out_28-
TRANSCRIPT
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY School of Business and Technology
Doctoral Project Committee:
Gary Renz, Ph.D., Chairperson David Brennan, Ph.D.
John Orr, Ph.D.
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP, VALUES CONGRUENCE,
AND WORK PLACE DEVIANCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
by
PATRICK LAWRENCE GOODENOUGH
A doctoral project presented to the School of Business and Technology
at Webster University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Management
April 2008 Saint Louis, Missouri
UMI Number: 3346393
Copyright 2008 by
Goodenough, Patrick Lawrence
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI UMI Microform 3346393
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
@ Copyright by Patrick Lawrence Goodenough
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (2008)
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY DOCTOR OF MANAGEMENT
Doctoral Project Approval
To: John Patrick Orr, Ph.D. Director Doctor of Management Program
From: Doctoral Project Committee
Chair: Gary Renz, Ph.D.
Member: David J . Brennan. Ph.D.
Member: John P. Orr, Ph.D.
We, the Doctoral Project Committee, do certify that the Doctor of Management candidate:
PATRICK L. GOODENOUGH
has satisfactorily completed all requirements for the degree of Doctor of Management in the Doctoral Program at Webster University, and do, therefore recommend that this^candid^tte^e awarded the degree of Doctor of Management.
Chair: L^ ^f=^ T—A X Date: H (iffa? Gary Renz
Member: M f c ^ T — (L*&. Date: <^/<55~/*J David J . Brennan, Ph.D.
C~\A^S^.(Q^~~ Date:' H / ^ / o t t \Jojin
Member V T ^ P. Orr, Ph.D
CONCURRENCE:
I do concur with the recommendations of the Doctoral Project Committee as stated above.
\ John Patrick Orr, Ph.D. ^-Director
Doctor of Management Program
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this work to several individuals who have been
instrumental in seeing me complete my educational goals over the years, and especially
the doctoral program. First, I want to dedicate this work to my wife, and best friend,
» Althea P. Johns, who 'gently' pushed and prodded me to stay focused and get this project
completed. Also, to my daughter, Renee, who is growing up fast; some day you will get
there; just don't be in a hurry. I appreciate their love and support throughout this process.
And a special shout out to my traveling companion, Lucky; in the car, at the dog park, or
on our nightly walks through the neighborhood; his unconditional love and loyalty never
tires.
Second, I want to dedicate this work to my father, Daniel J. Goodenough (retired
Circuit Judge for the Commonwealth of Kentucky) (deceased 2003), who is safely home,
and to my mother, Helen V. Goodenough. Both have been inspirational and loving
parents. My father and I had many good experiences over the years. It's sad that he is
not around to see the doctoral project completion with me. And my mother, who ran the
house as a true leader with wisdom, kindness, discipline, and love. I appreciate their love
and support over the years.
Third, I would like to dedicate this work to my cohort group, wherever they
happen to be; and most importantly to Mike Abeln and David Lawson, good friends and
study group partners; good friends "who kept me on the straight and narrow path with lots
of ice tea, coffee, and hot wings. Though they beat me to the finish line, perseverance
and determination are key factors in getting it done.
i i i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge a number of individuals who have been influential
and helpful in completion of this project. First, I want to thank those Webster University
faculty members who teach in the Doctoral Program, who dedicate themselves to their
profession so that others may gain knowledge. The program was a unique learning
experience. I especially want to thank my chair and committee members: Drs. Gary
Renz, David Brennan, and John Orr. A special thanks to Dr. Renz for his meaningful
insights and help with the data piece. And to Dr. DiMarco, who got me started.
Second, I want to thank the Barnes-Jewish Hospital's Executive Leadership team
for supporting my efforts and allowing me to conduct this research study at the hospital.
A special thanks to the BJH Research Council, especially Margaret Ulione, Ph.D.,
Director of Nursing Education, Research, and Professional Practices; and to Jennifer
Sledge, Research Coordinator, who collaborated on this project. Both were instrumental
in assisting with the hospital's process.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables •. vii
List of Figures ix
Abstract 1
Chapter I - Introduction 2
Chapter II - Review of the Relevant Literature 7
Chapter III - Methodology 19
Chapter IV - Results 27
Chapter V - Discussion 83
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Survey Cover Letter 96
Appendix B - Ethical Leadership Scale - Administration 98
Appendix C - Ethical Leadership Scale - Nursing 99
Appendix D - Values Congruence Scale - Individual Level - Administration 100
Appendix E - Values Congruence Scale - Individual Level - Nursing 101
Appendix F - Values Congruence Scale - Organizational Level - Administration 102
Appendix G — Values Congruence Scale — Organizational Level —Nursing 103
Appendix H - Workplace Deviance Scale - Interpersonal Level - Administration 104
Appendix I - Workplace Deviance Scale - Interpersonal Level - Nursing 105
Appendix J - Workplace Deviance Scale - Organizational Level - Administration 106
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Appendix K - Workplace Deviance Scale - Organizational Level - Nursing 107
Appendix L - IRB Authorizations 108
References 114
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Participating Hospital Departments 20
Table 2: Basic Descriptive Statistics for Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis 29
Table 3: Skewness and Kurtosis for Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis .< 29
Table 4: Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics for Transformations of Interpersonal Deviance by Self at the Individual Level of Analysis 35
Table 5: Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Interpersonal Deviance by Respondent 39
Table 6: Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers ...40
Table 7: Correlations between Value Congruence and Interpersonal Deviance Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis 43
Table 8: Correlations between Original and Revised Value Congruence and Interpersonal and Organizational Deviance Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis 44
Table 9: Variability in Means across Departments for Ethical Leadership 48
Table 10: Variability across Departments in Value Congruence with Supervisor 51
Table 11: Variability across Departments in Value Congruence with Organization 55
Table 12: Variability in Means across Departments for Interpersonal Deviance by Self 59
Table 13: Variability in Means across Departments for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers 63
Table 14: Correlations between Variables at the Department Level of Analysis 67
Table 15: Correlations between Variables using Department and Individual Level Data 70
Table 16: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Value Congruence with Supervisor on Ethical Leadership 74
Table 17: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Value Congruence with Organization on Ethical Leadership 75
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 18: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Interpersonal Deviance by Individual on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution) .76
Table 19: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Interpersonal Deviance by Individual on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Poisson Distribution) 77
Table 20: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Organizational Deviance by Coworkers on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution) .78
Table 21: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Organizational Deviance by Coworkers on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Poisson Distribution) 78
Table 22: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Interpersonal Deviance by Individual on Value Congruence with Supervisor and Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution) 80
Table 23: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Organizational Deviance by Coworkers on Value Congruence with Supervisor and Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution) 81
Table 24: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Interpersonal Deviance by Individual on Value Congruence with Organization and Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution) 82
Table 25: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Organizational Deviance by Coworkers on Value Congruence with Organization and Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution) 82
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Conceptual Model 18
Figure 2: Distribution of Ethical Leadership at the Individual Level of Analysis 30
Figure 3: Distribution of Value Congruence with Supervisor Ratings at the Individual Level of Analysis 31
Figure 4: Distribution of Value Congruence with Organization Ratings at the Individual Level of Analysis 32
Figure 5: Distribution of Interpersonal Deviance by Self at the Individual Level of Analysis 33
Figure 6: Distribution of Organizational Deviance by Coworkers at the Individual Level of Analysis 34
Figure 7: Distribution for Transformation of Interpersonal Deviance by Self using negative reciprocal square root at the Individual Level of Analysis 35
Figure 8: Variability in Means across Departments in Ethical Leadership 48
Figure 9: Ratings within and across Departments for Ethical Leadership 49
Figure 10: Ratings within and across Groups for Ethical Leadership 50
Figure 11: Variability in Means across Departments in Value Congruence with Supervisor 52
Figure 12: Ratings within and across Departments for Value Congruence with Supervisor 53
Figure 13: Ratings within and across Groups for Value Congruence with Supervisor ..54
Figure 14: Variability in Means across Departments in Value Congruence with Organization 56
Figure 15: Ratings within and across Departments for Value Congruence with Organization 57
Figure 16: Ratings within and across Groups for Value Congruence with Organization 58
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 17: Variability in Means across Departments for Interpersonal Deviance by Self 60
Figure 18: Ratings within and across Departments for Interpersonal Deviance by Self. 61
Figure 19: Ratings within and across Groups for Interpersonal Deviance by Self 62
Figure 20: Variability in Means across Departments for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers 64
Figure 21: Ratings within and across Departments for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers 65
Figure 22: Ratings within and across Groups for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers 66
x
ABSTRACT OF THE DOCTORAL PROJECT
Ethical Leadership, Values Congruence, and Work Place Deviance:
An Exploratory Study
By
Patrick Lawrence Goodenough
Doctor of Management
Webster University in St. Louis, (2008)
Gary Renz, Ph.D., Chairperson
Managers should be a source of ethical guidance for employees. Little empirical research
focuses on the perceptions of ethical dimensions of leadership. This research study
proposed an exploratory study to better understand perceptions of ethical leadership and
its relationship to perceived employee value congruence and work place deviance. A
conceptual model was developed to illustrate the relationships between perceived ethical
leadership, value congruence, and workplace deviance. Descriptive statistics were
reported at both the individual level and department, group level. Correlations and
statistical analyses were conducted at individual, department, and multiple levels of
analyses. The results show that although different multilevel analyses were conducted,
there were no statistically significant relationships between ethical leadership at the
department level and value congruence and deviance behaviors at the individual level of
analysis. Further research was conducted in the area of culture and climate. The concept
of organization culture and climate is relevant to organizational level analysis. This aids
in the understanding of what occurs inside organizations when different subcultures and
occupational groups must work with each other.
1
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP, VALUES CONGRUENCE, AND WORK
PLACE DEVIANCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
"The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue
growing, as we continue to live."
~ Mortimer Adler
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This section discusses current organizational challenges involving ethics and
leadership, the relationship with deviant behavior at the individual and organizational
levels, and values congruence between leaders and the individuals they supervise. This
study does not assume that there are good leaders or ethical leaders, but rather the study
will focus on the employees' perception of ethical leadership.
Colvin (2003), Mehta (2003) and Revell (2003) offer that recent ethical scandals
in businesses have raised important questions about the role of leadership in shaping
ethical conduct. Most employees look outside themselves to significant others for ethical
guidance (Kohlberg, 1969; Trevino, 1986). Therefore, in the workplace, leaders should
be a central source of such guidance. However, little is known about the perception of
the ethical dimension of leadership and its relationship to value congruence and work
place deviance. Most attention to this topic has relied upon a philosophical perspective,
focusing on the question of leaders as role models and the affect on followers' behavior.
But, even philosophers note that it is remarkable that there has been little in the way of
sustained and systematic treatment of the subject (perceptions of ethical leadership) by
scholars (Ciulla, 1998).
2
Theory-Phenomenon Linkages
Previous studies of an ethical dimension of leadership have been embedded
primarily within the transformational and charismatic leadership domains (Bass &
Avolio, 2000), two styles of leadership that are distinct, yet conceptually similar enough
that they are sometimes discussed as if they were interchangeable (Bono & Judge, 2003;
Conger, 1999; Shamir, 1999). Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005) posit that multiple
versions of values-based charismatic leadership and transformational leadership exist in
the literature (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir, House, & Arthur,
1993). These approaches overlap considerably in their descriptions of an inspiring,
values-based charisma leadership style that includes ethical content. In particular, the
charisma dimension of transformational leadership refers to the leader as an ethical role
model (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996). Despite arguments
that authentic transformational (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) and charismatic leaders
((Howell & Avolio, 1992) are ethical leaders, less is known about whether and how such
a leadership style is related to follower's ethical performance. This study addresses that
question by focusing on perceptions of ethical leadership at the supervisory level and its
relationship to deviant behaviors in the work place.
O'Leary-Kelly, Duffy, & Griffin (2000) suggest that workplace deviance involves
intentional acts that violate organizational or societal norms and that harm the
organizations or its members. Workplace deviance includes serious interpersonal and
organizational misconduct, such as theft, interpersonal aggression, and sabotage, and
more minor behaviors, such as intentionally wasting resources or blaming coworkers for
one's mistakes. This study focuses on workplace deviance because of its importance in
3
the work place and its costliness in economic and social terms (Bennett & Robinson,
2000; Giacolone & Greenberg, 1997; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998; Vardi & Wiener,
1996).
This study proposed an exploratory study to investigate this association with
perceptions of ethical leadership because previous theorizing, suggests that leadership
style can influence deviant behaviors (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). In addition, this study is
interested in understanding the social influence mechanism that explains this relationship.
This study proposed that ethical leaders exert their influence on deviant behavior in the
work place through a values congruence process (Kelman, 1958).
Statement of the Problem
Over the last decade and a half the topic areas of ethical and transformational
leadership in organizations has undergone a significant evolution in terms of both theory
development and empirical investigations. Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005)
conducted research that focused on socialized charismatic leadership, value congruence,
and observed deviance in work groups. The authors focused on workplace deviance
because of its importance in the workplace and its costliness in economic and social
terms. Their study investigated the association with socialized charismatic leadership
based on previous theoretical work that suggested a socialized charismatic leadership
style could influence deviant behaviors (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). The authors proposed
that socialized charismatic leaders exert influence on deviant behaviors in the work group
through a values congruence process.
The authors conceptualized constructs at the work group level. Theses constructs
included socialized charismatic leadership, value congruence, and workplace deviance.
4
The authors used the term, socialized charismatic leadership, to make it clear that they are
focusing on ethical transformational and charismatic leaders. This study conceptualizes
constructs at the individual level.
The literature research conducted by Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz (1996),
Brown et al. (2005) suggest that the ethical values modeled by socialized charismatic
leaders and shared by work group members are the standards used to guide employees to
engage in normative appropriate conduct and refrain from normative inappropriate
conduct.
Significance of the Research
There has been much work attempting to develop a general theory of ethical
leadership. Since there is very little general theory of ethical leadership, this suggests
that perhaps there is no research or solid evidence that shows that ethical behavior
produces superior leadership results. And as long as leadership results are defined as
success (e.g., sales, revenue, sports victories, promotions, awards, etc.) and do not
monitor or analyze the underlying leadership behavior in terms of whether it was ethical
or not, that produced these results, we can never show statistically that ethical behavior,
however defined, is a superior result producer than unethical behavior. In addition,
Brown, et al., (2005) observed that the empirical study of leadership has often overlooked
the ethical dimensions, and the research that has been conducted is limited by
specification of and agreement on a clear definition of ethical leadership. Brown, et al.,
(2005) suggest that any theory of ethical leadership should be based on two premises.
First, ethical leadership is a system of thought based on setting rules for what to do, not
on what not to do. Second, the definition of leadership must evolve to include ethical
5
behavior not because ethical behavior is simply a natural good in and of itself, but mainly
as part of the core of what leadership is for pragmatic reasons.
Based on the above discussion, this study proposed an exploratory study of
perceived ethical leadership utilizing the conceptual constructs developed by Brown and
Trevino. This study focused on perceived ethical leadership, values congruence, and
observed deviance at the individual level within the work place.
In addition, the study utilized the prior research of socialized charismatic
leadership and social learning. This also follows the research of Brown, Trevino, and
Harrison (2005), which suggests that leaders should be a key source of ethical guidance
for employees. The authors proposed a social learning theory as a theoretical basis for
understanding ethical leadership and offer a constitutive definition of the ethical
leadership construct.
6
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE
This section presents theoretical concepts related to the study. This section
discusses the social learning perspective of ethical leadership, level of analysis, ethical
leadership and work place deviance, and the mediating role of values congruence. This
study makes no assumptions that there are good leaders or ethical leaders, but rather
focuses on perceptions of ethical leadership and its relationship to perceived value
congruence and work place deviance.
Ethical Leadership - A Social Learning Perspective
Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005) conducted a study of ethical leadership to
better understand what characterizes ethical leadership. The authors suggest that the
ethical dimension of leadership represents a small component that falls within the nexus
of inspiring, stimulating, and visionary leader behaviors that make up transformational
and charismatic leadership.
On the basis of interviews conducted from their study in 2002, these authors
developed a definition of ethical leadership, which is stated as: "the demonstration of
normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships,
and promotion of such conduct among followers through two-way communication,
reinforcement, and decision-making processes" (Brown & Trevino, 2002).
Survey research frequently links perceived leadership effectiveness with leader
honesty (truth-telling), integrity (principled behavior), or trustworthiness (can be trusted)
(Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, & Dorfman, 1999; Kouzes & Posner,
1993; Posner & Schmidt, 1992). Honesty and integrity are seen as important components
7
of a transformational leader's idealized influence. Brown & Trevino (2002) also found
that ethical leadership involves a "moral manager' aspect that involves a number of
visible behaviors that do not necessarily flow only from personal traits (i.e., sustained
communication of an ethical message, holding followers accountable for ethical conduct).
Ethical leaders make efforts to incorporate moral principles in their beliefs,
values, and behavior. Their characters exhibit commitment to higher purposes, prudence,
pride, patience, and persistence. Researchers mention other virtues of ethical leaders
such as integrity, determination, fairness, honesty, humility, tolerance, enthusiasm,
courage and responsibility (Guillen & Gonzalez, 2001; Solomon, 1999). Such attributes
of their character become worthy of emulation by followers.
Leaders are in a unique position to mete out justice because of their legitimate
power, control of resources, and responsibility for important decisions about employees.
Trevino et al. (2000, 2003), found that leader behaviors reflecting a concern for people
and fair treatment of employees, contributes to perceptions of ethical leadership. Other
formulations of what might constitute ethical leadership go beyond fair treatment to
include principled decision-making (Avolio, 1999), setting ethical expectations for
followers (Trevino et al., 2003) and using rewards and punishment to hold followers
accountable for ethical conduct (Gini, 1998).
Trevino et al., (2005) defined ethical leadership as the "demonstration of
normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships,
and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication,
reinforcement, and decision-making." This suggests, (1) that those who are perceived to
be ethical leaders model conduct that followers consider normatively appropriate
8
(honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and care), making the leader a legitimate and credible
role model (Trevino et al., 2005); (2) that ethical leaders not only draw attention to ethics
and make it salient in the social environment by explicitly talking to followers about it,
but they also provide followers with voice, a procedurally or interpersonally just process
(Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Trevino et al, 2005); (3) implies that
ethical leaders set ethical standards, reward ethical conduct and discipline those who do
not follow the standards (Gini, 1998; Trevino et al., 2003), contributing to vicarious
learning; and (4) decision-making reflects the fact that ethical leaders consider the ethical
consequences of their decisions, and make principled and fair choices that can be
observed and emulated by others (Bass & Avolio, 2000; Burns, 1978; Howell & Avolio;
Trevino et al., 2005).
Individual Level of Analysis
This research study proposed an exploratory study conceptualizing the constructs
developed by Brown and Trevino utilizing perceptions of ethical leadership, value
congruence, and workplace deviance at the individual level within the work place. First,
the expectation is that leaders would demonstrate ethical leadership similarly to the work
group members, in that they do not reserve such a leadership style for a select few
individuals. Second, previous research has found agreement in follower's perceptions of
transformational and charismatic leadership in work groups (Judge & Bono, 2000).
Thus, consistent with prior research, perceptions of ethical leadership were treated as an
individual-level construct (Bono & Judge, 2003; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Shamir,
Zakay, Breinin & Popper, 1998). Similarly, because ethical leaders are thought to
9
motivate their followers by fostering shared values (Shamir, et al., 1993), this study
conceptualized perceived value congruence at the individual level.
This study proposed to conceptualize work place deviance at the individual level.
A review of the literature acknowledges that acts of deviance are individual behaviors;
deviance has also been considered at the group level (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998;
Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). A review of the multilevel literature suggests that
deviant behavior is a shared unit property (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) that originates in
the behaviors of individuals but converges as a function of ethical leadership.
Vardi and Wiener (1996) define organizational misbehavior (defined as deviance)
as any intentional action by members of organizations that violate core organizational
and/or societal norms; a crucial element in the definition is the intention underlying the
misbehavior. Attempts to systematize the treatment of phenomena related to
organizational misbehavior have been reported in past studies. Hollinger (1986)
observed that sociological research on employee misbehavior (deviance) has centered
around two foci: production deviance, and property deviance. While both constitute rule-
breaking behavior, the first includes various types of behavior that are counter-productive
(e.g., substandard work, slowdowns, insubordination), and the second category pertains
to acts against property and assets of the organization (e.g., theft, pilferage,
embezzlement, vandalism). Robinson and O'Leary-Kelly (1998) use a broader term of
antisocial behavior to describe negative behaviors (deviance) in organizations. They
chose this expansive term because anti-social behavior captures a wide range of actions,
and the harmful nature of these acts to individuals and organizations.
10
Workplace deviance is defined as voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and threatens the well-being of the organization or its members, or
both (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Employee deviance is voluntary in that employees
either lack motivation to conform to, and/or become motivated to violate, normative
expectations of the social context or become motivated to violate those expectations
(Kaplan, 1975). Organizational norms consist of basic moral (ethics) standards as well as
other traditional community standards, including those prescribed by formal and informal
organization policies, rales, and procedures (Feldman, 1984).
Theory and research emphasize contextual influences on deviance (Robinson &
Greenberg, 1998). In addition, supervisory leadership style is an important shared
contextual influence that is thought to shape behavior in work groups (Stogdill, 1963).
Ethical leaders serve as role models (Avolio, et al., 1999), arouse a collective sense of
mission (Conger, 1999), and get followers to transcend their self-interest for the good of
the group (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Social learning from role models (Bandura, 1986)
suggests that individuals (work group members) share a similar influence in their
supervisor. On the basis of Schneider's (1987) attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis,
Robinson and O'Leary-Kelly (1998) argued that work group members should be
relatively homogeneous in their attitudes and behaviors related to antisocial behavior.
Finally, employees who work together should share similar perceptions of the extent to
which deviant behaviors occur in their work group, and they should acquire these
perceptions through direct observation of deviant coworkers and through shared social
information (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998).
11
Ethical Leadership and Workplace Deviance
Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005) suggest that normative theory argues that
leaders should play an ethical authority role (Ciulla, 1998; Freeman, Gilbert, & Hartman,
1988; Rost, 1995). The organizational leadership literature has addressed leadership's
ethical dimension primarily through transformational and charismatic leadership
(Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996). Burns (1978) distinguished transformational leadership
from transactional approaches. He reasoned that transformational leaders encourage
followers to embrace moral values and to act in the interest of the collective rather than
according to self-interest. He cites Kolhberg's (1969) theory of cognitive moral
development as well as Maslow's (1954) hierarchy of needs and Rokeach's (1973) theory
of values to explain transformational leaders' influence.
Bass (1985) translation of Burn's (1978) work on transformational leadership to
the organizational literature and, with Avolio (Bass & Avolio, 2000), developed a
multidimensional transformational leadership construct with the following dimensions:
individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and
inspirational motivation. The inspirational motivation component of transformational
leadership combines with the idealized influence dimension to account for the ethical
aspect of transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 1999). Scholars differentiate
between ethical (socialized) leaders and unethical (personalized) leaders (Howell &
Avolio, 1992) and authentic and pseudo-transformational leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier,
1999). This might suggest that pseudo-transformational and ethical leadership are not
necessarily aligned.
12
Most reviews of the behavioral science literature on leadership have given scant
attention to its ethical dimensions (Bass, 1990; House & Aditya, 1997). Most attention to
an ethical dimension of leadership has been embedded within the charismatic or
transformational leadership paradigm. Burns (1978) suggested that 'transforming'
leaders inspire followers by aligning their own and their followers' value systems toward
important moral principles. Bass and Avolio (1993) described four dimensions of
transformational leadership: inspirational motivation, idealized influence, individualized
consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Of these, the idealized influence dimension
has been defined as having an ethical component. Idealized influence means that
transformational leaders are 'role models for followers to emulate' (Avolio, 1999). They
can be counted on to do the right thing, and they demonstrate high standards of ethical
and moral conduct.
Brown, et al., (2005) used the term socialized charismatic leadership to make it
clear that they focused on the ethical dimensions of transformational and charismatic
leaders. Some have argued that both transformational and charismatic leaders can be
self-centered and manipulative in pursuing their goals (Conger & Kanungo, 1998).
Others have differentiated between the ethical and unethical potential in both types of
leadership. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) differentiated between authentic
transformational leaders, who are ethical leaders, and pseudo-transformational leaders,
who are self-interested and lack moral virtues. In addition, Howell and Avolio (1992)
found systematic differences between ethical and unethical charismatic leaders,
consistent with Howell's (1988) conceptualization of socialized and personalized
charismatic leaders. For this study, the term ethical leadership emphasizes the focus on
13
leaders who convey ethical values, are other-centered rather than self-centered, and who
role model ethical conduct.
This study hypothesized that, those employees, who report directly to an ethical
leader (i.e., direct reports) will engage in fewer acts of workplace deviance. First,
harmful acts aimed at the organization should be lower because the supervisor is
perceived to be the linking pin between the organization and employees and therefore
represents the organization to direct reports. If an ethical leader represents positive
ethical values (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996), followers' attitude toward the organization
should be more positive, and they should have little motivation to harm it. Second,
harmful acts aimed at the organization and work group members should be lower because
ethical leaders inspire followers to transcend their own self-interest for the good of the
team and organization. Behaviors that harm the work group or the organization are
inconsistent with that type of transcendence. Third, ethical leaders serve as visible role
models (Shamir, et al., 1993). According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), if
leaders are ethical role models (Avolio, et al., 1999) then employees will observe and
imitate their ethical behavior, which should translate into lower levels of deviance.
Finally, the unethical (personalized) leadership style has been associated with increased
follower destructiveness (O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995).
Thus, the opposite, ethical (socialized) leadership style, should be associated with
reduced follower destructiveness, and reduced deviant behavior at the organizational
level. This leads to hypotheses la and lb:
Hypothesis la: Ethical leadership is negatively associated with deviant behavior at the individual level within the leader's work group.
14
Hypothesis lb: Ethical leadership is negatively associated with deviant behavior at the organizational level.
The Mediating Role of Value Congruence
Despite much theorizing about how transformational and charismatic leaders
impact followers, the social influence processes used by these leaders remain poorly
understood (Yukl, 1999). Recent studies have attempted to explicate these processes
(e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Kark et al., 2003), but with mixed results (Dvir, Eden,
Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). The study conducted by Brown, et al., (2005) focused on
perceived value congruence as the key mediating social process because values play such
a prominent role in all theories of charismatic and transformational leadership (House,
1996) and because followers' perception that they share the ethical supervisory leader's
values should be associated with reduced deviance in work groups. Furthermore, the
empirical association of perceived value congruence with transformational leadership and
its influence on outcomes has been supported in previous research (Bono & Judge, 2003;
Jung & Avolio, 2000).
Previous research has supported the positive role that value congruence and trust
play in the leadership process. Meglino et al., (1989) reported that workers were more
satisfied and committed when their personal values were congruent with the values of
their supervisors. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) conducted a laboratory experiment
demonstrating that leaders who articulated visions with more of an emphasis on quality,
positively affected followers' perceived congruence with beliefs and values
communicated in the vision. However, despite these encouraging results, there have been
very few studies that have examined their potential mediating role in the leadership
process (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Based on Bass' (1985) original model, trust and value
15
congruence are particularly important variables to consider when evaluating the impact of
charismatic/transformational leadership on follower development and performance. Bass
argued that transformational leaders motivate their followers by raising their followers'
level of awareness about the important and value of designated outcomes. Thus, value
congruence achieved through a value internalization process and demonstrated trust in
the leader, have been considered core mediating aspects of transformational leadership
theory from its inception (Shamir et al., 1993).
Followers' trust in the leader has been considered one of the most important
variables that can mediate the effectiveness of transformational leadership (Podsakoff et
al., 1990; Yukl, 1998). Yukl (1998) argued that a follower's commitment to the leader's
vision depended on a leader's capability to build trust with followers. Podsakoff et al.,
(1990) reported that transformational leadership influenced followers' organizational
citizenship behaviors only indirectly, in that it was mediated by the followers' level of
trust in their leader. Kouzes and Posner (1995) summarized the importance of trust in the
leadership process as, "above all else, we must be able to believe in our leaders. We must
believe that their word can be trusted, that they'll do what they say... (p. 26)."
Similar to transformational leaders, ethical leaders are thought to emphasize the
collective and the value of being part of something larger than oneself (Shamir et al,
1993). Individuals are thought to follow ethical leaders because they are attracted to the
leader's vision and values (Howell, 1988). Ethical leaders have been described as ethical
role models (Avolio et al., 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996) who influence followers
by conveying ethical values and by tying goals to followers' values (Bass & Steidlmeier,
1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Lord & Brown, 2001; Shamir et al , 1993). Because
16
the values conveyed resonate with their own, followers perceive that they share the
leader's values (Burns, 1978). Thus, ethical leadership should be associated with
perceived values congruence between the leader and individuals within in the work
group, and between the leaders and the organization. This leads to hypotheses 2a and 2b:
Hypothesis 2a: Ethical leadership is positively related to subordinates' perceived values congruence with their leaders.
Hypothesis 2b: Ethical leadership is positively related to subordinates' perceived values congruence with the organization.
The ethical values modeled by ethical leaders and shared by work group members
are the standards to guide employees in normatively appropriate conduct and refrain from
normatively inappropriate conduct. Research from the literature on values (Rokeach,
1973; Schwartz, 1996) and organizational deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1997) suggests
that ethical values serve as important deterrents of deviant behavior. Ethical values
emphasize altruism (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996) and serve as powerful constraints for
followers, thus inhibiting work group members from engaging in behaviors that are
harmful to others (Robinson & Bennett, 1997). In addition, because ethical leaders
influence values at the level of the work group, ethical values internalized among group
members function as informal sanctions that further regulate the level of deviance in the
group (Hollinger & Clark, 1983; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly,
1998). Therefore, this study proposed that perceived value congruence between work
group members and their leader will mediate the relationship between ethical leadership
and deviance at the individual level within the work group, and at the organizational
level. This leads to hypotheses 3a and 3b:
17
Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between ethical leadership and deviant behavior at the individual level is mediated by subordinates' perceived values congruence with their leaders.
Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between ethical leadership and deviant behavior at the organizational level is mediated by subordinates' perceived values congruence with the organization.
The following conceptual model (Figure 1) illustrates the six hypotheses linking
perceived ethical leadership, perceived values congruence, and work place deviance at
the individual and organizational levels.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Hypotheses
Hla
H3a
Ethical Leadership
H2a
H2b
_ Values Congruence
H3b
Hlb
Interpersonal Deviance
Organizational Jeviance
18
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This section discussed the setting, subject, measures, processes, and analysis for
conducting this research study. This study makes no assumptions that there are good
leaders or ethical leaders. This research study focused on perceptions of ethical
leadership at the individual level.
As previously discussed, a study conducted by Brown, Trevino, and Harrison
(2005) observed that the empirical study of leadership often overlooked the ethical
dimension of leadership, and the research that had been conducted is limited by
specification of and agreement on a constitutive definition of ethical leadership. They
addressed this shortcoming by developing a more specific, research-based definition of
ethical leadership.
Setting & Subjects
The setting of this research study was Barnes-Jewish Hospital (BJH), which is a
major hospital located in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The focus of the study was on
supervisory leaders and the individuals they manage. Like many other organizations, this
health care organization has supervisors at all levels.
Demographic information pertaining to supervisory managers came from a list
obtained from the Human Resource Department. This demographic information included
the level of management, title / position, and the number of years of service of each
participant.
Study subjects were sampled across the supervisory level of the hospital to
capture a broader picture of perceived ethical leadership that might be more generalizable
19
to managers in other organizations to include health care organizations. This study
proposed to survey two broad categories of employees, those whose direct supervisor is a
manager in the hospital administration, and those whose supervisor is a nurse manager.
Subjects were randomly selected using Microsoft Excel's statistical analysis software.
The following list (Table 1) illustrates the hospital departments selected to
participate in the research study:
Table 1: Source: BJH September 2007 List
Barnes-Jewish Hospital Departments
Facilities Engineering Peri-operative Services Radiology Diagnostics Housekeeping Laboratories Food & Nutrition OR Administration Surgical Services Respiratory Care/Rehab Med/Critical Care Patient Placement & Access Pharmacy OB/Psych Clinics/ED CA Center/Med & Gen Oncology Education/Professional Practice
This study excluded patients and other hospital staff to include students, trainees,
and volunteers. Children under the age of 18 did not participate in the study.
20
Measures
All measures used in this study have demonstrated reliability and validity in prior
research studies. The details of each measure and the items will be reported in the
following sections.
Ethical Leadership
Perceptions of ethical leadership were measured using a 10-item Ethical
Leadership Scale (ELS) developed by Brown et al., (2005) (see Appendices B and C).
The ELS provides a 5-point Likert scale with 1 indicating "strongly disagree," to 5
indicating "strongly agree." Based on prior research studies, the ELS instrument
demonstrated excellent internal consistency, yielding a coefficient alpha of .92.
Value Congruence
Value congruence was measured using a four-item Likert scale measure of
perceived values (Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert, 1996). This scale measured
perceived value congruence at the individual level (see Appendices D and E) and the
organizational level (see Appendices F and G). The response format for this scale is 1
indicating "strongly disagree," to 7 indicating "strongly agree." Based on prior research
studies, the Cronbach's alpha for this instrument is .85.
Level of Management and Number of Direct Reports
This study proposed to study perceptions of ethical leadership at the supervisory
level of the organization. This study controlled for the level of management using a
listing of managers and direct reports provided by the Human Resources department.
This study controlled the number of direct reports each manager is responsible for
21
because deviant behavior may be easier in larger work groups, in which supervision is
more difficult.
Workplace Deviance
This study proposed to utilize Bennett and Robinson's (2000) two-dimensional
measure of workplace deviance that includes interpersonal (see Appendices H and I) and
organizational deviance (see Appendices J and K). Interpersonal deviance is a self-report
measure of 7-items. Organizational deviance is a 12-item self-report measure. Because
deviance is a low-base-rate phenomenon, respondents were instructed to report how often
they have observed members of their work group engage in a variety of deviant behaviors
in the past year. Both scales are anchored on a 7-point response format ranging from 1,
"never," to 7, "daily." The scale scored was summed for analysis with higher numbers
indicating more workplace deviance. The estimated reliability from prior research
studies indicated .87 for the interpersonal deviance measure and .89 for the organizational
deviance measure.
When aggregated, this measure represents the shared perceptions of the extent to
which such behaviors occur at the individual and organizational level. The interpersonal
and organizational workplace deviance measures have demonstrated reliability and
validity in prior research studies.
Process
As previously stated, this study utilized a listing of managers and their direct
reports obtained from the hospital's Human Resource Department. Survey participants
were randomly selected from this list using Excel's statistical data analysis software.
22
The demographic information pertaining to managers at the supervisory level and
their direct reports was obtained through a list prepared by the hospital's Human
Resource Department. Survey packets were distributed via the employees' internal
mailboxes. Each survey packet contained different surveys based on the following
criteria: (a) employee antecedent surveys, which contain measures for perceptions of
ethical leadership, to be completed by a randomly selected set of the manager's direct
reports; nursing participants reported the floor they work on; and (b) employee outcome
surveys, which contain measures of workplace deviance and values congruence to be
completed by a different randomly selected set of the manager's direct reports; nursing
participants reported the floor they work on. Surveys did not identify participants by
name or department, and participants were instructed not to include their name or
department information. This researcher randomly selected those participants who
received the antecedent survey packets, and those who received the outcome survey
packets. Surveys were coded for distribution and reporting purposes only; again,
participants were not identified by name or department.
To reduce the likelihood of biased responding (Dilman, 1978); each survey was
placed in a separate envelope with a cover letter (Appendix A) explaining the purpose of
the study encouraging their participation and ensuring complete anonymity and
confidentiality. The cover letter also assured respondents that management in this
organization would only see the aggregated results of the survey.
Participants were given an opportunity to complete the surveys within a one-week
time frame. Survey packets were distributed via the employees' internal mailboxes with
the assistance of the Hospital's research staff. Participants were instructed to place
23
completed surveys into the envelope, seal the envelope, and then place the envelope in
the lock boxes. Surveys were collected using lock boxes provided by the hospital. The
lock boxes were located in the nurse staff areas and administrative departments
participating in this research study. This researcher, along with a research staff member
from the hospital, retrieved the lock boxes at the end of the one-week period. This
researcher controlled the collected survey responses to ensure confidentiality of the
participants and responses.
The principal investigator for this research study completed the Webster
University's Institutional Review Board (IRB) application process, the Washington
University's Institutional Review Board (IRB) application process, and the Washington
University's online training course (CITI) course for the Study of Human Subjects.
Approval to conduct the research study at the hospital was provided by the BJH Research
Council, Webster University IRB and Washington University IRB (Appendix L). Other
approvals were provided by BJH Executive Leadership (Appendix L). There were no
additional training requirements for this researcher or for the hospital's research staff
member who assisted with survey packet distribution and collection.
Incentives were provided to assure an appropriate level of response rates for this
research study. A sweepstakes drawing was held for study participants who returned
completed surveys. The winners of the drawing were randomly selected. The
sweepstakes provided a chance to win a first, second, and third place prize consisting of
gift certificates valued at $50, $30, and $10 respectively. In addition, there were BJH
cafeteria vouchers worth $4 each for fourth through tenth place winners. Participants
24
were required to return completed surveys in order to be eligible for the sweepstakes
drawing.
Response Rates
The anticipated response rate for this study was 40%. This response rate is
consistent with other internal surveys conducted by the hospital. Response rates were (
tabulated for both antecedent surveys and outcome surveys. Data indicated the number
of direct reports for each manager and the number of surveys distributed for these groups.
Sample Characteristics
This study utilized the techniques of statistical power analysis, sample size
estimation, and confidence interval estimation. The primary goal of the first two
techniques is to allow the researcher to decide, while in the process of designing an
experiment, how large a sample size is needed to enable statistical judgments that are
accurate and reliable. The statistical test to detect effects of a given size in a particular
situation is not part of the focus of this study. The intent of using statistical power
analysis is to determine the association of the simultaneous investigation of the effect of
two or more independent variables on the dependent variable.
Sample characteristics were tabulated for both antecedent surveys and outcome
surveys. Sample size was determined using RAOSoft's sample size calculator
(http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html'). Using a margin of error of 5%, confidence
level of 95%, population size of 8,213 (rounded down), and a response distribution of
50%, the calculated sample size for this study is n = 368. The hospital's population size
was based on the September 2007 Actual YTD FTE report prepared by the Hospital's
Finance department.
25
Analysis
This study conceptualized perceptions of ethical leadership, value congruence,
and workplace deviance at the individual level. To determine empirically the
appropriateness of aggregating data, this study calculated intra-class correlation
coefficients (ICCs; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Analysis was completed at the individual
level within the organization. In addition, the analysis provided a group comparison of
responses between nursing staff and administration staff employees.
Using Microsoft Excel's statistical regression analysis software, the first
hypotheses were tested to predict interpersonal and organizational deviance separately.
The dependent variables on ethical leadership, controls for number of direct reports, and
level of management were regressed.
The analysis followed the procedures recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986)
to test for mediation. The first step (see Hypotheses la and lb), regressed the dependent
variables (interpersonal and organizational deviance) on the independent variable (value
congruence) on ethical leadership. Finally, the analysis regressed both dependent
variables (interpersonal and organizational deviance) on the independent variable (ethical
leadership) and mediating variable (value congruence) together (refer to Figure 1:
Conceptual Model of Hypotheses).
26
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This section discusses analyses and results of the research study. This section
discusses the following: revisions to the proposal based on data collection issues,
descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analyses at the individual level, correlations
at the individual level of analyses, department level analyses, multilevel analyses using
OLS regression, and multilevel analyses using restricted maximum likelihood regression
in HLM 6.
Revisions to Proposal Based on Data Collection Issues
In the data collection for this study, respondents rated either 1) their supervisor's
ethical leadership characteristics, or 2) their perceived value congruence and the deviance
behaviors of themselves and coworkers. Because of this design, no respondent rated both
the supervisors' and the employees' characteristics. However, to satisfy the hospital's
Institutional Review Board's concerns about privacy, no data were collected that could
link a specific supervisor's characteristics to his or her employees' characteristics.
Therefore, the relationships between a specific supervisor's ethical leadership and his or
her employees' value congruence (with the supervisor or the organization) or the
employees' deviance (interpersonal or organizational) could not be analyzed.
The data did identify the department in which the respondents worked, but usually
there were multiple supervisors in some departments. Thus, data could be aggregated to
the department level, so some multilevel analyses were possible. In addition, since data
on value congruence (with supervisor and organization) and interpersonal acts of
deviance by the employee were collected from the same respondent, these three
relationships could be analyzed at the individual level. Finally, the respondent's
27
perceptions of acts of organizational deviance by coworkers could not be linked to
specific supervisors, so the only possible analyses was between departmental levels of
ethical leadership and departmental levels of organizational deviance.
Because of the way data was collected, descriptive statistics will be reported at
both the individual level and departmental level. Correlations and other statistical
analyses were conducted at individual, department, and multiple levels of analysis.
Basic Data Analysis
The descriptive statistics for each of the scales used in this study are reported in
Table 2. The table indicates that 139 respondents rated ethical leadership behaviors and
124 respondents rated value congruence and deviance. The "valid N" of 0 refers to the
fact that no respondents rated all of the variables. The distributions of the individual
ratings for the variables are shown in the following figures. The histograms (Figures 2
through 6) show that the distributions of the individual ratings are not symmetric or
normally distributed. The ethical leadership ratings are negatively skewed and the
deviance ratings are positively skewed. The value congruence ratings were more evenly
distributed, but still not normally distributed.
Table 2: Basic Descriptive Statistics for Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
Ethical Leadership
Value Congruence with Supervisor
Value Congruence with Organization
Interpersonal Deviance Individual
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
Valid N (listwise)
N 139
124
124
124
124
0
Minimum 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Maximum 5.00
7.00
7.00
3.71
5.33
Mean 3.4576
4.3286
4.4415
1.6025
2.1694
Std. Deviation 1.13757
1.80147
1.57667
.60019
1.12814
28
Table 3: Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics for Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis
Statistics
N Valid Missing
Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis
Ethical Leadership
139 124
-.461 .206
-.797 .408
Value Congruence
with Supervisor
124 139
-.471 .217
-.784 .431
Value Congruence
with Organization
124 139
-.334 .217
-.385 .431
Interpersonal Deviance Individual
124 139
1.189 .217
1.077 .431
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
124 139
1.000 .217
-.021 .431
Figure 2: Distribution of Ethical Leadership Ratings at the Individual Level of Analysis
Ethical Leadership
Mean =3.46 Std. Dev. =1.133
N=139
1.0D 2.00 3.00
Ethical Leadership
29
Figure 3: Distribution of Value Congruence with Supervisor Ratings at the Individual Level of Analysis
Value Congruence with Supervisor
Mean =4.33 Std. Dev. =1.801
N=124
Value Congruence with Supervisor
30
Figure 4: Distribution of Value Congruence with Organization Ratings at the Individual Level of Analysis
Value Congruence wi th Organization
20
15 -
BP10 01
s-1 —
1
c
^
'.!• i
i *
' ; i -- 1 . : •
, l h - I t
*.
1
N»
i i [
1 1 •
.! 1 it
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Value Congruence with Organization 7.00
Mean =4.44 Std. Dew. =1.577
N=124
31
Figure 5: Distribution of Interpersonal Deviance by Self at the Individual Level of Analysis
Interpersonal Deviance Individual
Mean =1.60 Std. Dew. =0.60
N=124
2.00 3.00 4.00 S.OO 6.00
Interpersonal Deviance Individual
32
Figure 6: Distribution of Organizational Deviance by Coworkers at the Individual Level of Analysis
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 S.0D
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
Mean =2.1? Std.Dev.=1.128
N=124
Although the skewness and kurtosis statistics (Table 4) were not ideal, nor were
they large enough that non-normality should be a problem. However, given that ethical
leadership and value congruence were negatively skewed and the deviance scales were
positively skewed, these opposite skews could create problems. Transforming the
interpersonal deviance by self scale using negative reciprocal square root, log 10, and
square root transformations somewhat improved skewness and kurtosis from the prior
values of 1.189 and 1.077 respectively. The best transformation was the negative
reciprocal square root transformation with skewness = .267 and kurtosis = -.970. A
histogram showing the distribution of the interpersonal deviance by self variable
transformed using the negative reciprocal square root is shown below (Figure 7):
33
Table 4: Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics for Transformations of Interpersonal Deviance by Self at the Individual Level of Analysis
Statistics
N Valid Missing
Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis
Transform interpersonal deviance by reciprocal
square root 124 139
-.267 .217
-.970 .431
Transform interpersonal deviance with
negative reciprocal sqrt
124 139
.267
.217 -.970 .431
Transform interpersonal deviance with
log 10 124 139
.535
.217 -.586 .431
Transform interpersonal deviance with
sqrt 124 139 .842 .217 .063 .431
Figure 7: Distribution for Transformation of Interpersonal Deviance by Self using negative reciprocal square root at the Individual Level of Analysis
Transform interpersonal deviance with negative reciprocal sqrt
30-4
2KH
E 3 m
10H
rj_i
&
m
-1.00 -0.90 -0.80 -0.70 -0.60 -0.50
Mean =-0.83 Std.Dev.=0.135
N=124
Transform interpersonal deviance with negative reciprocal sqrt
34
Internal Consistency Reliabilities
The reliabilities of the scales were evaluated using measures of internal
consistency. The coefficient alphas were: ethical leadership = .970, value congruence
with supervisor = .918, value congruence with the organization = .922, interpersonal
deviance acts by self = .686, and organizational deviance acts by coworkers = .908.
These reliabilities were generally satisfactory, with the exception of the interpersonal
deviance acts by self. If the question "publicly embarrassed someone at work" was
omitted from the scale, then the coefficient alpha increased to .695. This is still low for a
purported established scale, but close to the .70 threshold often used in research. This
revised variable was used along with the original variable in correlations to see if the
improved reliability changed the correlations. Although the coefficient alpha for
organizational deviance actions by coworkers was quite high, the coefficient could be
increased by eliminating the questions on "falsifying receipts to get reimbursed more
money than you spent on business expenses" and "using an illegal drug or consuming
alcohol on the job." After eliminating these two items, coefficient alpha increased to
.923. This revised variable was used along with the original variable in correlations to
see if the improved reliability changed the correlations.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Confirmatory factor analyses were also conducted to determine whether the
variables were measured accurately. There were ten items in the ethical leadership scale.
All ten items loaded highly on the latent factor (unstandardized loadings ranged from .72
to .93). The chi-square statistic was statistically significant (chi-square =112 (35 d.f.), p
= .000), but with 139 observations with data on ethical leadership this is not surprising.
35
The other fit statistics were generally satisfactory: CFI = .954, TLI = .941, RMSEA = .13
(90% CI = .10 to .15). Ideally, the upper end of the RMSEA 90% confidence interval
would have been less than .10, but the other fit statistics indicate that a single latent
construct model had a satisfactory fit with the data.
The four items in the value congruence with the supervisor scale also showed a
very good fit with the single latent construct model. All items loaded highly on the latent
factor (unstandardized loadings ranged from .77 to .92). The chi-square statistic was not
statistically significant (chi-square = 1.5 (2 d.f), p = .465). The other fit statistics were
' very high: CFI = 1.0, TLI = 1.0, RMSEA = .00 (90% CI = .00 to .17). Ideally, the upper
end of the RMSEA 90% confidence interval would have been less than .10, the point
estimate of .00 was very good. Thus, the fit statistics indicate that a single latent
construct model had a satisfactory fit with the data.
The four items in the value congruence with the organization scale showed a
satisfactory fit with the single latent construct model. All items loaded highly on the
latent factor (unstandardized loadings ranged from .72 to .92). The chi-square statistic
was statistically significant (chi-square = 17.5 (2 d.f), p = .000). Two of he other fit
statistics were relatively high: CFI = .964, TLI = .893, but the RMSEA statistic was
relatively poor RMSEA = .25 (90% CI = .15 to .37). The RMSEA point estimate of .25
was very high, which indicates the residuals were relatively large. On the other hand, the
other fit statistics indicated that a single latent construct model had a satisfactory fit.
Given the conflicting results, the data do not clearly support or contradict the proposed
single-factor measurement model for value congruence with the organization. Therefore,
the scale was not modified for the statistical analyses.
36
Based on the prior reliability analyses, there was reason to believe the original
seven items comprising the interpersonal deviance by the individual scale would not fit
the single-factor confirmatory factor analysis. Accordingly, multiple models were
specified and evaluated by eliminating items that did not fit the model very well. The
table (Table 5) below compares the different models created by eliminating items. Model
1 includes all seven items, Model 2 eliminated the seventh item, and Model 3 eliminated
both the seventh and the fifth items. Model 3 was the only model with a statistically
insignificant chi-square (p = .08) at the .05 level of significance. This means that the
differences in the data from the model could be due to chance, which suggests that
eliminating questions 5 and 7 would improve the fit of the scale. In terms of RMSEA,
none of the models have a very good fit to the data because the upper limit for the 90%
confidence interval for RMSEA is greater than the threshold of RMSEA < .10 in all of
the models' confidence intervals. In fact, the point estimates for RMSEA was at or only
slightly below .10, which suggests a relatively poor fit in terms of residuals. The CFI
statistics are somewhat better, with the original model (Model 1) having the poorest fit
(.88) and the model with Questions 5 and 7 omitted had the best fit, with a reasonably
high CFI of .96.
Removing the item entirely from the analysis in this way precludes using changes
in chi-square statistics to assess model fit because the models were not nested
hierarchically. However, the AIC and ECVI statistics can be used for nonhierarchical
model comparisons. In this data, the least complex model (Model 3) had the best AIC
and ECVI statistics (the lower the statistic, the better the model fits the data).
37
Table 5: Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Interpersonal Deviance by Respondent
Chi-square (d.f.) (significance) CFI TLI RMSEA (90% Conf. Interval) AIC (ECVI) Sample size
Model 1 29.9 (14) (p = .008)
.88
.82 .096
(.05 - .14)
57.86(0.47) 123
Model 2 20.3 (9)
(p = .016) .91 .85 .101
(.04 - .16)
56.26 (0.46) 123
Model 3 9.8 (5)
(p = .080) .96 .91 .089
(.00-.17)
29.84 (0.24) 123
After considering all of these factors, Model 3 (with Questions 5 and 7 omitted
from the scale) appears to fit the data better than the original scale model (Model 1).
However, because the specification searches were based on empirical analyses, not for
theoretical reasons, the danger of capitalizing on chance increases, especially with only
123 respondents in the sample. Thus, although the data in this sample suggest that
Questions 5 and 7 should be eliminated, the original scale has been validated with larger
samples. Caution suggests that the original items in the scale should be used to avoid the
risk of inappropriately eliminating questions from the original scale. On the other hand,
given these problems with the scale's characteristics in this study, there may be important
measurement errors that might possibly reduce the effect sizes of the relationships
between interpersonal deviance and value congruence and ethical leadership behaviors.
With respect to the organizational deviance by coworkers scale, once again the
prior reliability analyses indicated that not all of the items in the scale functioned as
desired. Specifically, for several items the internal consistency reliability statistic
increased if the items were omitted from the scale. A confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted to see which items loaded on the organizational deviance by coworkers scale.
Several alternative models were tested to see which fit the data best. The table (Table 6)
38
below compares the different nonhierarchical models created by eliminating items.
Model 1 includes all twelve items, Model 2 eliminated the tenth item, and Model 3
eliminated the third and tenth items, and Model 4 eliminated the first, third, and tenth
items.
The chi-square statistics were statistically significant in all four models. Thus, no
model was satisfactory using this statistic. In terms of the RMSEA statistic, none of the
models had a satisfactory fit with the data (i.e., all RMSEA parameter estimates were
greater than .10, as were all the upper limits for the 90% confidence intervals).
Notwithstanding the generally poor fit, the model with all of the original scale questions
included (Model 1) had the best fit using the RMSEA statistic. Similarly, the CFI
statistics are marginal for all of the models, with only slight improvements in fit as more
parsimonious models were fit. Because the models were not hierarchically nested
because the items were entirely removed from the model, differences in chi-square
should not be used as a test statistic. However, the least complex model (Model 4) has
the best AIC and ECVI statistics (i.e., the lowest values).
Table 6: Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers
Chi-square (d.f.) (significance) CFI TLI RMSEA (90% Conf. Interval) AIC (ECVI) Sample size
Model 1 137.0 (54) (p = .000)
.89
.87 .112
(.09-.14)
185.02(1.52) 123
Model 2 124.0 (44) (p = .000)
.90
.87 .122
(.10-.15)
189.95(1.56) 123
Model 3 107.0 (35) (p = .000)
.91
.88 .130
(.10-.16)
147.00(1.20) 123
Model 4 91.1 (27) (p = .000)
.91
.88 .139
(.11-.17)
127.06(1.04) 123
39
After considering all of these factors, Model 4 (with Questions 1,3, and 10
omitted from the scale) appears to be slightly better fitting than the original scale model
(Model 1). However, because the specification searches were based on empirical
analyses, not for theoretical reasons, the danger of capitalizing on chance increases
(especially with the small sample size of 123 respondents). Thus, in the absence of more
conclusive evidence that the original scale was wrong, all 12 questions were retained in
the analyses. Notwithstanding the decision to retain the original variables in the scale,
the data suggest the organizational deviance by coworker scale may have important
measurement errors.
Although eliminating the item entirely is often used to test the best fitting model
for a scale, an alternative way of evaluating the best model is to nest the models, or create
a hierarchical set of models by adding or dropping paths to variables in the original scale.
However, unlike the analysis above where the entire variable was dropped, in the case of
hierarchical models only the path from the latent variable to the manifest variable is set to
zero. Hierarchical analyses are desirable because the changes from one model to the next
can be evaluated using the difference in the chi-square statistics.
The model specification analyses using model building found that adding
Question 1 resulted in a statistically significant decrease in chi-square (AX = 38.6, p =
.00). Therefore, Question 1 should be retained in the scale. Adding Question 3 to the
scale with Question 1 already added also resulted in a statistically significant decrease in
chi-square (AY2 = 4.5, p = .033), although the decrease was much smaller than adding
Question 1. Finally, adding Question 10 to the scale with all the other variables did not
result in a statistically significant decrease in chi-square (AY2 = 1.08, p = .30), which
40
indicates that Question 10 could be dropped from the scale. In summary, a specification
search for the best fitting model using confirmatory factor analysis suggests that Question
10 does not fit the proposed scale very well, but eliminating any other question from the
scale was not justified. However, given the small sample size, it seemed advisable to
retain all of the original items in the scale to avoid capitalizing on chance even though
Question 10 did not seem to contribute to the scale's reliability or validity.
Data Analyses
The data was analyzed using three different types of analysis: Individual-level
data analyses, grouped- or aggregated-level data analyses, and multilevel data analyses.
Each type of analysis is described separately below.
Analyses at the Individual Level
It was not possible to analyze the relationships between ethical leadership and
individuals' perceptions of value congruence and deviance behaviors at the individual-
level because the respondent's ratings of their supervisor's ethical leadership behaviors
cannot be matched subordinates' ratings of perceived value congruence or deviance.
However, the respondents' ratings for value congruence and deviance can be analyzed at
the individual level because the same respondents rated all of these variables.
These individual-level correlations shown below (Table 7) indicate there was
virtually no correlation between both type of value congruence and the untransformed
interpersonal deviance by the respondent variable. There were larger correlations
between the transformed interpersonal deviance variables and both value congruence
variables, but still not large enough to be statistically significant.
41
Table 7: Correlations between Value Congruence and Interpersonal Deviance Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis
Correlations
Value Congruence witr Pearson Correlatio Supervisor Sig. (2-tailed)
N Value Congruence witr Pearson Correlatio Organization Sig. (2-tailed)
N Interpersonal Deviance Pearson Correlatio Individual sig. (2-tailed)
N
Transform interpersom Pearson Correlatio deviance with negative sig. (2-tailed) reciprocal sqrt N
Transform interpersoni Pearson Correlatio deviance with logl 0 sig. (2-tailed)
N Transform interpersons Pearson Correlatio deviance with sqrt sig. (2-tailed)
N
Value Congruence
with Supervisor
1
124 .684*' .000 124
.007
.940
124
.048
.599 124
.034
.705 124 .021 .820 124
Value Congruence
with Organization
.684"
.000 124
1
124
-.040 .656
124
-.008 .926 124
-.019 .837 124
-.030 .745 124
Interpersonal Deviance Individual
.007
.940 124
-.040 .656 124
1
124
.963"
.000 124
.983"
.000 124
.995*'
.000 124
Transform interpersonal deviance with
negative reciprocal sqrt
.048
.599 124
-.008 .926 124
.963"
.000
124
1
124 .996" .000 124
.984*J
.000 124
Transform interpersonal deviance with
Iog10 .034 .705 124
-.019 .837 124
.983*
.000
124
.996*
.000 124
1
124 .996* .000 124
Transform interpersonal deviance with
sqrt .021 .820 124
-.030 .745 124
.995"
.000
124
.984"
.000 124
.996*'
.000 124
1
124
'• Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlations (Table 7) above did not include the organizational deviance by
coworkers' variable because there is no reason people's perception of their level of value
congruence with their supervisors or organization would affect their coworkers'
organizational deviance behaviors.
Consistent with this logic, the table below (Table 8) shows that there was only a
very small correlation between the two types of value congruence and organizational
deviance behaviors by coworkers (the correlation matrix was split to fit on the page).
Neither type of value congruence was correlated with organizational deviance behaviors
by coworkers. The variables with "revised" in front of them refer to variables that were
modified based on the reliability analyses discussed above. The revised variables showed
only slightly larger correlations with the two types of value congruence, but still not
statistically significant.
42
Table 8: Correlations between Original and Revised Value Congruence and Interpersonal and Organizational Deviance Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis
Correlations
Value Congruence Pearson Correlatioi
with Supervisor sjg. (2-tailed)
N
Value Congruence Pearson Correlatioi
with Organization sjg. (2-tailed)
N
Interpersonal Pearson Correlator
Deviance Individual sig. (2-tailed)
N
Revised Inter Pearson Correlatior
Deviance Individual sjg (2-tailed)
N
Organization Devianc Pearson Correlatior
by Coworkers Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Revised Org Deviano Pearson Correlatior Coworker S ig. (2-tailed)
N
Value Congruence
with Supervisor
1
124
.684"
.000
124
.007
.940
124
.014
.874
124 -.026
.774
124
-.029
.750
124
Value Congruence
with Organization
.684*
.000
124
1
124 -.040
.656
124
-.041
.652
124 -.043
.638
124
-.044 .628 124
Interpersonal Deviance Individual
.007
.940
124
-.040
.656
124 1
124
.997*'
.000
124 .488*'
.000
124
.487*
.000 124
Revised Inter Deviance Individual
.014
.874
124
-.041
.652
124
.997*'
.000
124
1
124 .478*'
.000
124
.477*
.000 124
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
-.026
.774
124
-.043
.638
124 .488*'
.000
124
.478*'
.000
124
1
124 .999**
.000
124
Revised Org Deviance Coworker
-.029
.750
124
-.044
.628
124 .487*'
.000
124
.477**
.000
124 .999*'
.000
124
1
124
**• Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Finally, using the revised scales for interpersonal deviance by self and
organizational deviance by coworkers did not change anything. In neither case was the
correlation statistically significant.
Thus, the two correlation matrices (Tables 7 & 8) show that there was no
evidence that value congruence with the organization or the supervisor influenced
interpersonal or organizational deviance acts. Modifying the scales had no effect on the
results either. Although the reliabilities of the scales were improved by modifying the
original scales, the revised scales showed the same pattern of statistically insignificant
relationship among the variables. Of course, this failure to find a statistically significant
relationship between either type of value congruence and interpersonal and organizational
deviance at the individual level of analysis effectively rules out finding that value
43
congruence functions as a mediator between ethical leadership and interpersonal and
organizational deviance acts. Thus, the data did not support the individual-level
hypotheses that could be tested with the data collected.
There were other, relatively unimportant, but statistically significant relationships
found in the data. First, there was a statistically significant correlation between an
individual's perceived value congruence with the supervisor and perceived value
congruence with the organization was found (r = .682, p = .000). This suggests a variety
of different possible explanations, such as supervisors and employees are both influenced
by the organization's values or that organizations influence supervisor's values, which in
turn influence employees' values. No propositions or hypotheses were advanced about
such relationships, however. Second, a statistically significant correlation was found
between the two types of deviance (r = .479, p = .000). This is probably not surprising
given that deviance in general is the overarching construct and the two types of deviance
are simply more specific subconstructs of deviance. Because the targets of the deviance
scales were different (i.e., interpersonal deviance by the respondent versus organizational
deviance by coworkers), this cannot be tested, however.
Analyses at the Department, or Group, Level
The prior section described the descriptive statistics and correlations at the
individual level of analysis. However, the ethical leadership data were collected in such a
way that only departments could be identified, not individual supervisors. Although the
data could not link specific supervisors' ethical leadership behaviors to their
subordinates' ratings of value congruence and deviance, the ethical leadership data could
be aggregated to the department level to derive an overall measure of ethical leadership
44
for each department. The mean department ratings can then be used as measures of
ethical leadership within each department, and departments may vary on such mean
ratings. In addition, even though individual subordinates could not be matched to their
supervisors with this data, they could be matched to a department. Thus, the individual-
level data on value congruence and deviance behaviors could also be aggregated to the
department level. Aggregating the data to the department level allowed for statistical
analyses at this group-level of analysis. It must be kept in mind that because there were
often multiple supervisors in a department, such aggregated data do not represent specific
supervisor-subordinate relationships. Nor will any relationships found at the
department/group level necessarily be found at the individual level (often called the
ecological fallacy).
Nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that ethical leadership, value
congruence, and deviance can and should be analyzed as a departmental, aggregated,
phenomenon. Average ethical leadership within a department might create a culture or
climate that influences individuals in that department, both in terms of their value
congruence and their deviance behaviors. Culture and climate and their influence on
individuals and group are discussed in more detail in the Discussion section.
Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA for the Department-Level Data
This section describes the descriptive statistics and co-relational analyses
conducted after aggregating the responses to the level of the relevant department. There
were 15 departments represented in the survey (although one department only had one
respondent complete the value congruence and deviance questionnaires). These
45
departments are, in turn, part of either an administrative or nursing group. The
descriptive statistics in this section show both types of aggregation.
The following tables (Table 9) show the mean scores by department on the
variables after being aggregated to the department level. The ANOVA tables shows
whether the differences among the means were statistically significant. The charts
(Figure 8) show graphically the differences in the means, with the Y axis reflecting the
scale for the variable (i.e., the axis was not truncated to reflect only the range of data
points). Showing the full range of possible values highlights how much of the scale was
actually used by respondents.
The means, ANOVA results, mean plots, and dot plots for each department on
ethical leadership are shown in the tables and figures below. While there was some
variability in mean ethical leadership ratings across departments, the differences were not
statistically significant (p = .371). Of course, when only two or three people completed
the questionnaire in a department, the results were not very reliable and should be
interpreted with caution (e.g., departments numbered 6 and 7)
46
Table 9: Variability in Means across Departments for Ethical Leadership
Descriptives
Ethical
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
.eadership
N 18
12
3
6
8
3
2
10
14
15
12
5
8
9
14
139
Mean 3.5278
3.9250
3.0000
3.3667
3.1625
4.0000
2.6500
3.5900
3.8429
3.7733
3.6333
3.5400
3.0750
2.8111
2.9071
3.4576
Std. Deviation 1.14522
.96872
.60000
.80166
.99848
1.05830
.49497
1.19485
1.32416
1.03058
1.39371
.98133
1.62283
1.03494
.88706
1.13757
Std. Error .26993
.27964
.34641
.32728
.35302
.61101
.35000
.37784
.35390
.26609
.40233
.43886
.57376
.34498
.23708
.09649
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound 2.9583
3.3095
1.5095
2.5254
2.3277
1.3710
-1.7972
2.7353
3.0783
3.2026
2.7478
2.3215
1.7183
2.0156
2.3950
3.2668
Upper Bound 4.0973
4.5405
4.4905
4.2080
3.9973
6.6290
7.0972
4.4447
4.6074
4.3440
4.5189
4.7585
4.4317
3.6066
3.4193
3.6483
Minimum 1.00
2.00
2.40
2.20
1.70
2.80
2.30
1.10
1.40
1.00
1.30
2.50
1.00
1.60
1.00
1.00
Maximum 5.00
4.90
3.60
4.30
4.50
4.80
3.00
4.80
5.00
4.90
5.00
4.90
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
ANOVA
Ethical Leadership
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
19.599
158.980
178.580
df 14
124
138
Mean Square 1.400
1.282
F 1.092
Sig. .371
Figure 8: Variability in Means across Departments in Ethical Leadership
4.50-
w at 3.S0-t
"S 2.50-£
1.50-+
11 12 13 14 15
DeptNum
47
The following dot plot (Figure 9) shows the responses that comprise each
department's mean score on ethical leadership. Each dot reflects one respondent's rating
on this variable. This plot is interpreted like a histogram, but gives somewhat more
detail. Interestingly, most departments showed high levels of variability within the
department. This indicates that the respondents do not perceive their supervisors
similarly, although in departments with multiple supervisors the wide range of ratings
may reflect differences among the supervisors.
Figure 9: Ratings within and across Departments for Ethical Leadership
" n n ft n Q_Q n n n n nn n 8.
o nn Q on o n nni M A 0.
8 ft &£L
J3u &—« Q. mmm ft, 0£i ft.
_0_
_CL
^rja^. .—— _ a. -^^-^. j a ^ ^ _ -,__a^aflc^^AftixA Q,_JLl
- ° r ; - : Q-r Q . - -—-Q-- - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - — - - -Q----Q- 'Q- A8:-BrQn,
•.a. a—jcm, i x a XLOLQ--0_O_O. o. E, - a CLCL o a o _ a Q J L Q L
J i _ Q Q 0. 0-
_Q Q__jQ Q 0 0. Oft .
ft ft ft ft ft ft
...ft n_H , ft.ft.8-ft..
7 o m
c 9 3
10
11
12
13
14
15 -9 ° 9 • i i i 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Ethical Leadership
The ratings can also be shown by the group the department is assigned to:
administrative or nursing. The following dot plot (Figure 10) shows the response by
48
group type. Both groups had about the same range of ratings, but the patterns differed
somewhat. The administrative group had a higher proportion of ratings at the high end of
the ethical leadership rating scale. This may suggest more dissatisfaction with
supervisors' actions in the nursing group.
Figure 10: Ratings within and across Groups for Ethical Leadership
8 A A A n f t f t . f i f t n ft . . flSBfift n f i f t I l l l e S n l l S
ADMIN
B gf l f i f j A A A j i n o_Qft.Q RH R J R
1.00 2.00 3.00
Ethical Leadership
r .00 5.00
S3 H O C
NURSING
In the case of value congruence with the supervisor, the variability across the
departments in terms of the mean ratings were statistically significant (p = .001). This
suggests it may be useful to investigate the causes of such group differences. The means,
ANOVA results (Table 10), and plot of the means across departments (Figure 11) are
shown below.
49
Table 10: Variability across Departments in Value Congruence with Supervisor
Descriptives
Value Congruence with Supervisor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
N 15
10
5
12
8
1
9
9
7
11
9
5
8
10
5
124
Mean 6.1167
4.7500
2.3500
4.2917
3.7188
4.5000
4.5833
4.7778
3.7857
4.6136
4.0000
5.3000
3.2813
3.5500
2.8500
4.3286
Std. Deviation 1.46953
.96465
1.86748
1.73478
1.85375
1.53093
1.72502
1.27825
1.88866
1.57619
1.10962
1.56660
2.13698
1.51658
1.80147
Std. Error .37943
.30505
.83516
.50079
.65540
.51031
.57501
.48313
.56945
.52540
.49624
.55388
.67577
.67823
.16178
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound 5.3029
4.0599
.0312
3.1894
2.1690
3.4066
3.4518
2.6035
3.3448
2.7884
3.9222
1.9715
2.0213
.9669
4.0084
Upper Bound 6.9305
5.4401
4.6688
5.3939
5.2685
5.7601
6.1037
4.9679
5.8825
5.2116
6.6778
4.5910
5.0787
4.7331
4.6489
Minimum 1.00
3.00
1.00
1.75
1.00
4.50
1.75
1.25
2.50
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Maximum 7.00
6.00
4.75
7.00
5.75
4.50
6.25
7.00
6.00
7.00
5.75
6.50
5.50
6.50
4.50
7.00
ANOVA
Value Congruence
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
with Supervisor
Sum of Squares
109.144
290.026
399.171
df 14
109
123
Mean Square 7.796
2.661
F 2.930
Sig. .001
50
Figure 11: Variability in Means across Departments in Value Congruence with Supervisor
m a. 3
c 3 4.0Q-
c o
O <u 3 3.00-
o
I 2.00-2
1.00'
,-j T r ( j ! ( r ( t
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S
DeptNum
The following dot plot (Figure 12) shows the responses that comprise each
department's mean score on value congruence with supervisor. Once again, there was a
wide range of responses, but generally the ratings were above the midpoint of the scale
(i.e., above 4).
51
Figure 12: Ratings within and across Departments for Value Congruence with Supervisor
Q_
fl
ft ft
R
ft ft ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
O 0 0
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft
ft ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft
l 1 8
ft
ft
^ . • ^
Q-
Q —
8
a ft 1
1.0D
o,
.a.
_ _ d
ft - r
2.DQ
J3 Q 9
ft p
- jQ_ja.. r i _ ._ _OL. ft
fi ft ft
ft ft
ft ft 8
ft ft ft
« ft - - s - l i
3.00 4.C 0
_ j } i _g___ ___Q_ p_
.....£ ...o.. 8 o
~& Q
_£L. j y n t J Q
8 a CL_Q
n, n
o
ft ft ft
ft - i - i -
S.00 6.00
n
n
ft
-«
_ -Q_ _
-I 7.00
Value Congruence with Supervisor
The following dot plot (Figure 13) for the administrative and nursing groups
showed similar ranges of responses. The nursing group showed somewhat lower ratings
of value congruence with the supervisor than the administrative group.
52
Figure 13: Ratings within and across Groups for Value Congruence with Supervisor
ADMIN
Q 30 O C •o
NURSING
1.DD 5.00 6.00
Value Congruence with Supervisor
r 7.00
In the case of value congruence with the organization, the variability across the
departments in terms of the mean ratings were not quite statistically significant (p =
.064). Nevertheless, the differences between some departments appeared to be quite
large, as seen when they are plotted. This suggests there may be value in trying to
analyze these differences at the departmental level. The means, ANOVA results (Table
11), and plot of the means (Figure 14) across departments are shown below.
53
Table 11: Variability across Departments in Value Congruence with Organization
Descriptives
Value Congruence with Organization
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
N 15
10
5
12
8 1
9
9
7
11
9
5
8
10 5
124
Mean 5.5333
4.8000
4.5500
4.0000
3.5625 4.5000
4.0000 5.3333
3.8214 4.8636
4.0278
5.3500
3.7188
3.9250
3.9500
4.4415
Std. Deviation 1.59202
1.14139
.62249 1.52628
1.57973
1.07529
1.86246
1.55265 1.02081
1.22120
1.05475
1.77501
2.06845
2.23886
1.57667
Std. Error .41106
.36094
.27839
.44060
.55852
.35843
.62082
.58685
.30778
.40707
.47170
.62756
.65410 1.00125
.14159
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound 4.6517
3.9835
3.7771
3.0302
2.2418
3.1735
3.9017
2.3855
4.1778
3.0891
4.0404
2.2348
2.4453
1.1701 4.1613
Upper Bound 6.4150
5.6165
5.3229
4.9698
4.8832
4.8265
6.7649
5.2574
5.5494
4.9665
6.6596
5.2027
5.4047 6.7299
4.7218
Minimum 2.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
4.50
1.75
1.00
1.75 3.75
2.50
4.00
1.00
1.00 1.50
1.00
Maximum 7.00
6.50
5.50
7.00
5.50
4.50
5.25
7.00
6.00 7.00
6.50
6.50
5.50
7.00 7.00
7.00
ANOVA
Value Congruence
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
with Organization
Sum of Squares
55.035
250.728
305.764
df 14
109
123
Mean Square 3.931
2.300
F 1.709
Sig. .064
54
Figure 14: Variability in Means across Departments in Value Congruence with Organization
1.00-t
7 8 9 DeptNum
10 11 12 13 14 15
The following dot plot (Figure 15) shows the responses that comprise each
department's mean score on value congruence with organization.
55
Figure 15: Ratings within and across Departments for Value Congruence with Organization
ft
ft
ft ft ft
fi
ft n n n
ft n ft ft ft H
8 ft n
8 * 8 ft
ft ft ft ft ft
0
0
0
fi
8
8 8 R ft
ft 0
n
rrQm„
8 fi
i - -1.00
a
_ - _ Q _ _ 0 _
o_
n
ft ft
2.00
o 8 o « o
a -O - .-.a. o -
Q Q Q 0 n ft n
ft ft
ft 8
ft ft i r " i
3.0D 4.00 5.00
0
0
ft
8 0
B 8 a_
J d .
ft ft
.ft
r 6.00
8....
- O _
£L
ft
ft
ft - x
7.DO Value Congruence with Organization
The following dot plot (Figure 16) shows the distribution of responses for value
congruence with the organization. The ranges and patterns are similar across the two
groups.
56
Figure 16: Ratings within and across Groups for Value Congruence with Organization
ADMIN
® 73 Q c TO
NURSING
Value Congruence with Organization
The mean ratings for interpersonal deviance by self (i.e., the respondent) were
low for all departments and the differences were not statistically significant (p = .580).
This suggests there is little utility in trying to predict differences at the departmental
level. The means, ANOVA results (Table 12), and plot of the means (Figure 17) across
departments are shown below.
57
Table 12: Variability in Means across Departments for Interpersonal Deviance by Self
Descriptives
Interpersonal Deviance Individua
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total
N 15 10 5
12 8 1 9 9 7
11 9 5 8
10 5
124
Mean 1.5619 1.7143 1.8571 1.8571 1.6250 1.1429 1.4762 1.3968 1.4898 1.5974 1.6508 1.4286 1.1786 1.8857 1.6571 1.6025
Std. Deviation .57769 .61353 .92029 .81725 .65214
.34993
.68801
.31791
.54518
.68553
.45175
.34784
.58243
.54958
.60019
Std. Error .14916 .19401 .41157 .23592 .23057
.11664
.22934
.12016
.16438
.22851
.20203
.12298
.18418
.24578
.05390
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound 1.2420 1.2754 .7144
1.3379 1.0798
1.2072 .8680
1.1958 1.2311 1.1238 .8676 .8878
1.4691 .9747
1.4958
Upper Bound 1.8818 2.1532 2.9998 2.3764 2.1702
1.7452 1.9257 1.7838 1.9637 2.1777 1.9895 1.4694 2.3024 2.3395 1.7092
Minimum 1.00 1.14 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maximum 3.00 3.14 3.43 3.71 2.71 1.14 2.00 3.14 2.00 2.57 2.71 2.14 2.00 2.86 2.43 3.71
ANOVA
Interpersonal Deviance Individual
Between Groups Within Groups Total
Sum of Squares
4.508 39.801 44.309
df 14
109 123
Mean Square .322 .365
F .882
Sig. .580
58
Figure 17: Variability in Means across Departments for Interpersonal Deviance by Self
^ 6.00-
o 5.00-C IS
• >
m
a « 4.00-c o
a at 3.00-
o c 3 2.00-
_, ! , ,_ 1 2 3 4
T r S 6
_l , , 1 1 I 1 1 1— 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DeptNum
The following dot plot (Figure 18) shows the responses for each department on
interpersonal deviance acts by the individual respondent. In general, the charts reflect
low levels of interpersonal deviance by the respondent, which was also reflected in the
low mean ratings for each department.
59
Figure 18: Ratings within and across Departments for Interpersonal Deviance by Self
aa„„*nfi rsRfift B
oo o n
ft ft
ft
H ftnfi ft flflflfi n
^ o f t 8 ft ft
n
P o 8 o t - . n o
! O M O r , . n n , n „
jQ_ _ Q J B . Q . Q _ Q _
L_OJQJ8__S __
, pH ftrt
^•- ; - r r ,T--1 : : -T-Q-L-a- i . - I C ^ ' T ^ t f
—jQi3 __ _ _.. .
fi ft
| f t n n ft.
* ftrt ft
rt ^,a„Q,a,a
,™^Q, -f lu., , , „ , f t_0„ „ „
1. i
3D 2.00
ftft ft
ft " t " 'I "
3.00 4.00 ~"""~ 1
5.00 r •'
6.00 i "
7.00
1
2
3
4
i
6
7 D
8 2 £1
9 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
Interpersonal Deviance by Self
The following dot plot (Figure 19) shows the response by group type. The
nursing and administrative groups showed similar patterns of low levels of interpersonal
deviance, although the fewer number of respondents from the nursing group is more
clearly shown in the plots because of the concentration of ratings at the low end of the
scale.
60
Figure 19: Ratings within and across Groups for Interpersonal Deviance by Self
8. . .n8o8rsH
1.00
ifiRflR.RflJfl A 2.00
I Q ° • S.0D 3.00 4.Q0
Interpersonal Deviance by Self 6.00
ADMIN
7.00
Q 30 Q C T3
NURSING
The following table (Table 13) and figure (Figure 20) shows the means and
distributions of organizational deviance by coworkers' ratings. The differences in means
across the department were not statistically significant (p = .839).
61
Table 13: Variability in Means across Departments for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers
Descriptives
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total
N 15 10 5
12 8 1 9
9 7
11 9 5 8
10 5
124
Mean 2.2889 2.1500 2.5167 2.0625 1.9792 1.3333 1.6296 2.0370 2.0238 2.3939 2.1852 2.0000 1.8021 2.8000 2.6167 2.1694
Std. Deviation 1.07454 1.09064 1.08557 1.07198 1.29770
.66027
.89473 1.49901
1.33962 1.06538 .91287
1.29248 1.45466 1.05178 1.12814
Std. Error .27744 .34489 .48548 .30945 .45881
.22009
.29824
.56657
.40391
.35513
.40825
.45696
.46001
.47037
.10131
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound 1.6938 1.3698 1.1687 1.3814 .8943
1.1221 1.3493 .6375
1.4940 1.3663 .8665 .7215
1.7594 1.3107 1.9688
Upper Bound 2.8839 2.9302 3.8646 2.7436 3.0641
2.1372 2.7248 3.4102
3.2939 3.0041 3.1335 2.8826 3.8406 3.9226 2.3699
Minimum 1.08 1.17 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.08 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.08 1.58 1.00
Maximum 4.75 4.08 4.08 4.17 4.50 1.33 3.08 4.00 5.33 5.08 3.75 3.50 4.42 5.00 4.08 5.33
ANOVA
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
Between Groups Within Groups Total
Sum of Squares
11.631 144.910 156.541
df 14
109 123
Mean Square .831
1.329
F .625
Sig. .839
62
Figure 20: Variability in Means across Departments for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers
6 7 8
DeptNum 10 11 12 13 14 15
The following dot plot (Figure 21) shows the responses for each department on
organizational deviance by coworkers. The ratings were somewhat higher than for
interpersonal deviance by self, but still generally low.
63
Figure 21: Ratings within and across Departments for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers
8 finl 8B n
8 8 " 8 ft ^ ft
ft ffl ft
fiOftO ff 0
j a l
ABQESL _£L
A l ^ : J L A
.•n_:noja-.-Q__ .....n _ ....,,... . :. : . .,...., ....,..._.•... : . Q . :
,&_a -Q--Q " " ft ™
JLo. n 8
_£L_Q G CL
n , q f]
ft ft ft CU S Q 0, O J Q.
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
The following dot plot (Figure 22) shows the responses to the organizational
deviance by coworkers question split into the nursing and administration groups. Both
groups had about the same range of ratings and similar patterns of low levels of
organizational deviance by coworkers.
64
Figure 22: Ratings within and across Groups for Organizational Deviance by Coworkers
w too H B 8 o o o.
ftfirlfifiBnqSm. |.n...rg..P*».Q ft*. S p 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Organization Deviance by Coworkers 6.00
ADMIN
7.QD
o O c T3
NURSING
Correlations among the Department-Level Data
Once the data was aggregated to the group level (i.e., department level),
correlations were analyzed for significant relationships among the variables at the
departmental level of analysis. The table (Table 14) below shows the departmental-level
correlations among the variables. The only statistically significant correlation is between
the two types of value congruence (r = .690, p = .004). The data did show moderate-
sized correlations between ethical leadership and value congruence with supervisor (r =
.495, p = .061) and between ethical leadership and value congruence with the
65
organization (r = .460, p = .085). However, neither correlation was statistically
significant at the p < .05 level of significance because there were only 15 departments in
the sample. Correlations must be relatively large before they are statistically significant
when there are only 15 observations in the sample. There were also slightly smaller
moderately-sized negative correlations between ethical leadership and interpersonal
deviance by the individual (r = -.314, p = .255) and between ethical leadership and
organizational deviance by coworkers (r = -.310, p = .260). However once again, these
were not statistically significant because of the small sample size. In summary, the
department-level correlations did not provide evidence that ethical leadership (at the
department level) influence either value congruence or deviance behaviors (also
aggregated to the department-level of analysis).
Table 14: Pearson-Product Moment Correlations between Variables at the Department Level of Analysis
Correlations
Ethical Leadership Dept Pearson Correlatio Mean Sig. (2-tailed)
N Value Congruence with Pearson Correlatio Supervisor Dept Mean sig. (2-tailed)
N
Value Congruence with Pearson Correlatio Organization Dept Mean sig. (2-tailed)
N
Interpersonal Deviance 1 Pearson Correlatio Self Dept Mean sig. (2-tailed)
N
Organizational Deviance Pearson Correlatio
by Coworkers Dept Mea sig. (2-tailed)
N
Ethical Leadership Dept Mean
1
15 .495
.061 15
.460
.085
15
-.314 .255
15 -.310 .260
15
Value Congruence
with Supervisor Dept Mean
.495
.061 15 1
15 .690"
.004
15
-.273 .324
15 -.319
.246 15
Value Congruence
with Organization Dept Mean
.460
.085 15
.690*'
.004 15
1
15
-.130 .644
15 .046 .869
15
Interpersonal Deviance by
Self Dept Mean
-.314 .255
15 -.273 .324
15 -.130 .644
15
1
15 .768*' .001
15
Organizational Deviance by Coworkers Dept Mean
-.310 .260
15 -.319 .246
15
.046
.869
15
.768*'
.001 15
1
15
• Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
66
The research study proposed that value congruence would mediate the
relationship between ethical leadership and deviance. However, failing to find a
statistically significant relationship between either type of value congruence and the
deviance types, or between ethical leadership and either type of deviance, rules out that
proposition when the data were analyzed at the department level of analysis. Nor were
there statistically significant relationships between the types of value congruence and
deviance at the individual level of analysis, as discussed above. Thus, there is no
empirical support for the proposition that value congruence mediates the relationship
between ethical leadership and interpersonal deviance by the individual or organizational
deviance by coworkers at either level of analysis.
Multilevel Analyses
The prior subsections of this section discussed analyses conducted at the
individual-level or department-level. This subsection discusses multilevel analyses, or
analyses where the department-level ethical leadership variable is used to predict
respondents' perceptions of value congruence and deviance behaviors at the individual
level of analysis. From a multilevel perspective, the individual data is conceptualized as
being nested or grouped within the departmental context. Even though ratings of
supervisors' ethical leadership behaviors cannot be linked to their own subordinates'
value congruence and deviance ratings, the ethical leadership data were aggregated to the
department level by creating a mean score for each department. This mean score
represents an overall measure of ethical leadership for each department, not for individual
supervisors within the department.
67
This department-level variable was then used to predict individual-level responses
for each respondent's value congruence and deviance ratings because the department
ethical leadership data could be linked to each subordinate. In this type of database, each
respondent in a department is assigned the same ethical leadership score (the group-level
variable), but individuals in different departments had different ethical leadership scores.
The department- or group-level ethical leadership score was regressed on the
respondent's value congruence and deviance ratings varied (the individual-level
variable). In other words, all individuals in a department would have the same
department-level ethical leadership rating correlated to their own individual-level value
congruence and deviance ratings.
Multilevel Analyses Using Pearson-Product Moment Correlations and OLS
Regression
First, this multilevel database was analyzed using the Pearson-Product Moment
correlations and ordinary least squares regression (OLS). Although this is not ideal
because the data violate the assumptions, as discussed below, this type of analysis is
reasonable and often conducted.
The correlation matrix (Table 15) below shows the relationship between
department-level ethical leadership, and individual-level measures of value congruence
with the supervisor, value congruence with the organization, interpersonal deviance by
self, and organizational deviance by coworkers.
68
Table 15: Correlations between Variables using Department- and Individual-Level Data
Correlations
Ethical Leadership Pearson Correlatio
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Value Congruence Pearson Correlatio
with Supervisor Sig. (2-tailed>
N
Value Congruence Pearson Correlatio
with Organization sig. (2-tailed)
N
Interpersonal Pearson Correlatio
Deviance Individual Sjg (2-tailed)
N
Revised Inter Pearson Correlatio
Deviance Individual s ig. (2-tailed)
N
Organization Deviant Pearson Correlatio
by Coworkers S i g . (2-tailed)
N
Revised Org Devianc Pearson Correlatio
Coworker s l g . (2-tailed)
N
Ethical Leadership
1
124
.240*'
.007
124
.216*
.016
124
-.037
.684
124
-.040
.662
124
-.014
.877
124
-.021
.815
124
Value Congruence
with Supervisor
.240*'
.007
124
1
124
.684*
.000
124
.007
.940
124
.014
.874
124
-.026
.774
124
-.029
.750
124
Value Congruence
with Organization
.216*
.016
124
.684*
.000
124
1
124
-.040
.656
124
-.041
.652
124
-.043
.638
124
-.044
.628
124
Interpersonal Deviance Individual
-.037
.684
124
.007
.940
124
-.040
.656
124
1
124
.997*
.000
124
.488*
.000
124
.487*
.000
124
Revised Inter Deviance Individual
-.040
.662
124
.014
.874
124
-.041
.652
124
.997*
.000
124
1
124
.478*
.000
124
.477*
.000
124
Organization Deviance by Coworkers
-.014
.877
124
-.026
.774
124
-.043
.638
124
.488*
.000
124
.478*
.000
124
1
124
.999*
.000
124
Revised Org Deviance Coworker
-.021
.815
124
-.029
.750
124
-.044
.628
124
.487*'
.000
124
.477"
.000
124
.999"
.000
124
1
124
"Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*• Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
As seen in the table above (Table 15), statistically significant correlations were
found between department-level ethical leadership and individual-level value congruence
with the supervisor (r = .240, p = .007) and with value congruence with the organization
(r = .216, p = .016). In terms of OLS regressions, the coefficients (and standard errors)
were b = 1.112 (.407) for value congruence with the supervisor and b = .874 (.358) for
value congruence with the organization. These results are evidence, that departmental
differences in ethical leadership, impacts both types of value congruence.
On the other hand, there were no statistically significant bivariate correlations
between ethical leadership and interpersonal or organizational deviance (using either the
original or revised variables) when analyzed in terms of Pearson-Product Moment
correlations and OLS regression. However, because there was no statistically significant
relationship between ethical leadership and deviance behaviors, value congruence could
69
not be mediating this non-existent relationship. Thus, this type of multilevel analysis did
not support the mediation hypothesis (3 a and 3b).
Multilevel Analyses Using Restricted Maximum Likelihood Regressions
Although the multi-level database described above with department-level ethical
leadership effects and individual-level dependent variables can be analyzed using
Pearson-Product Moment correlations and ordinary least squares regression, the
assumptions underlying these methods of analysis are violated (Bickel, 2007). For
example, individual observations are nested within departments (or groups). Therefore,
the assumption of independent residuals (or error terms) is violated because any
unmeasured factors that influence each department will be incorporated in the residuals
for observations within that department. In other words, the residuals for individuals
working in the same department are likely to be correlated, not independent. In addition,
if omitted variables influencing the residuals are correlated with a predictor variable in
the model, then the model is also misspecified, resulting in biased parameter estimates
(see Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002, p. 253).
Violating the assumption of independent residuals has the effect of artificially
reducing the size of the standard errors of the parameter estimates, resulting in increased
Type I error rates. This means the data will tend to reject the null hypothesis too often
compared with testing using the correct standard errors. To address this concern,
multilevel statistical techniques using different estimation methods must be used, which
result in more accurate estimates of the true standard error. Interestingly, the parameter
estimates are usually fairly similar irrespective of the statistical technique used, but the
70
statistical significance of the parameter estimates will be different (see Bickel (2007) and
Luke (2004) for discussions of these levels of analyses issues).
To account for this nesting effect, the data were re-analyzed using a multilevel
software program called HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling
(Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2000). In this program, the hierarchical nature of the
data was explicitly modeled, with ethical leadership at the group level being regressed on
both types of value congruence and both types of deviance at the individual-level of
analysis. This program generated more accurate estimates of the parameters and standard
errors (which were larger than with OLS regression or Pearson-Product Moment
correlations).
Multilevel models are used to predict a dependent variable using predictors at
more than one level of analysis. The classic example is research predicting a child's
performance in school as a function of either his or her personal characteristics (e.g.,
intelligence) and classroom characteristics (e.g., teacher or class size) (see, Luke, 2004, p.
9). In this case, the first two multilevel analyses investigated whether department-level
ethical leadership ratings predicted individual-level value congruence with supervisor and
with the organization. There was no individual-level predictor in these models, only the
department predictor.
The multilevel model first investigated is similar to the Pearson-Product Moment
correlation and OLS regression analyses used above to test the relationships between
department-level ethical leadership and the two types of value congruence measured at
the individual level. However, this multilevel model using restricted maximum
71
likelihood analysis controls for the fact that the individuals are nested or grouped in
departments.
Level-1 Model:
Individual Value Congruence with Supervisor = Bo + R Level-2 Model:
Bo - Goo + Goi(Department Ethical Leadership Mean) + Uo
In this multilevel model, the individual's value congruence with the supervisor is
considered to be a function of the department's mean value congruence with supervisor
rating (Bo or the intercept) and random error for each individual around that mean rating
(R). This is the Level-1 Model. In addition, the mean rating for each department (Bo or
the intercept) is modeled as to be a function (Goi) of the department's mean ethical
leadership rating and random error (Uo) and the mean ethical leadership rating for all
departments (Goo) in the Level-2 Model. Thus, individual value congruence ratings are a
function of the department's ethical leadership and random effects. In these multilevel
analyses, there were 123 individual-level ("Level-1 Model") observations and 14
department-level ("Level-2 Model") observations.
The relationship between ethical leadership at the department level and
individuals' value congruence with the supervisor ratings was not statistically significant
(p = .084) at p < .05 level, as shown in the table (Table 16) below.
72
Table 16: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Value Congruence with Supervisor on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects: Value Congruence with Supervisor
Fixed Effect Coefficient
For INTRCPT1, BO INTRCPT2, GOO 0.328194 PELSMEAN, G01 1.159371
Standard Error
2.078653 0.616650
T-ratio
0.158 1.880
Approx. d.f. P-value
12 0.878 12 0.084
The parameter estimate for ethical leadership (PELSMEAN) using restricted
maximum likelihood estimation was 1.16, which is similar in magnitude to the OLS
regression parameter estimate of 1.11. However, the standard errors were different in the
two types of statistical analyses, which accounts for the difference in statistical
significance. The standard error for the parameter estimate was .617 in the multilevel
analysis versus .407 in the OLS regression analysis (which mathematically can be related
to the Pearson-Product Moment correlation analysis shown above). Thus, even though
the OLS regression (or Pearson-Product Moment correlation) showed there to be a
statistically significant relationship between department-level ethical leadership and value
congruence with the supervisor, the correct multilevel analysis did not find a statistically
significant relationship. On the other hand, the p-value of .084 was close to statistical
significance at the p < .05 level. Thus, to say there was no relationship of interest seems
to be overstating the case. With a larger sample, the results might have been statistically
significant.
73
Nor was there a statistically significant relationship between ethical leadership at
the department level and individuals' value congruence with the organization ratings at
the p < .05 level, as shown in the table (Table 17) below. Once again, the parameter
estimate for ethical leadership (PELSMEAN) was .855, which is similar in magnitude to
the OLS regression estimate of .874. However, as predicted, the standard error for the
parameter estimate was .438 in the multilevel analysis versus .358 in the OLS regression,
which accounts for the difference in statistical significance. Thus, even though the OLS
regression (or Pearson-Product Moment correlation) found a statistically significant
relationship between department-level ethical leadership and value congruence with the
organization, the multilevel statistical analysis using restricted maximum likelihood
estimation did not find the relationship to be statistically significant.
Table 17: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Value Congruence with Organization on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects: Value Congruence with Organization
Fixed Effect Coefficient
For INTRCPT1, BO INTRCPT2, GOO 1.542788 PELSMEAN, G01 0.855559
Standard Error
1.483081 0.438939
T-ratio
1.040 1.949
Approx. d.f. P-value
12 0.319 12 0.075
Once again, while technically the p-value did not reach statistical significance at
the traditional p < .05 level, the actual p-value of .075 is quite close to the test value.
Thus, there is some evidence that there could be a relationship between ethical leadership
at the department level and value congruence at the individual level. As stated before,
with a larger sample, the results might have been statistically significant.
74
Multilevel analyses of the relationships between ethical leadership and
interpersonal deviance by the respondent and organizational deviance by coworkers were
also conducted. As was true with the OLS regression analyses, there was no statistically
significant relationship between ethical leadership and the interpersonal deviance by the
individual (p = .773) (Table 18).
Table 18: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Interpersonal Deviance by Individual on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects: Interpersonal Deviance by Individual
Fixed Effect Coefficient
For INTRCPT1, BO INTRCPT2, GOO 1.748241 PELSMEAN, G01 -0.042253
Standard Error T-ratio
0.485033 3.604 0.143161 -0.295
Approx. d.f. P-value
12 0.004 12 0.773
The frequency of deviance behaviors were not measured using counts (e.g., 0,1,
2, etc), but the frequency scale ranged from "never" to "frequently." This frequency
scale is somewhat similar to count data, especially because there were many "never"
ratings which is the equivalent of a "zero" count. The frequency of deviance behaviors
scales were very positively skewed, as discussed in the section on descriptive statistics,
indicating few acts of deviance. In essence, the deviance data had a Poisson-type
distribution even though technically the scale was not measure of counts of deviance
behaviors. However, this highly skewed distribution of the dependent variable made
regressions based on the assumption of a normal distribution somewhat questionable, but
a log transformation of Y* = log(l+Y) would be inappropriate because of the number of
essentially zero or never responses (see, Raudenbush, et al., 2004, p. 94). Thus, the data
75
for deviance behaviors was also analyzed using the Poisson analysis feature of HLM 6 to
see if the results differed from OLS and restricted maximum likelihood estimation
results.
However, once again, ethical leadership was not significantly related to
interpersonal deviance (p = .890) using this Poisson analysis. As shown in the table
(Table 19) below, the critical statistic, called the event ratio, was very close to 1, which
indicates no relationship between ethical leadership at the department level and
interpersonal deviance at the individual level. This is consistent with the other statistical
analyses, which did not find statistically significant relationships between ethical
leadership and interpersonal deviance by the respondent.
Table 19: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Interpersonal Deviance by Individual on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Poisson Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects: Interpersonal Deviance by Individual (Unit-specific model)
Fixed Effect
For INTRCPT1, INTRCPT2, GOO PELSMEAN, G01
Fixed Effect
For INTRCPTl, INTRCPT2, GOO PELSMEAN, G01
Standard Coefficient Error T-ratio
BO 0.561905 0.625354 0.899 -0.026151 0.184744 -0.142
Event Rate Confidence
Coefficient Ratio
B0 0.561905 1.754010 -0.026151 0.974188
Approx. d.f. P-value
12 0.387 12 0.890
Interval
(0.450, 6.844) (0.652, 1.457)
In terms of the frequency of organizational deviance by coworker dependent
variable, the multilevel model did not find a statistically significant relationship between
76
ethical leadership and the organizational deviance by coworkers (p = .966), as shown in
the table (Table 20) below.
Table 20: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Organizational Deviance by Coworkers on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects: Organizational Deviance by Coworkers
Fixed Effect Coefficient
For INTRCPT1, BO INTRCPT2, GOO 2.215112 PELSMEAN, G01 -0.011579
Standard Error
0.902514. 0.266330
T-ratio
2.454 -0.043
Approx. d.f. P-value
12 0.031 12 0.966
As described above, the organizational deviance by coworkers scale had a
Poisson-shaped distribution, so a restricted maximum likelihood estimation using the
assumption of a Poisson distribution was also conducted. As with the other Poisson-
based analysis, the event ratio associated with ethical leadership at the department level
was .994, which is close to 1 or no effect, as reflected in the p-value of .974 (Table 21).
Thus, the data showed no multilevel relationship between ethical leadership and
organizational deviance by coworkers using this analysis either.
77
Table 21: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Organizational Deviance by Coworkers on Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Poisson Distribution) Final estimation of fixed effects: Organizational Deviance by Coworkers (Unit-specific model)
Fixed Effect Coefficient
For INTRCPT1, BO INTRCPT2, GOO 0.795351 PELSMEAN, G01 -0.005286
Fixed Effect Coefficient
For INTRCPT1, BO INTRCPT2, GOO 0.795351 PELSMEAN, G01 -0.005286
Standard Error T-ratio
.
0.538362 1.477 0.158903 -0.033
Event Rate Confidence Ratio
2.215218 0.994728
Approx. d.f. P-value
12 0.165 12 0.974
Interval
(0.686, 7.152) (0.704, 1.406)
In addition, there were no statistically significant relationship at the individual
level between the two types of value congruence and the two types of deviance (same as
the OLS regression results). Accordingly, value congruence could not mediate the
relationship between ethical leadership and either type of deviance behavior because
there was no relationship among the variables.
Cross-Level Interaction Analyses
This research study did not advance any hypotheses regarding the joint effects of
individual-level value congruence measures and department-level ethical leadership
behaviors on individual-level interpersonal and organizational deviance behaviors.
However, the data collected allowed such cross-level exploratory analyses. Specifically,
multilevel analyses were conducted to investigate whether departmental differences in
ethical leadership would interact with individual differences in value congruence with the
78
supervisor or value congruence with the organization to effect both types of individual
deviance behaviors. This mixed effect multilevel model allowed ethical leadership to
influence both the intercepts and the slope coefficients for individual-level value
congruence (see Luke, 2004). The multilevel model that was investigated with
interpersonal and organizational deviance as the dependent variables is shown below:
Level-1 Model: Y = Bo + Bi (Value Congruence with Supervisor) + R
Level-2 Model: Bo = Goo + Goi(Ethical Leadership Mean) + Uo Bi = Gio + Gn(Ethical Leadership Mean) + Ui
Given that there was no relationship between interpersonal and organizational
deviance and the two types of value congruence or ethical leadership, such an interaction
relationship is unlikely, but not impossible if there were suppressor effects. The
following table (Table 22) shows the multilevel model tested with deviance as the
dependent variables: Using interpersonal deviance by the individual as the dependent
variable, the mixed effects model did not find that ethical leadership had a statistically
significant effect on either the intercepts (p = .774) or the slope of value congruence with
supervisor (p = .843).
79
12 12
12 12
0 . 0 .
0 . 0 .
.000 ,774
.619
. 843
Table 22: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Interpersonal Deviance by Individual on Value Congruence with Supervisor and Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects: Interpersonal Deviance by Individual
Standard Approx. Fixed Effect Coefficient Error T-ratio d.f. P-value
For INTRCPT1, B0 INTRCPT2, GOO 1.607416 0.055353 29.040 PELSMEAN, G01 -0.042062 0.143389 -0.293
For VALCONSU slope, -Bl INTRCPT2, G10 0.018234 0.035818 0.509 PELSMEAN, Gil 0.019246 0.095078 0.202
With organizational deviance by coworkers as the dependent variable, ethical
leadership did not have a statistically significant interaction effect on either the intercepts
(p = .263) or the slope of value congruence with supervisor (p = .221) (Table 23).
Table 23: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Organizational Deviance by Coworkers on Value Congruence with Supervisor and Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects: Organizational Deviance by Coworkers
Standard Approx. Fixed Effect Coefficient Error T-ratio d.f. P-value
For INTRCPT1, B0 INTRCPT2, GOO 5.523043 2.835864 1.948 PELSMEAN, G01 -1.013158 0.862123 -1.175
For VALCONSU slope, Bl INTRCPT2, G10 -0.805762 0.619320 -1.301 PELSMEAN, Gil 0.240391 0.186077 1.292
12 12
12 12
0. 0.
0. 0.
, 075 , 263
.218
. 2 2 1
80
Just as value congruence with the supervisor could be the individual-level
predictor, value congruence with the organization could be a possible individual-level
predictor. Therefore, multilevel analyses were conducted to investigate whether
departmental differences in ethical leadership would interact with value congruence with
the organization to influence the two types of deviance behaviors. The model is the same
as above, except value congruence with the organization is substituted for value
congruence with the supervisor in the Level-1 model:
Level-1 Model: Y = Bo + Bi (Value Congruence with Organization) + R
Level-2 Model: Bo = Goo + Go i (Ethical Leadership Mean) + Uo Bi = Gio + Gn(Ethical Leadership Mean) + Ui
Using interpersonal deviance by the individual as the dependent variable, ethical
leadership did not have a statistically significant interaction effect on either the intercepts
(p = .866) or the slope of value congruence with supervisor (p = .900) (Table 24).
Table 24: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Interpersonal Deviance by Individual on Value Congruence with Organization and Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects:
Standard Approx. Fixed Effect Coefficient Error T-ratio d.f. P-value
For INTRCPT1, BO INTRCPT2, GOO 1.941310 1.685536 1.152 PELSMEAN, G01 -0.087984 0.508267 -0.173
For VALCONOR slope, Bl INTRCPT2, G10 -0.056236 0.362631 -0.155 PELSMEAN, Gil 0.013911 0.108106 0.129
12 12
12 12
0. 0.
0. 0.
. 272
. 8 6 6
. 8 8 0
. 9 0 0
81
With organizational deviance by coworkers as the dependent variable, ethical
leadership did not have a statistically significant interaction effect on either the intercepts
(p = .510) or the slope of value congruence with the organization (p = .474) (Table 25).
Table 25: Multilevel Analysis Regressing Organizational Deviance by Coworkers on Value Congruence with Organization and Ethical Leadership (Dependent Variable treated as Continuous Normal Distribution)
Final estimation of fixed effects:
Standard Approx. Fixed Effect Coefficient Error T-ratio d.f. P-value
For INTRCPT1, BO INTRCPT2, GOO 4.528687 3.393050 1.335 PELSMEAN, G01 -0.692465 1.020853 -0.678
For VALCONOR slope, Bl INTRCPT2, G10 -0.546062 0.727797 -0.750 PELSMEAN, Gil 0.160068 0.216797 0.738
Although not shown in any output or tables, there were no statistically significant
results using Poisson-distribution multilevel analyses.
12 12
12 12
0.207 0.510
0.468 0.474
82
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This section discusses the research direction, limitations, and further research in
the area of leadership and organizational culture. Recent ethical scandals in businesses
raise important questions about the role of leadership in shaping ethical conduct. Most
employees look outside themselves to significant others for ethical guidance. In the
workplace, leaders should be a central source of such guidance. As suggested, little is
known about whether and how such an ethical leadership style is related to followers'
ethical performance. This research study addressed that question by focusing on
perceptions of ethical leadership at the supervisory level and its relationship to value
congruence and observed deviance at the individual level within the work place.
A search of the literature linked perceived leadership effectiveness with leader
honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, &
Dorfman, 1999; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Posner & Schmidt, 1992). Honesty and
integrity are seen as important components of an ethical leader's idealized influence.
Brown & Trevino (2002) found that ethical leadership involves a "moral manager" aspect
that involves a number of visible behaviors that do not necessarily flow only from
personal traits. Trevino et al., (2005) proposed a definition of ethical leadership as the
demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and
interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-
way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making.
83
Discussion of Research Direction
As discussed in Chapter 4, no data were collected that could link specific
supervisors' characteristics to his or her employees' characteristics. This was to satisfy
the hospital's Institutional Review Board's concerns about individual / managerial
privacy. Therefore, although relationships between perceptions of specific supervisor's
ethical leadership and his or her employees' value congruence (with the supervisor or the
organization) or the employees' deviance (interpersonal and organizational) were
hypothesized, these could not be tested with the data collected.
The data did identify the department in which the respondents worked; however
usually there were multiple supervisors in each department. Because data could be linked
to specific departments, by aggregating respondents' perceptions of their supervisor's
ethical behaviors to the department level, multilevel analyses with the department as the
grouping variable were possible. Specifically, the relationship between perceptions of
departmental ethical leadership behaviors and individual's value congruence and
deviance behaviors were analyzed. Data on value congruence (with supervisor and
organization) and interpersonal acts of deviance by the employee were collected from the
same respondent, so these relationships could be analyzed at the individual level.
Summary of Hypotheses Analysis
Individual-Level Hypotheses
In this research study, individuals were thought to emulate ethical leaders because
they are attracted to the leader's vision and values. Thus, ethical leadership was
hypothesized to be associated with perceived value congruence between the leader and
the individual within the work group, and between the leaders and the organization.
84
Value congruence between work group members and their leader was also hypothesized
to mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and acts of interpersonal deviance
by the individual respondent and between ethical leadership and acts of organizational
deviance by coworkers. However, these hypotheses could not be tested because neither
value congruence nor deviance acts could be linked with specific supervisors, as
discussed above.
However, the hypothesis that value congruence would be correlated with acts of
interpersonal deviance and acts of organizational deviance by coworkers could be tested
with this data. There was no evidence that value congruence influenced interpersonal or
organizational deviance acts. Not only did this finding not support the hypotheses above,
but it also effectively ruled out the hypothesis that perception of specific supervisor's
ethical behaviors influence acts of deviance through the mediating effect of value
congruence. Even though specific supervisors could not be linked to specific
subordinates' perceptions of value congruence or deviance behaviors, logically this
failure to find value congruence to deviance relationship precludes there being a mediator
relationship. Thus, the data did not support any of the individual-level hypotheses that
could be tested.
Culture and Climate Literature Supporting Group-Level and Multilevel Analyses
There were originally no hypotheses that ethical leadership at the department
level would influences individual-level or group- or department-level attitudes or
behaviors. Thus, the initial literature review did not discuss research supporting such
analyses. Therefore, before discussing the results of the group-level and multilevel
analyses, the literature supporting the analyses will be discussed briefly.
85
Research has found that supervisory (ethical) leadership style is an important
contextual influence thought to shape individuals' behaviors in work groups (Robinson &
Greenberg, 1998; Stodgill, 1963). Avolio (1999) suggests that ethical leaders serve as
role models, arouse a collective sense of mission (Conger, 1999), and get followers to
transcend their self-interests for the good of the group (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).
The culture and climate literature suggests that ethical leadership, value
congruence, and deviance can and should be analyzed as a departmental, aggregated,
phenomenon. Organizational culture is presumed to have far-reaching implications for
organizations, making it an important topic to understand.
Schein (1992) suggests that the culture is a pattern of shared basic assumptions
that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be
taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those
problems. This definition also presents three challenges: 1) the problem of socialization,
2) the problem of 'behavior,' and 3) can a large organization have one culture? (p. 13).
Culture is believed to be important because it is theorized to shape the important values
and beliefs of members of the organization (Schein, 1992).
Although culture is often conceptualized as an organizational-level construct,
there is no reason it can not function at the departmental or group level. Teams and
groups develop norms about expected or acceptable behaviors based on group values and
beliefs. Thus, the organizational culture probably influences group norms, but the group
may have its own culture (e.g., a counter-culture or subculture). "People generally have
attitudes and values that are common with others in their own fields or work units than
86
they do with those in other fields or other parts of the organization. These various groups
may be said to have several different subcultures - cultures existing within parts of
organizations rather than entirely throughout them. These typically are distinguished
with respect to either functional differences (i.e., the type of work done) or geographic
distances (i.e., the physical separation between people). Research suggests that several
subcultures based on occupational, professional, or functional divisions usually exist
within any large organization" (Greenberg & Baron, 2003).
Ethical leadership within a department might create a culture or climate that
influences individuals in that department, both in terms of their value congruence and
their deviance behaviors. The organization's culture develops in large part from its
leadership (ethical and / or transformational style) while the culture of an organization
can also effect the development of its leadership. Effective organizations require both
tactical and strategic thinking as well as culture building by its leaders (managers) (Bass,
1993). Schein (1992) argues that researchers must understand the role of organization
culture. Culture is useful as a concept because it helps leaders to better understand the
hidden and complex aspects of organizational life. It is useful for managers who are
attempting to change the behavior of subordinates.
Cultural analysis clarifies the cultural dynamics within organizations. Major
categories of overt phenomena that are associated with culture include the following: 1)
observed behavioral regularities when people interact (language, customs, traditions, and
rituals); 2) group norms: which are implicit standards and values that evolve in working
groups; 3) espoused values: publicly announced principles and values that the group
claims to achieve; 4) formal philosophy : broad policies and ideological principles that
87
guide a group's actions; 5) rules of the game: implicit rules for getting along in the
organization; 6) climate: feelings that are conveyed in a group by the physical layout and
the way in which members of the organization interact with each other; 7) embedded
skills: special competencies group members display in accomplishing tasks; 8) habits of
thinking: mental models, and / or linguistic paradigms, shared cognitive frames that guide
the perceptions, thought, and language used by members of a group and are taught to new
members in the early socialization process; 9) shared meanings: emergent understandings
that are created by group members as they interact with each other; and 10) root
metaphors or integrating symbols: ideas, feelings, and images groups develop to
characterize themselves (Schein, 1992).
Campbell (2004) proposed that organizational culture is a cognitive phenomenon
(Schein, 1999), the result of collective programming of the mind (Hofstede, 1998a), and
reflects the basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization,
that operate unconsciously (Schein, 1985, 6). Campbell also suggests that though
organizational culture may reside in the collective minds of the organizational members,
it is manifested in tangible ways, such as behaviors, throughout the organization (Detert,
Schroeder, and Muriel, 2000; Schein, 1999).
Though researchers have attempted to identify the components that comprise an
organization's culture, one component that recurs in descriptions of organizational
culture is the values that are held by the members of the organization. These values are
described as, "broad, nonspecific feelings of good and evil, beautiful and ugly, normal
and abnormal, rational and irrational (Hofstede, et al., 1990). As a foundational part of
88
the substance of the organizational culture is its values, which are assumed to be unique
to the organization, leaders must manage organizational values (Campbell, 2004).
Posner and Schmidt (1992), suggest that managerial values are stronger today as
the nation's businesses have recognized the importance of corporate culture, ethics (i.e.,
leadership), and how shared values (alignment between personal and organizational
values) makes a difference. The research conducted by Posner and Schmidt took a broad
look at managerial values that are such a powerful force in organizational life. The
authors offer that values are "at the core of our personality, influencing the choices we
make, the people we trust, the appeals we respond to, and the way we invest our time and
energy" (p. 81). The authors support this position based on observations from Drucker,
"that an organization's culture is a function of shared values." Research has
demonstrated empirically how values affect personal and organizational effectiveness (p.
81). The fit between personal-organizational values is able to predict job satisfaction and
organizational turnover. Haas (as quoted in Posner and Schmidt, 1992) argues that
alignment between organizational values and personal values is the key driver of
corporate success (p. 82).
Waters and Bird (1987) suggest that managers experience what is termed 'moral
stress.' Managers recognize moral issues in many of their everyday decisions and actions
but often remain unclear about how they should act (behavior) in a given situation. The
authors argue that this condition exists both because of lack of clarity about practical,
specific behaviors that are appropriate in various situations, and because of uncertain
feelings of obligation to act in accord with moral standards. Managers, as individuals,
often share similar views regarding morally appropriate standards, but these views tend to
89
be held privately and tacitly, and not collectively and publicly. By examining these
conditions and behaviors, managers (leaders) can manage the moral dimensions of his or
her organization's culture.
Although distinction between climate and culture is blurred, research on
organizational climate also supports the idea that shared perceptions of what the
organization values and what behavior is acceptable does influence members' actions.
"Culture refers to the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values,
beliefs, and assumptions held by organizational members. Meaning is established
through socialization to a variety of identity groups that converge in the workplace.
Interaction reproduces a symbolic world that gives culture both a great stability and a
certain precarious and fragile nature rooted in the dependence of the system on individual
cognition and action. Climate, in contrast, portrays organizational environments as being
rooted in the organization's value system, but tends to present these social environments
in relatively static terms, describing them in terms of a fixed set of dimensions" (Denison,
1996). Just as organizational subcultures may emerge at the departmental level, similarly
the construct of climate should exist at the departmental level (which is analogous to
subcultures).
Both culture and climate are shaped by many factors, however leadership is
assumed to be an important determinant. Accordingly, ethical leadership should
influence organizational culture and climate, as well as departmental-level culture and
climate. Therefore, this research investigated the question of whether group-members'
perceptions of their supervisors' ethical leadership behaviors influenced their perceptions
of value congruence and deviance behaviors. Thus, instead of researching whether
90
employees, who report directly to an ethical leader (direct report), would engage in fewer
acts of work place deviance. This research investigated whether perceptions of the
ethical behaviors of supervisors in specific departments influence both individual
deviance behaviors.
Department-Level Analyses
Against this conceptual background, this research investigated whether
perceptions of department-level ethical leadership were associated with the group's
perceptions of value congruence with the supervisor and the organization and the group's
level of deviance. The group-level variables in this research were created by aggregating
the individual-level data to compute the mean ratings for each department. The Pearson-
product moment correlations showed moderately-sized correlations between department-
level ethical leadership and individual-level value congruence with supervisor (r = .495, p
= .061) and individual-level value congruence with the organization (r = .460, p = .085).
However, neither correlation was statistically significant at the p < .05 level of
significance because there were only 15 departments in the sample. Both correlations
would have been statistically significant at the p < .05 level with only 1 additional
observation, however. However, the better analysis method using This suggests that the
data offers some support for the proposition that a department's culture or climate for
ethical leadership influences individuals' perceptions of value congruence. In general,
workers in a department perceived greater value congruence with the supervisor and the
organization as their perceptions of the departments ethical leadership culture increased.
The culture and climate literature also supports the idea that ethical leadership at
the departmental level may group-level deviance in a department. However, the mean
91
ratings for interpersonal deviance acts by the respondent were low for all departments
and the differences among the departments were not statistically significant (p = .580).
Similarly, mean ratings of perceived organizational deviance acts by coworkers were low
and the differences in means across the department were not statistically significant (p =
.839). Given this lack of variability across departments on deviance and ethical
leadership ratings, not surprisingly there was no statistically significant relationship
between the mean scores on ethical leadership and interpersonal deviance by the
respondent (r = -.314, p = .255) or organizational deviance by coworkers (r = -.310, p =
.260). Once again, the small sample size for this group-level data caused relatively large
correlations of around -.31 to not be statistically significant. However, if the correlation
of comparable size were found for larger samples of at least 40 observations, they would
have been statistically significant.
In terms of exploratory analyses, when the data were aggregated to the group
level (department level), there was a statistically significant correlation between value
congruence with the supervisor and value congruence with the organization (r = .690, p =
.004). This suggests that respondents, when aggregated to the department level, did not
see a large difference between their two types of value congruence. If one was low, the
other was low, and vice versa.
To summarize, the department-level correlations did not provide statistically
significant evidence that ethical leadership (at the department level) influences either
value congruence or deviance behaviors.
92
Multilevel Analyses
OLS regression and Pearson-product moment correlations showed statistically
significant relationships between department-level measures of ethical leadership and
value congruence with the supervisor and the organization measured at the level of the
individual. However, the better analytic method is to use multilevel restricted maximum
likelihood techniques. Although many different multilevel analyses were conducted,
including analyses based on Poisson distributions of the interpersonal and organizational
deviance dependent variables, there were no statistically significant relationships between
ethical leadership at the department level and value congruence and deviance behaviors at
the individual level of analysis when analyzed using restricted maximum likelihood
estimation in HLM 6. Thus, this data does not show there to be any relationship between
departmental ethical leadership and individuals' value congruence or acts of deviance.
However, it should be noted that the relationships between ethical leadership in a
department and value congruence approached statistical significance. The relationship
with acts of deviance never approached statistical significance, however.
The failure to find a relationship between ethical leadership and interpersonal and
organizational deviance behaviors may be partly explained by the low reported frequency
of both types of deviance. Most respondents reported very seldom or never engaging in
acts of deviance themselves or having observed acts of deviance by coworkers. Thus,
there was little variance in deviance that could be explained by ethical leadership
differences. Arguably, ethical leadership might have caused these low base rates. Given
the cross-sectional data collected in this study, it is not possible to tell whether ethical
93
leadership in the departments caused these low rates of deviance. A longitudinal study
would be necessary to investigate this question.
Future Research and Limitations
Although not hypothesized in advance, statistically significant correlations were
found between an individual's perceived value congruence with the supervisor and
perceived value congruence with the organization. This suggests a variety of different
possible explanations, such as supervisors and employees are both influenced by the
organization's values, or that the organization influences supervisors' values who in turn
influence employees' values. Future research could investigate the nature of the
relationship between these types of value congruence. This finding indicates that the two
types of value congruence are related constructs, although they can be distinguished from
each other (i.e., show discriminant validity).
In addition, as discussed in Chapter 4, another statistically significant correlation
was found between the two types of deviance. This is not surprising given that deviance
in general is the overarching construct and the two types of deviance are simply more
specific sub-constructs of deviance. This finding supports prior research showing that
two types of deviance can be distinguished from each other (or discriminant validity), yet
are related, not independent, dimensions. However, this also suggests that work needs to
be done to refine the measures of the distinctly different types of deviance behaviors. As
mentioned, perhaps the scales should separate extreme acts of deviance, like theft or drug
use, from minor acts of deviance, like being rude or conducting personal business on
company time.
94
Concerns about ethics and leadership have dominated the headlines about
business. There are reasons to believe that there is a relationship between ethical
leadership, value congruence, and deviance at the departmental, aggregated level. Thus,
ethical leadership within a department might create a culture or climate that influences
individuals in the department, both in terms of their value congruence and their deviance
behaviors. However, the sample size was quite small in this research study, with only 15
departments, so future research should use larger samples.
And lastly, future research may indicate the usefulness to better understand the
causes of group differences as a component of culture and climate. In its cultural
dimension, the essence of leadership (ethical and / or transformational) is in actions that
create cultures characterized by internal harmony around values and ideals which the
leader and follower share (value congruence), or come to share. Kouzes and Posner's
(1995) research suggests that even the perceptions of a person's overall leadership
effectiveness is correlated with people's trust in that leader. Leadership and trust culture
development takes place between people who choose to work together because they share
common values, goals, methods, or other interpersonal relationships (Fairholm &
Fairholm, 2000; Kouzes & Posner, 1995).
95
APPENDIX A
Cover Letter
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY
School of Business & Technology
Dear BJH Colleagues:
Hi! My name is Patrick Goodenough. I am a doctoral student at Webster
University in Saint Louis, Missouri. I am conducting an exploratory research study to
better understand perceptions of ethical leadership and employee values related to
managers and the hospital. Your participation is voluntary and there are no consequences
if you do not wish to participate.
This research study presents no risk to participants. The study will require
participants to express their opinions on perceptions of ethical leadership and values
associated with managers and the hospital in general. All surveys used in this research
study have been determined to be valid and reliable measurements and were used in prior
research, to include other health care organizations.
The expected benefits of the study will add value to the discipline of leadership,
management, and organizational behavior literature; and completion of my degree
program. There are no direct benefits to the participants.
Would you please take a few moments to respond to the questions on the attached
survey? The survey questionnaires will require approximately 15 minutes of your time to
complete. All survey responses will remain strictly confidential. Returned survey
responses will be kept by me in a secured area. The hospital will only receive aggregate
96
data results of the study. (Please do not write your name or department's name
anywhere on the survey or the envelope).
When you have finished completing the survey, please place the survey in the
envelope, seal the envelope, and then place the envelope in the Lock Box located in your
department / staff area. Please complete the survey as soon as possible but no later
than one week after distribution of the survey packets.
You are invited to contact me directly if you wish to discuss any issues related to
this research, or with questions not addressed within the survey but relevant to the
research project. If you are interested in the findings of the research, please notify me,
and I will gladly send a summary of the results to you. I can be reached via email at
plg6143@,bic.org. by telephone at 314-362-0407 (work), or at
[email protected], by telephone at 314-362-0407 (home), or by mail at 7945
Westover Place, University City, Missouri 63130.
Thank you for your thoughtful cooperation.
Sincerely,
Patrick L. Goodenough, MBA Senior Financial Analyst Finance Department Barnes-Jewish Hospital
97
APPENDIX B
Perceived Ethical Leadership Scale
Administration
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department.
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
Perceptions of Ethical Leadership Scale
Items
My supervisor:
Listens to what employees have to say.
Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards.
Conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner.
Has the best interests of employees in mind.
Makes fair and balanced decisions.
Can be trusted.
Discusses business ethics or values with employees.
Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics.
Defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained.
When making decisions, asks "what is the right thing to do?"
Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly
Agree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Source: Ethical Leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Michael E. Brown, Linda K. Trevino, David A. Harrison (2004)
98
APPENDIX C
Perceived Ethical Leadership Scale
Nursing
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department.
Please indicate which floor you work on:
Floor:
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
Perceptions of Ethical Leadership Scale
Items
My supervisor:
Listens to what employees have to say.
Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards.
Conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner.
Has the best interests of employees in mind.
Makes fair and balanced decisions.
Can be trusted.
Discusses business ethics or values with employees.
Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics.
Defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained.
When making decisions, asks "what is the right thing to do?"
Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly
Agree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Source: Ethical Leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Michael E. Brown, Linda K. Trevino, David A. Harrison (2004)
99
APPENDIX D
Perceived Values Congruence Scale
Administration - Individual Level
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department.
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree
Perceived Values Congruence Scale Individual Level
Items
If the values of my supervisor were different, I would not be as attached to rny supervisor.
My attachment to my supervisor is primarily based on the similarity of my values and those represented by my supervisor.
Since starting this job, my personal values and those of my supervisor, have become more similar.
The reason I prefer my supervisor to others is because of what he or she stands for, that is his or her values.
Strongly Disagree
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Neutral
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
Strongly Agree
7
7
7
7
Source: Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Becker, T. E , Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Academy of Management, 39, 2.
100
APPENDIX E
Perceived Values Congruence Scale
Nursing - Individual Level
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department.
Please indicate which floor you work on:
Floor:
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 - strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree
Perceived Values Congruence Scale Individual Level
Items
If the values of my supervisor were different, I would not be as attached to my supervisor.
My attachment to my supervisor is primarily based on the similarity of my values and those represented by my supervisor.
Since starting this job, my personal values and those of my supervisor, have become more similar.
The reason I prefer my supervisor to others is because of what he or she stands for, that is his or her values.
Strongly Disagree
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Neutral
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
Strongly Agree
7
7
7
7
Source: Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Academy of Management, 39,2.
101
APPENDIX F
Perceived Values Congruence Scale
Administration - Organizational Level
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate youi* name or department.
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree
Perceived Values Congruence Scale Organization Level
Items
If the values of the organization were different, I would not be as attached to this organization.
My attachment to the organization is primarily based on the similarity of my values and those represented by the organization.
Since starting this job, my personal values and those of the organization, have become more similar.
The reason I prefer this organization to others is because of what it stands for, that is its values.
Strongly Disagree
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Neutral
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
Strongly Agree
7
7
7
7
Source: Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M, & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Academy of Management, 39, 2.
102
APPENDIX G
Perceived Values Congruence Scale
Nursing - Organizational Level
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department.
Please indicate which floor you work on:
Floor:
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree
Perceived Values Congruence Scale Organization Level
Items
If the values of the organization were different, I would not be as attached to this organization.
My attachment to the organization is primarily based on the similarity of my values and those represented by the organization.
Since starting this job, my personal values and those of the organization, have become more similar.
The reason I prefer this organization to others is because of what it stands for, that is its values.
Strongly Disagree
x
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Neutral
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
Strongly Agree
7
7
7
7
Source: Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M„ & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Academy of Management, 39,2.
103
APPENDIX H
Perceived Workplace Deviance Scale
Administration - Interpersonal Level
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department.
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = never, 7 = daily
Perceived Interpersonal Deviance Scale
Items
I have: Made fun of someone at work.
Said something hurtful to someone at work.
Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work.
Cursed at someone at work.
Played a mean prank on someone at work.
Acted rudely toward someone at work.
Publicly embarrassed someone at work.
Never Daily
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Source: Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85(3), pp. 349-360.
104
APPENDIX I
Perceived Workplace Deviance Scale
Nursing - Interpersonal Level
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department.
Please indicate which floor you work on:
Floor:
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = never, 7 = daily
Perceived Interpersonal Deviance Scale
Items
I have: Made fun of someone at work.
Said something hurtful to someone at work.
Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work.
Cursed at someone at work.
Played a mean prank on someone at work.
Acted rudely toward someone at work.
Publicly embarrassed someone at work.
Never Daily
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Source: Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85(3), pp. 349-360.
105
APPENDIX J
Perceived Workplace Deviance Scale
Administration - Organizational Level
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department.
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = never, 7 = daily
Perceived Organizational Deviance Scale
Items
I have observed co-workers: Taking property from work without permission.
Spending too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working.
Falsifying a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses.
Taking an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace.
Come in late to work without permission.
Litter their work environment.
Neglecting to follow your boss's instructions.
Intentionally working slower than you would have worked.
Discussing confidential company information with an unauthorized person.
Using an illegal drug or consuming alcohol on the job.
Put little effort into their work.
Drag out work in order to get overtime.
Never Daily
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Source: Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85(3), pp. 349-360.
106
APPENDIX K
Perceived Workplace Deviance Scale
Nursing - Organizational Level
Please respond to the following survey questions. Please DO NOT indicate your name or department
Please indicate which floor you work on:
Floor:
Using the following measurement scale, select (circle) the appropriate response, which indicates how much you agree with each statement. Measurement scale: 1 = never, 7 = daily
Perceived Organizational Deviance Scale
Items
I have observed co-workers: Taking property from work without permission.
Spending too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working.
Falsifying a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses.
Taking an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace.
Come in late to work without permission.
Litter dieir work environment.
Neglecting to follow your boss's instructions.
Intentionally working slower than you would have worked.
Discussing confidential company information with an unauthorized person.
Using an illegal drug or consuming alcohol on the job.
Put little effort into their work.
Drag out work in order to get overtime.
Never Daily
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Source: Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 85(3), pp. 349-360.
107
APPENDIX L
IRB Authorizations, Consent Forms, and Letters of Approval
Barnes-Jewish Hospital Research Council Approval Letter
Barnes-Jewish Hospital Patient Care Services Approval Letter
Webster University Institutional Review Board Approval Letter
Barnes-Jewish Hospital Human Resource Database Collection Approval Letter
Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Review Board Approval Letter
108
BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL
Research Council Approval Letter
August 27, 2007
Patrick Lawrence Goodenough Doctoral Student
Webster University, School of Business and Technology
Dear Patrick,
Thank you for forwarding your proposal, "Ethical Leadership, Values
Congruence, and Workplace Deviance: An exploratory Study" to the Research Council.
Members of the research council have completed an administrative and scientific review
of the proposal. Your proposal has been approved to be forwarded to Washington
University Human Research Protection Office for expedited review.
Since you are a student, I will sign as the Department Chairperson. Good luck
with this interesting and important study.
Sincerely,
Margaret S. Ulione, PhD, RN Director, Center for Research Excellence
109
BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL
Patient Care Services Approval Letter
August 8, 2007
To: Nicholas DiMarco, Ph.D., Disquisition Committee Chair John P. Orr, Ph.D., Director Doctor of Management Program Webster University Institutional Review Board
RE: Approval of Research Study
My name is Coreen Vlodarchyk, Vice President Patient Care Services / CNE for
Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Patrick L. Goodenough is a Sr. Financial Analyst in the B JH
Finance Department. On behalf*of the hospital, I have reviewed Patrick's disquisition
proposal, which is titled: Ethical Leadership, Values Congruence, and Work Place
Deviance: An Exploratory Study.
I am hereby give permission for Patrick to conduct the above doctoral research
study at the hospital pending the approval of the hospital Research Council and
Washington University Institutional Review Board.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Coreen Vlodarchyk Vice President, Patient Care Services / CNE Barnes-Jewish Hospital (314)362-6119 (314) 362-5213 Fax
110
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY
Institutional Review Board Approval Letter
"Webster U N I V E R S I T Y
W O R L D W I D E
Office of Academic Affairs
September 6, 2007
TO: Patrick Goodenough
FROM: Stephanie Sehroeder, Chair, Institutional Review Board
RE: Ethical Leadership, Values Congruence, and Work Place Deviance: An Exploratory Study. Form 1040 EZ-S Research Project
STATUS: Approved
NOTES:
• The IRB Proposal Number for this research project is FA07-03
• All forms submitted to the Committee for review must be utilized in the study. Any changes must be accompanied with a "Project Change Form."
• The proposal has been approved through December 2007. You are required to submit a summary of your findings upon completion or anytime requested. (Refer to End-Of-Project Form and Periodic Review). You may reapply for a project extension if needed.
Stephanie Sehroeder, Assistant Professor Chair, Institutional Review Board
v.websier.edu P: 314-968-6962 F: 314-968-5938/7076
470 EAST LOCKWOOD AVENUE SAINT LOUIS, MO 63119-3194 USA
Austria I People's Republic of China ! England I Japan I The Netherlands I Switzerland I Thailand I USA
111
BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL
Human Resource Approval Letter for Database Collection
October 17,2007
To: Human Research Protection Office (HRPO), Washington University in St. Louis Margaret S. Ulione, PhD, RN, Director, Center for Research Excellence BJH
RE: E07-85 HRPO Approval for the Collection of Information from the HR Database
My name is John Beatty, Vice President of Human Resources for Barnes-Jewish
Hospital. Patrick L. Goodenough is a Sr. Financial Analyst in the BJH Finance
Department. On behalf of the hospital, I have reviewed Patrick's research study, which is
titled: Ethical Leadership, Values Congruence, and Work Place Deviance: An
Exploratory Study.
I hereby give permission for Patrick to collect information from the Human
Resource's database.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
John Beatty Vice President, Human Resources Barnes-Jewish Hospital (314)362-7521 (314) 747-8809 Fax
112
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Institutional Review Board Approval Letter
iWashingDnUniversilyinStlDuis Human Research Protection Office FWA.00002284 Barnes Jewish Hospital
St. Louis Children's Hospital Washington University
October 24,2007
Patrick Goodenough Finance Department Campus Box 90-68-102
RE: Project Title: "Ethical Leadership, Values Congruence and Work Place Deviance: Ah Exploratory Study" HRPO Number: E07-85 Funding Source: None Stated
The above-referenced project was reviewed and approved by the Washington University Human Research Protection Office (HRPO) according to the terms and conditions described below.
Project Approval Date: October 22, 2007 Project Expiration Date: October 21,2008 - - -Type of Review: New Expedited Expedited Category: 7
HRPO complies with federal regulations contained in 45 CFR 46, which allows an IRB to use expedited review for research which presents no more than minimal risk to human participants and involves one or more of the categories approved for expedited review. All actions and recommendations approved under expedited review are reported to a convened IRB as required by federal regulations.
You are reminded that by receiving approval to conduct this research, you are expected to comply with the HRPO Project Director's Statement of Responsibility (located at http://hrDQ.wustl.edu/).
Changes in research procedures or the consent document must be approved prior to implementation of the changes. Please allow 4 weeks review of any changes.
According to federal regulations, this project requires continuing review by the IRB. Prior to the project expiration date indicated above, you are required to complete either a Continuation Request or Final Report. Forms are on the HRPO web site URL provided above. Please include the HRPO number and project title in all future correspondence.
If you have any questions, please contact the HRPO at 633-7479 or [email protected].
Sincerely, O^ Philip A. Ludbrook, M.D. Sandra S.'Hale, Ph.D. Associate Dean & Executive Chair, HRPO Chair, Behavioral Minimal Risk Subcommittee
HRPO: 660 South Euclid Ave., Campus Box 808», St. Louis, MO 63110 Phone: (314) 633-7400, FAX: (314) 367-3041
113
REFERENCES
Akaah, I. P. (1992). Social inclusion as a marketing ethics correlate. Journal of Business Ethics, 11,599-608.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexamining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly: Spring 1993; 17, 1.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, R L. (1996). Foci and bases for employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-482.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.
114
Bickel, Robert (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Schriescheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel methods in leadership: The articles, the model, the dataset. Leadership Quarterly, 13,3-14.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554-571.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martine, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558-583.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring ethical leadership: Development of an instrument: Academy of Management Proceedings, 2002, pp D1-D6.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97,117-134.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Campbell, C. (2004). A longitudinal study of one organization's culture: Do values endure? Mid-American Journal of Business, 19, 2.
Ciulla, J. (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Colvin, G. (2003). Corporate crooks are not all created equal. Fortune, October, 27, 64.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145-179.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 127-145.
115
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., et al. (1999). Culturally specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219-256.
Denison, D. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, 619-654.
Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., and Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 850-863.
Dilman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.
Drucker, P. (1988). Management and the world's work. Harvard Business Review, 66, 65-76.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744.
Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. (2000). Leadership amid the constraints of trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 1/2,102-109.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53.
Freeman, R. E., Gilbert, D. R., & Hartman, E. (1988). Values and the foundations of strategic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 821-835.
Guillen, M., & Gonzalez, T. F. (2001). The ethical dimensions of managerial leadership: Two illustrative case studies in TQM. Journal of Business Ethics, 34 (3-4), 175-189.
Giacolone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Behavior in organizations: Understanding and managing the human side of work. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
116
Hofstede, G. (1998a). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organizational Studies, 19(3): 477-492.
Hollinger, R. C, & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and Employee Deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7, 53-75.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 213-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6, 43-54.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.
Kanungo, R., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
117
Khuntia, R. & Suar, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leadership of Indian private and public sector managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 49 (1), 13-26.
Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,36-51.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowksi, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211-236.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). State and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133-152.
Luke, Douglas, A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Mayer, R. C , Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1989). Individual values in organizations: concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351-389.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C , & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the values congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.
Mehta, S. (2003). MCI: Is being good good enough? Fortune, 27, 117-124.
118
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Duffy, M. K., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Construct confusion in the study of antisocial behavior at work. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18,275-303.
O'Connor, J. A., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C , Gessner, T. E., & Connelly, M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: A historiometric study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529-555.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-974.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). New Work: Academic Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (Spring 1992). Values and the American manager: An update updated. California Management Review, 34, 3; 80-94.
Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Revell, J. (2003). The fires that won't go out. Fortune, 13, 139.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestation, and its causes. Research on Negotiations in Organizations, 6, 3-27.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseay (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1-23). New York: Wiley.
Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658-672.
119
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rost, J. C. (1995). Leadership: A discussion about ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 129-139
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shamir, B. (1999). Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 555-662.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivation effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4,1-17.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superior's evaluation of leader's performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 387-409.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J., L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Solomon, R. (1999). A better way to think about business: How personal integrity leads to corporate success. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Stodgill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire -Form XII. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43,178-190.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.
120
Trevino, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17, 647-676.
Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1992). The social implications of punishing unethical behavior: Observers' cognitive and affective reactions. Journal of Management, 18,4.
Trevino, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 55, 5-37.
Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. B., & McCabe, D. L., (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8,447-476.
Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (1999). Executive Ethical Leadership: Ethics Officers' Perspectives. Presented at Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 47', 128-142.
Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G., R. (2003). Managing ethics in business organizations: Social scientific perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L., "Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What Works and What Hurts," California Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, Winter 1999.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,304-311.
Tyler, T., R. (1986). The psychology of leadership evaluation. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relationships. NY: Plenum.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 201-246.
Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,482-497.
121
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,525-531.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization Science, 7, 151-165.
Waters, J. A., & Bird, F. (1987). The moral dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 1; 15-22.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organization. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.
122