mezirow’s conceptualization, the essential argument is that
learning for sustainability needs to be
considerably more profound than the simple acquisition of
knowledge and skills, involving
changes to attitudes, values, beliefs, and frames (Wals, 2011),
and that such transformation can
be facilitated by experiential learning.

The learning literature suggests that transformation is often
catalyzed by some form of uncom-
fortable experience: for example, Laws and Rein (2003) refer to
“uncertainty and doubt,” Sinclair
and Diduck (2001) to a “disorienting dilemma,” and van der
Knaap (1995) to “cognitive disso-
nance.” All of these allude to a process whereby learners
somehow find themselves outside their
comfort zone, in a position where their existing mental
frameworks and beliefs cannot help in
making sense of the situation, forcing a change at some level of
understanding or value system.
This process is the basis of learning models such as Otto
Scharmer’s Theory U (Scharmer &
Senge, 2009), whose relevance to sustainability has been
explored (van Lawick van Pabst &
Visser, 2012), and is also sometimes conceptualized as
“sensemaking” (Maitlis & Christianson,
2014).
This process of learning or conceptual change is not a purely
cognitive process: The seminal
work of Pintrich et al. (1993) found an important role for
motivation interacting with cognition
in this form of learning in the classroom, which has come to be
called the “warming trend” within
educational psychology. Other authors have explored the
emotional dimension within transfor-
mative learning (Baden & Parkes, 2013; Coleman, 2013). For
example, Gitsham (2012, p. 300)
argues, “While cognitive learning approaches are valuable in
raising awareness, emotional
arousal through felt experience is crucial in moving from
awareness to commitment to change,”
while Sipos et al. (2008) speak of the need to engage the heart

as well as the head and hands.
Summary
In summary, if we take as a starting point that sustainability
leadership calls for the development
of specific competencies that include not only knowledge and
skills (cognitive and functional
competencies) but also attitudes, motives, values, and ethics,
then ELPs for business leaders may
be an appropriate way to catalyze such learning and facilitate
the development of sustainability
leadership. Following Illeris (2007), ELPs should have the
content, incentive, and social dimen-
sions in balance to best achieve this goal. In the following
section, we introduce four programmes
that aim to support the development of sustainability leaders
and that which demonstrate these
characteristics but do not clearly articulate the learning
outcomes in the form of sustainability
leadership competencies. We begin by exploring the learning
outcomes of the programmes from
the perspectives of participants and organizers. We then explore
how different aspects of the
programmes encourage the development of different learning
outcomes.
Method
Context and Data Collection
We use two main sources of data for our analysis. First, we
conducted interviews with managers
who participated in ELPs for sustainability leadership as well as
with some organizers of these
ELPs. We chose two organizations that specialize in providing

such programmes for companies,
Leaders’ Quest (LQ) and the U.K. charity Business in the
Community (BITC), as well as two
bespoke programmes designed specifically by training providers
for multinational companies.
The programmes run by LQ and BITC are the longest running
ELPs in the United Kingdom
focused on senior business leaders across multiple
organizations. Including participants from
Haney et al. 161
both NGO-led and bespoke programmes allowed us to interview
leaders across a range of differ-
ent industries. It also allowed us to look for replication of our
results in programmes with differ-
ent types of organizers or, conversely, to challenge some of our
findings by comparing results
across the programmes. We focused on senior managers to
reduce the effect that hierarchy might
have on our results.
LQ is a social enterprise committed to helping companies
integrate social purpose into com-
pany performance. They do this primarily through the delivery
of ELPs and have to date worked
with more than 6,000 business leaders. The quests take place
over an average of 2 to 3 days but
can be for as long as a week and take place all over the world.
In terms of the aims of the pro-
gramme, the LQ website (https://leadersquest.org/about) states,
“We develop wise, compassion-
ate and adept leaders—people who are capable of leading in
fast-changing, disrupted environments

Case Study CarlosMolly provided a brief description of

Case Study CarlosMolly provided a brief description of

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Case Study CarlosMolly provided a brief description of

Similar to Case Study CarlosMolly provided a brief description of (20)

More from MaximaSheffield592

More from MaximaSheffield592 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Case Study CarlosMolly provided a brief description of