(Un)Ethical Leadership and Identity: What Did We Learnand Where Do We Go from Here?

Samuel T. Hunter

Published online: 4 April 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The purpose of this article is to highlight and

comment on the key findings emerging from the collective

efforts of the special issue on leadership, ethics, and iden-

tity. Highlights include definitional advancements, pro-

cesses comprising ethical leadership, as well as outcomes

and moderating factors. In addition, I attempt to synthesize

work across authors by identifying common themes as well

as conflicting elements in the article. I conclude with a

discussion on emerging areas in need of future research

investigation in the leadership and ethics arena.

Keywords Leadership � Ethics � Summary � Unethical

Introduction

The aim of this special issue was to solicit manuscripts

centering on leadership, ethics, and identity. The call was

successful on a number of levels, resulting in a collection

of article that range and differ in foci, styles, methods,

samples, and cultural emphasis. The aim of this article,

then, is to highlight the unique contributions of each of

these efforts, touching on what each has to say with regard

to the important topics underlying the special issue. I will

also identify common and conflicting themes emerging

from the whole of these efforts before concluding with a

more critical discussion of where gaps still exist and how

we might move forward to fill them. In direct terms I aim to

highlight, synthesize, and identify areas that warrant future

investigation. I begin, then, with highlights.

Highlights Across Contributions

To provide some level of structure in my attempt to sum-

marize and highlight findings across the diverse set of

articles comprising the special issue, I will begin by noting

the definitional issues touched on in several manuscripts,

move the discussion toward the processes involved in

ethical leadership, comment briefly on moderating influ-

ences of ethical leadership and conclude the summary

portion with a note on the outcomes of ethical leadership. I

start with definitional issues surrounding ethical leadership

and identity.

Defining Ethical and Unethical Leadership

Unal et al. (2012) provide the most direct discussion of the

challenges surrounding defining ethical leadership, although

it should be acknowledged that all manuscripts touch on the

issue to varying degrees. The most cited definition in the

leadership literature appears to have been put forth by

Brown et al. (2005) who define 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’’ (p.

117). A similar, albeit shorter, definition is offered by Unal

and co-authors who define unethical leadership as ‘‘super-

visor behaviors that violate moral standards’’. Grounded in

both of these definitions (and others) is a key point that

warrants specific note. Namely, that the definition of ethical

leadership is best characterized as a dynamic entity—a

moving target. More directly, the norms regarding what

defines ethical or unethical behavior can and do change.

Thus, what constitutes ethical leadership at one point in time

may vary by both timeframe and entity (i.e., organization or

S. T. Hunter (&)

Pennsylvania State University, 111 Moore Building,

State College, PA 16823, USA

e-mail: samhunter@psu.edu

123

J Bus Ethics (2012) 107:79–87

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1301-y

group) under consideration. Unal and co-authors argue that

this normative grounding is necessary for the area of

research to move forward, and while I agree, I do think the

shifting nature of the definitions we are building this area of

research upon may provide their own share of interesting

challenges in the future. I will comment a bit more on this

issue later in the article.

Also noted extensively by Unal and colleagues is the

issue of construct overlap or, framed more critically, the

potential for construct proliferation. Directly, there is rea-

sonable debate around whether ethical leadership is an

incrementally unique construct or simply represents a form

of ‘‘old wine in new bottles.’’ Interestingly, Brown and

Trevino (2006) touched on similar issues in their recent

review of ethical leadership, yet the authors decided to take

an approach that differs, at least on the surface, subtly from

Unal and colleagues. That is, although Unal and colleagues

discuss unethical leadership, Brown and Trevino (2006)

and others have tended to focus on ethical leadership,

noting the distinctions and overlap among similar con-

structs such as spiritual leadership, authentic leadership,

and transformational leadership. Unal and co-authors, in

contrast, discuss the differences between unethical leader-

ship and constructs such as abusive supervision (Tepper

2000), petty tyranny (Ashforth 1997) and bullying (Hoel

et al. 2001), among others. Both approaches are well

grounded in theory and contribute substantively to the

leadership literature. The two foci, however, are notably

unique and their divergence from one another broaches the

question of whether we should focus on promoting ethical

leadership, identifying and stopping unethical leadership,

or both.

Processes of Ethical Leadership

Defining ethical or unethical leadership is certainly a nec-

essary beginning, yet for a richer understanding of the

construct we must also begin to investigate the processes,

activities, and mechanisms comprising ethical leadership

(Bass and Bass 2009). This is where, as I see it, the special

issue makes its most sizable and substantive contribution to

the literature, with the majority of articles touching on the

unique and varying processes comprising ethical leadership.

Avey et al. (2012), for example, provide an interesting

meditational model of ethical leadership where ethical

behaviors impact two outcomes, employee well-being and

job satisfaction, vis-a-vis unique mediating factors. Spe-

cifically, for the outcome of psychological well-being, the

proposed mediating construct is employee voice, while the

relationship between ethical leadership and job satisfaction

is mediated by feelings of employee ownership. Tested

across more than 800 working adults, there was solid evi-

dence in support of the hypothesized relationships.

Although there are a number of interesting propositions

and findings put forth by Avey and colleagues, I would like

to comment specifically on the differing mediating factors

observed for the two outcomes investigated. As Avey and

colleagues illustrate, ethical leadership exhibits a rather

complex pattern of influences on key organizational out-

comes. More directly, depending on the outcome of inter-

est, ethical leadership may impact that outcome through

varying and diverse mechanisms. Key here, it seems, is to

acknowledge that how ethical leadership impacts organi-

zational criteria may depend largely on the outcome we are

interested in.

In an effort somewhat similar to Avey et al. (2012) and

Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) examined employee

engagement as a mediator between ethical leadership and a

unique form of organizational citizenship behavior (i.e.,

employee initiative) as well as counterproductive work

behaviors. Whereas Avey et al. (2012) present a dual

mediator model of ethical leadership, the article by Den

Hartog and Belschak (2012) offer a moderated mediation

model to illustrate the complexity characterizing ethical

leadership influences. Drawing on surface acting literature,

the authors propose that inauthentic behavior, measured via

Machiavellianism, serves as a moderator in the proposed

mediation model. In essence, the authors suggest that

behaving in an ethical manner is less effective if the leader

is seen as inauthentic. Conversely, leaders who are more

authentic have greater sway as ethical leaders.

Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) test their moderated

mediation model across two studies and find strong support

for their propositions. I encourage the reader to examine

the article for a more in-depth discussion of their hypoth-

eses and theoretical rationale. I will, however, comment on

a finding I see as particularly noteworthy to this broader

discussion. First, as noted in the paragraph above, the

authors proposed and found that behaving ethically influ-

enced employee engagement that, in turn, influenced the

aforementioned outcomes. The process (i.e., meditational)

model is especially interesting in that behaving ethically

may serve as a motivating influence to subordinates. Much

like constructs of charisma or the inspirational motivation

facet of transformational leadership (Bass and Steidlmeier

1999), ethical leaders are likely to be admired and

respected by followers. This, as evidenced by the findings

across both samples, gives them the capacity to inspire

greater levels of engagement in their work. Akin to the

‘‘moral manager’’ label put forth by Trevino et al. (2000),

this perspective is somewhat unique from the more direct

ethical role-modeling approach, where an ethical leader

provides indications as to which behaviors are appropriate

or inappropriate in a given organization. The framework

offered by Den Hartog and Belshack, in contrast, illustrates

the more wide-spread influences ethical leadership might

80 S. T. Hunter

123

have on followers. That is, ethical leaders do more than

show followers what is right or wrong—if they behave

authentically, they are also able to have greater influence

over subordinates because they are operating ethically.

Turning now to the third manuscript to center on the

processes comprising ethical leadership, Thiel et al. (2012)

break from the pattern established by the two manuscripts

discussed above and provide some guidance on the ante-

cedents driving ethical decision-making. That is, whereas

Avey et al. (2012) and Den Hartog and Belschack (2012)

describe the mediating factors shaping how ethical lead-

ership impacts organizational outcomes, Thiel et al. (2012)

outline the processes that shape whether ethical, or

unethical, leadership occurs. Utilizing a sensemaking

perspective as a theoretical framework, Thiel and co-

authors provide a cognitively centered ethical decision-

making model. The focus of the article, moreover, is to

provide a number of trainable strategies that may be uti-

lized by leaders as a means to improve ethical decision-

making.

The sensemaking approach to ethical leadership taken

by the authors is a unique and interesting tact to take in

understanding why leaders do or do not behave ethically.

Differing from the other manuscripts in the special issue,

the sensemaking framework expressly acknowledges the

ill-defined nature of ethical dilemmas faced by leaders.

Moreover, the approach breaks away from rational deci-

sion-making approaches that often apply post hoc ration-

alist explanations for why decisions were made. The

sensemaking framework, instead, concedes that leaders

often apply intuitive judgments when attempting to make

moral decisions. Also somewhat unique to the sensemaking

approach is the proposition that ethical decision-making is

contingent upon the leader’s mental model as well as their

understanding of the situation. More directly, leaders that

do not recognize an ethical dilemma are unlikely to address

the issue appropriately. This acknowledgement is inter-

esting from a process perspective in that it provides prac-

titioners with a reasonable starting point for developing

trainable skill-sets and strategies to improve ethical deci-

sion-making.

Finally, the work of Koning and Waistell (2012)

examine a number of process-oriented constructs—most

notably the issues of identity and time. Utilizing a case-

study approach, the authors examined one Chinese busi-

nessman operating in Indonesia as he makes a transition

from keeping religion and business-decisions wholly sep-

arate in his life, to integrating the two by using religion to

guide business practice. In this transition, the authors

propose that the leader has become more ethically minded,

drawing on religion as a moral code to drive ethical deci-

sion-making in his organization. The article by Koning and

Waistell is noteworthy for a number of reasons, but perhaps

most critical to the discussion here in that it describes in

great detail the aforementioned transition taken by a

business leader. The case-study approach, albeit one that

was integrated with a number of other interviews with

additional businessmen, permits rich discussion and

description, supplementing the more quantitatively driven

articles in the special issue.

Outcomes of Ethical Leadership

Turning now to the outcomes investigated, the immediate

observation is that they vary substantially across manu-

scripts. Thiel et al. (2012) for example, frame ethical

decision-making itself, as the primary outcome of interest

in their article. Contrast this with the study of Avey et al.

(2012) who examined more traditional organizational

constructs such as psychological well-being and job satis-

faction, while Den Hartog and Belshack (2012) examined

employee initiative and counterproductive work behavior.

At a broad level, the efforts of the special issue suggest

that behaving ethically benefits a wide range of organiza-

tional outcomes. That is, the sole outcome of ethical

leadership is not, simply, ethical actions or role-modeling

on the part of a leader and follower. Rather, leaders who

operate in an ethical manner produce more satisfied and

happy employees who are less likely to behave in coun-

terproductive ways. The pattern of findings in these articles

is consistent with the review by Brown and Mitchell (2010)

who note that ethical leadership is related to employee

commitment, willingness to report problems, willingness to

put in extra hours and positive perceptions of work climate.

At more macro levels of analysis, ethical leadership has

also been associated with perceptions of task significance

and follower effort as well as top management team

effectiveness (De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008). On the

whole, such findings underscore the central theme that

ethical leadership produces a wide range of complex ben-

efits to organizations.

Moderating Factors

Having touched on the definitions of ethical leadership, the

processes comprising it, as well as the outcomes of ethical

leader behavior, I will comment briefly on the moderating

factors shaping the conditions under which ethical leader-

ship will be more or less effective in impacting key orga-

nizational outcomes. The article that addressed this point

most directly was Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) who

examined inauthentic behavior, quantified as Machiavel-

lianism, as a moderator in their proposed model. This

finding was one of the more interesting in the special issue

in that it reveals the subtle nature of behaving ethically. It

(Un)Ethical Leadership and Identity 81

123

is not enough, it seems, to simply engage in displays of

ethical or moral behavior. Instead, a leader must do so in a

way that is perceived as genuine or part of their core

identity. The authors were able to demonstrate that sub-

ordinates can pick up on these subtle differences and that it

impacts how engaged employees are in their work.

Emergent Themes

Stepping back a bit and considering the aggregate of the

special issue, it is apparent that several common themes tie

the contributions together. While engaging in this attempt at

synthesis, however, it became clear that each article takes a

somewhat unique approach to the study and conceptuali-

zation of ethical and unethical leadership. These unique

approaches were sometimes complementary, adding and

extending to the other articles in the special issue. Other

times, the articles seemingly conflicted with one another on

a number of conceptual levels. I will begin, then, by con-

sidering three common themes across articles before

acknowledging the conflicts and diverging viewpoints.

Common Themes

Complexity

The first emergent theme is one of complexity. From defi-

nitional issues raised by Unal et al. (2012) to the role of

religion in ethical leadership (Koning and Waistell 2012) it

is clear that ethical and unethical leadership are complex

phenomena. The point is underscored by Den Hartog and

Belschak (2012) and Avey et al. (2012) who took a seem-

ingly similar approach to understanding ethical leadership

by developing and testing process (i.e., meditational) models

within applied settings. Despite the similar approaches,

unique mediators and outcomes were examined with strong

empirical support being observed for models in each study,

respectively. Finally, Thiel et al. (2012) note the complex

cognitive and contextual factors driving ethical decision-

making. On the whole, then, each article acknowledges in

its own unique way that what is ethical leadership and how

it impacts organizational outcomes is hardly a simple

phenomenon.

Importance of Ethical Leadership

Despite high levels of complexity, each article in the special

issue highlighted the fundamental importance of the

research area. Den Hartog and Belschack (2012), for

example, demonstrated that ethical leadership can result in

greater employee initiative as well as reduced counterpro-

ductive work behaviors. In a distinctly different fashion

Koning and Waistell (2012) demonstrated just how strongly

a focus on religion and morality can impact decision-

making in business settings. Underlying all of the articles is

the argument that leaders who operate unethically can sig-

nificantly and substantively harm their organizations. More

positively framed, those leaders who operate ethically have

the potential to shape attitudes and behaviors in beneficial

ways. The study of ethical leadership, it seems, is a valuable

endeavor worthy of growing research attention.

Criticality of Process

The final emergent theme across articles is the importance

of process in understanding ethical leadership. I was

impressed with the commitment to rich conceptual devel-

opment in each article aimed at not only identifying

important outcomes of ethical leadership, but also the fac-

tors driving the occurrence of it (e.g., Thiel et al. 2012) as

well as the activities comprising it. Based on the findings of

this special issue, ethical leadership impacts organizational

outcomes by making employees more engaged, permitting

them greater expression of voice, and increasing psycho-

logical ownership (Avey et al. 2012; Den Hartog and

Belschack 2012). Choices on ethical decisions, moreover,

seem to be driven by an understanding of the context filtered

through a leader’s mental model (Thiel et al. 2012). Finally,

the shift from unethical to ethical leader can result from a

key relationship or event occurring in their lives (Koning

and Waistell 2012). The clearly emergent theme is that we

have moved beyond simply suggesting ethical leadership is

a positive phenomenon for organizations. As the articles

demonstrate quite well, we have begun to understand how

and why this occurs.

Conflicting Themes

In addition to the more common themes emerging from the

collection of articles, there are a number of noteworthy

conflicts as well. I will discuss three of these apparent

conflicts: 1) ethical versus unethical leadership, 2) stable

versus dynamic definitions, and 3) rational versus intuitive

decision-making.

Ethical Versus Unethical Leadership

Mentioned briefly earlier in the article, Unal et al. (2012)

chose to focus on the normative foundations of unethical

leadership. This framing stands in contrast to the focus on

ethical leadership more commonly found in the literature

(e.g., Brown and Trevino 2006; Trevino et al. 2000; Sha-

ubroeck et al. in press). Interestingly, the articles in this

special issue tended to emphasize ethical rather than

unethical leadership—with the exception, of course, of the

82 S. T. Hunter

123

study by Unal and co-authors. There is some evidence that

the antecedents of ethical leadership are not merely the

absence or polar opposites of those that drive unethical

leadership. Instead, there may be a unique set of antecedents

for each framing. For example, Tepper et al. (2006) utilized

social exchange theory to explain why leaders’ increased

feelings of powerlessness led to more aggressive behavior

directed at subordinates. There is no current research evi-

dence, however, to suggest that higher levels of power-

lessness would result in greater ethical leadership.

Similarly, although there has been relatively little work

done on the antecedents of ethical leadership (see Brown

and Mitchell 2010 for a discussion) there is some indication,

for example, that personality traits such as agreeableness

and conscientiousness are predictive of ethical behavior

(Walumba and Shaubroeck 2009). It seems that other per-

sonality traits, in contrast, would be more predictive of

unethical leadership. In one of the few cases examining both

frameworks simultaneously, Detert et al. (2007) found that

abusive supervision—but not ethical leadership—was

related to counterproductive work behavior.

The question that emerges, then, is which framing

warrants the collective focus of leadership scholars? That

is, if one chooses to study ethicality and leadership, which

characterization should be chosen as a theoretical frame-

work? The little evidence that exists suggests that both are

important, given their unique relationships with organiza-

tional outcomes. Although admittedly speculative, given

the present state of the literature I presently see greater

value in a focus on unethical behavior given the potential

for harmful outcomes that may occur as a result. There is

an old Russian proverb that says a spoonful of tar can ruin a

barrel of honey, but that a spoonful of honey has little

impact on a barrel of tar. Leaning on such an analogy, it

would seem that the potential for harm might outweigh the

potential for good emerging from ethical leadership. Thus,

while I see value in a more positivist-framed approach to

ethical leadership, I see perhaps greater research utility in

the darker framing of unethical leadership.

Stable Versus Dynamic Definition

In the case-study analysis of the Chinese businessman

conducted by Koning and Waistell (2012) the authors

suggested that an emergent focus on religion was respon-

sible for a change in how the leader operated his business.

That is, religion served as a newfound moral compass. I

would like to extend this argument beyond what the authors

explicitly noted—alleviating them from any speculation I

personally offer—and suggest that a reliance on religion for

framing ethical leadership stands in contrast to the more

normative (i.e., dynamic) approach to ethical leadership.

Although religious and spiritual interpretation will vary,

there would appear to be some level of consistency or

standard by which moral behavior is measured. The primary

texts (e.g., Christian Bible, Quran) have remained largely

the same—or at least similar—for thousands of years. Thus,

to be direct, ethicality bound by religion would appear more

stable than a strictly normative definition of ethical lead-

ership such as those offered by Unal and co-authors as well

as Brown and Mitchell (2010). A normative approach

concedes that morality and ethicality are dictated by what

the collective currently believes to be appropriate. Such a

framing is, by definition, shifting in nature.

The conflict alluded to then, lies is whether both framings

can co-exist or whether they are fundamentally opposed and

a choice must be made about which is most appropriate as a

basis for scholarly investigation. Perhaps more directly, we

might ask ourselves if there is room for hard-and-fast rules of

morality within a more normative framework? Such a debate

has been made by a number of scholars (see Ciulla 1995) and

can also be illustrated by such jarring yet revealing questions

as: Is murder ever acceptable? To some, this question will

elicit normative or shifting responses (e.g., ‘‘in some cir-

cumstances, yes’’). In others the answer will quite readily be

more stable responses (e.g., ‘‘killing is never acceptable’’). It

is beyond the scope of the discussion here to resolve such a

philosophically oriented debate but I will concede that I see

the greatest utility in the normative approach taken by the

vast majority of ethical leadership scholars and acknowl-

edge that even within religious contexts. This suggestion is

based on the evidence that norms do shift (Ricoeur 1974)—

perhaps less so and with less variability in some contexts

(e.g., religion, spirituality). Moreover Koning and Waistell

(2012) illustrate that shifting from one religion to the next

represents a form of religious reinterpretation. Thus, the

bulk of research evidence suggests that it will be beneficial

for leaders to have a strong moral compass, but ‘‘true north’’

will shift from time to time.

Rational Versus Intuitive Ethical Decision-Making

The third and final conflict emerging across the collection

of articles is the focus on unconscious processes versus

rational decision-making. The cognitive perspective taken

by Thiel and colleagues suggest that ethical decision-

making is not a wholly rational process (Sonenshein 2007).

Rather, intuition and non-conscious processes impact

choices made during ethical dilemmas. Such a framework

stands, at least on the surface, in contrast to more norma-

tive and rational approaches to ethical leadership. Den

Hartog and Belschack (2012), for example, discuss role-

modeling behavior as a critical aspect of ethical leadership.

Leaders are theorized to express their beliefs and values to

subordinates, serving as models for appropriate behavior.

Similar theoretical frameworks have been used by scholars

(Un)Ethical Leadership and Identity 83

123

such as Shaubroeck et al. (in press), who directly investi-

gated the impact of leader role-modeling across multiple

levels of analysis. Implicit in this approach is that leaders

are aware of their beliefs and values and choose to express

them when the situation requires it. That is, leaders ratio-

nally choose to behave ethically as a tool of leadership.

Careful inspection of these two approaches to under-

standing ethical leader outcomes reveals that this conflict

may be more superficial than might appear upon initial

inspection. The sensemaking approach taken by Thiel and

colleagues is useful in understanding how value and ethical

decisions are made. That is, a cognitive approach provides

guidance as to whether a leader is aware of an ethical

dilemma and whether it violates their internal value sys-

tem. By understanding when, and under what conditions,

leaders are able to make rational choices we can develop

more accurate models for ethical and unethical leadership.

Put another way, a sensemaking approach serves as a

useful antecedent to the more rational approaches taken by

Den Hartog and Belschack (2012), Avey et al. (2012) and

others. Thus, it would seem that an integration of intuitive

and rational perspective would provide a more complete

picture of why ethical decisions are made and the impact

they have on subordinates.

Future Areas in Need of Investigation

Having discussed the unique contributions, common

themes and conflicting perspectives, I turn now to a dis-

cussion of where future research appears warranted. It

should be noted that the list is not, by necessity, all-

inclusive and instead represents a truncated discussion of

key areas of future research.

Time

Longitudinal investigation is an often-cited area in need of

greater investigation (Bluedorn and Jaussi 2008) and such a

recommendation rings particularly true with regard to

ethical and unethical leadership (Brown and Mitchell

2010). For example, Mitchell and Palmer (2010) propose

that ethical behavior, sustained over time, can increase a

leader’s confidence to engage in ethical behavior in the

future. Similarly, although there is some evidence to sug-

gest that individual differences are related to ethical lead-

ership (e.g., Walumba and Shaubroeck 2009) investigation

of the early life developmental experiences shaping a lea-

der’s mental models would appear warranted (Ligon et al.

2008). On the whole, more needs to be learned about how

long the impact of ethical and unethical behavior lasts as

well as the nature of the development process shaping

ethical leader emergence.

Identity

The collective articles in the special issue excelled in a

number of ways, particularly with regard to describing the

complex processes comprising ethical and unethical lead-

ership. With the exception of Koning and Waistell (2012)

the issue of leader identity was largely omitted by the

collective authors. This is not to suggest that the issue of

identity was not discussed in any fashion by the collective

authors, yet identity was a minimal focus of the articles.

Let me be clear that this is not a criticism levied against the

scholars but rather an observation that the role of identity in

shaping ethical decision-making is an area in need of fur-

ther investigation.

Recovery from Ethical Violations

One of the more interesting areas emerging in the leader

error and ethical violation literature is recovery from such

instances (e.g., Kim et al. 2004, 2006). We must bear in

mind that the impact of ethical violations does not end at

their occurrence—there are subsequent and rippling

repercussions for such violations. More to the point, there

is growing evidence to suggest that some leaders are able to

recover from violations while others fall further from grace

(Finkelstein 2003).

Scholars have begun to outline the various approaches

leaders can take to attempt to recovery from ethical viola-

tions. Kim et al. (2004), for example, found some support

for apologies from leaders but only under specific condi-

tions of evidence for their violations. Tsai et al. (2010) also

found evidence in support of apology when errors were

integrity based. There is some conflicting evidence, how-

ever, suggesting that apologies may not always be effective

and may actually hamper perceptions of leader competence

(Cushenbery 2010). On the whole, this collection of studies,

and others like it (e.g., Tyler et al. 2006; Weiner et al. 1987)

suggest that there is room for greater understanding how

and why leaders are able to recover from ethical violations

is an increasingly critical and fruitful area of research.

Subordinate Individual Differences and Experience

It seems reasonable to suggest that how subordinates view

a leader’s ethical or unethical behavior may depend on a

number of individual differences. For example, subordi-

nates with strict moral standards may be highly upset by

ethical violations on the part of leaders while those with

more flexible ethical outlooks might view violations more

leniently. Similarly, it is important to bear in mind the

relationship history between leader and follower when

considering how an employee may react to a leader vio-

lation of ethical standards. More leeway may be given, for

84 S. T. Hunter

123

example, to a leader who has a positive, long-term rela-

tionship with a follower.

In addition, it is important to acknowledge that leader-

ship is not merely a top-down phenomenon. As work on

leader member exchange has demonstrated (e.g., Danse-

reau et al. 1975; Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Gerstner and

Day 1997), subordinates also have the potential to influ-

ence leaders just as leaders have the capacity to shape

subordinate behavior and cognition. Thus, subordinates

who behave in an ethical manner may subtly or not so

subtly shape a leader’s predilection to ethical violation.

Moreover, subordinates who implicitly comply with ethical

violations on the part of the leader may indicate, on some

level, that they support the leader resulting in a greater

propensity for ethical violation (Padilla et al. 2007). On the

whole, the above suggests that research effort would be

well spent on investigating the role of the subordinate in

ethical and unethical leadership.

Leader Characteristics

Hunter et al. (2011) provided a multilevel review of the

antecedents driving poor leader decision-making. At the

individual level, we proposed that drivers of leader errors

included a number of individual differences. For example,

leaders with a high need for closure were more likely to

rush decision-making and fail to adequately assess all

viable options. High degrees of efficacy, moreover, may

result in overconfidence on the part of the leader and result

in poor decisions. Along similar lines, Walumba and

Shaubroeck (2009) found that agreeableness and consci-

entiousness were related to ethical decisions. Although

other examples exist, the above should suffice to indicate

that choices on behaving ethically may differ depending on

a collection of leader characteristics. Work here is limited,

however, particularly with regard to specific investigation

of ethical decision-making (Brown and Mitchell 2010) and

more effort is needed.

Normative Shifts

A common thread throughout the article has been the dynamic

nature of what constitutes ethical behavior (see Unal et al.

2012). As argued, the normative grounding appears warranted

and, indeed, necessary to understand both the antecedents and

mechanisms of ethical and unethical leader behavior. What

remains largely unstudied, however, is what shapes these

normative shifts. That is, if a leader behavior is viewed as

unethical at one point in time and ethical at another—what

causes this shift? Brown and Mitchell (2010) discuss the

universality of ethicality, noting the cultural differences in

how we view leadership and lament the lack of research on

how cultures shape ethical views.

Ethicality of Peer Leaders

An additional area of leadership that has been largely

ignored is the impact of other leaders (i.e., peer leaders) on

leader and subordinate behavior (Hunter et al. 2007). For

example, it is unclear how subordinates would respond to

an ethical violation by one leader if other leaders were also

behaving ethically. Conversely, responses to ethical vio-

lations may differ if other organizational leaders operate in

an ethically sound manner. Moreover, in addition to sub-

ordinate reactions, it is unknown how an ethically sound

leader might be influenced by unethical leader peers (or

vice versa). As organizations continue to flatten and peers

become more common in leadership circles, such influ-

ences would appear an important area of investigation.

Other Stakeholders (Customers, Clients, Suppliers)

Similar to the influence by peer leaders, more work is

needed in investigating how stakeholders shape ethical

behavior (Brown and Mitchell 2010). The outsourcing of

labor by many organizations suggests that relationships

with suppliers and partners are growing in complexity,

need, and degree of interconnectedness. Toleration for

ethical violations by leaders in a partner organization, for

example, may be higher if business relationships are tightly

bound. Suppliers and partners, however, are not the only

external influence in need of greater investigation. Cus-

tomers and clients can have a significant influence on the

acceptability and tolerance for ethical behavior as well.

Conclusion

As I noted in the introduction, the special issue was suc-

cessful on a number of levels. The articles were impressive

in the range of topics discussed and the approaches taken.

On the whole, the articles contribute to the literature on

ethical and unethical leadership in substantive and im-

pactful ways. In particular, the articles addressed key issues

of definition (Unal et al. 2012) as well as the processes

comprising how ethical behavior impact important orga-

nizational outcomes (Den Hartog and Belschack 2012;

Avey et al. 2012). Thiel and co-authors provided unique

insight into the cognitive factors driving ethical decision-

making, offering a number of trainable strategies that aid in

developing ethical leaders. Finally, Koning and Waistell

(2012) provide an interesting perspective on how business

leaders may shift their identities in ethicality. The collec-

tion of articles underscores the complexity surrounding

ethical and unethical leadership, as well as the importance

of understanding the phenomena. I concluded the discus-

sion by touching on a number of areas that warrant future

(Un)Ethical Leadership and Identity 85

123

investigation, including issues of time, leader characteris-

tics, and drivers of normative shifts in perceptions of eth-

ical behavior. I hope that the effort was worthwhile and

motivates others to continue the important work in this

critical research arena.

References

Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary

examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Jour-nal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126–140.

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. (2012). Exploring the

process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee

voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics.

doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1298-2.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership:Theory, research and managerial implications. New York: NY.

Simon & Shuster.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic

transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly,10(2), 181–217.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008). Leaders, followers, and time.

The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 654–668.

Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical

leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. BusinessEthics Quarterly, 20, 583–616.

Brown, M., & Trevino, L. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and

future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 125–135.

Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical

leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-

ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 97, 117–134.

Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 5–28.

Cushenbery, L. (2010). Leader error recovery: Apology, blame, &denial as tactics for repairing leader-subordinate relationships.

Unpublished master’s thesis. Penn State University, State

College, PA.

Dansereau, E., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad

linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations; A

longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organi-zational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007).

Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in

organizations: A longitudinal business unit-level investigation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993–1005.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical

and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social

responsibility, top management effectiveness and subordinate’s

optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19,

297–311.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagement and

Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal ofBusiness Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4.

Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail and what you canlearn from their mistakes. Portfolio: New York, NY.

Gerstner, C., & Day, D. V. (1997). A meta-analytic review of leader-

member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to

leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX)

theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-

domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

Hoel, H., Cooper, H., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of

bullying in Great Britain: The impact of organizational sta-

tus. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,10, 443–465.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic

leadership: Submission or liberation? The Executive, 6(2),

43–54.

Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The

typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and poten-

tial remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435–446.

Hunter, S. T., Tate, B. W., Dzieweczynski, J., & Bedell-Avers, K. E.

(2011). Leaders make mistakes: A multilevel consideration of

how and why. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 238–259.

Jordan, J., Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Finkelstein, S. (2011).

Someone to look up to: Executive-follower ethical reasoning and

perceptions of ethical leadership. Journal of Management, 22,

1–24.

Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004).

Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology

versus denial for repairing ability versus integrity based trust

violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118.

Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When

more blame is better than less: The implications of internal

versus external attributions for the repair of trust after a

competence versus integrity-based trust violation. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49–65.

Koning, J., & Waistell, J. (2012). Identity talk of aspirational ethical

leaders. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-

1297-3.

Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Development

of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. LeadershipQuarterly, 19, 312–334.

Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). The managerial relevance of

ethical efficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics:Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 89–108). New York:

Routledge.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic trian-

gle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive

environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194.

Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K.

(2011). A Cross-cultural of the endorsement examination of

ethical leadership. Journal of Business, 63(4), 345–359.

Ricoeur, P. (1974). The conflict of interpretations: Essays inhermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Riggio, R. E., Avolio, B. J., & Sosik, J. J. (2011). The Effect of

leadership on follower moral identity: Does transformational/

transactional style make a difference? Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 18, 150–163.

Shaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W.,

Lord, R. G., Trevino, L., Dimotakis, N., & Peng, A. C.

Embedding ethical leadership within and across organizational

levels. Academy of Management Journal (in press).

Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition and

justification in responding to ethical issues at work: the

sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review,32, 1022–1040.

Stenmark, C. K., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). Situational impacts on

leader ethical decision-making. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5),

942–955.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academyof Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua,

W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employ-

ees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109,

156–167.

86 S. T. Hunter

123

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S. (2006).

Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervi-

sion. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.

Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L., Johnson, J. F., &

Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leader ethnical decision-making in

organizations: Strategies for sensemaking. Journal of BusinessEthics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1299-1.

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, 42, 128–142.

Tsai, W. C., Huang, T. C., Wu, C. Y., & Lo, I. H. (2010).

Disentangling the effects of applicant defensive impression

management tactics in job interviews. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 18, 131–140.

Tyler, J. M., Feldman, R. S., & Reichert, A. (2006). The price of

deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 69–77.

Unal, A., Warren, D., & Chen, C. (2012). The normative foundations

of unethical supervision in organizations. Journal of BusinessEthics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1300-z.

Walumba, P. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits

and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical

leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.

Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An

attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naıve theory

of emotion’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,

316–324.

Wright, T. A., & Quick, J. C. (2011). The role of character in ethical

leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 975–978.

(Un)Ethical Leadership and Identity 87

123