MORALIZED LEADERSHIP: THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONSEQUENCES...

MORALIZED LEADERSHIP: THECONSTRUCTION AND CONSEQUENCES OF

ETHICAL LEADER PERCEPTIONS

RYAN FEHRUniversity of Washington, Seattle

KAI CHI (SAM) YAMNational University of Singapore

CAROLYN DANGUniversity of New Mexico

In this article we examine the construction and consequences of ethical leaderperceptions. First, we introduce moralization as the primary process through whichfollowers come to view their leaders as ethical. Second, we use moral foundationstheory to illustrate the types of leader behavior that followers are most likely tomoralize. Third, we identify motivations to maintain moral self-regard and a moralreputation as two distinct pathways through which moralization influences followerbehavior. Finally, we show how the values that underlie leaders’ moralized behavior(e.g., compassion, loyalty) determine the specific types of follower behavior thatemerge (e.g., prosocial behavior, pro-organizational behavior).

History is replete with examples of leaderswho are renowned for their positions of moral1

authority—for their status as paragons of virtueand goodness and for their ability to motivatetheir followers to do good deeds. Martin LutherKing, Jr., worked for equal rights and inspiredhis followers to fight for justice, while MahatmaGandhi emphasized compassion for the less for-tunate. Winston Churchill is widely renownedfor demonstrating and inspiring loyalty to theBritish Crown, while Mother Theresa is particu-larly well-known for her emphasis on the sanc-tity of body and spirit (Frimer, Biesanz, Walker,& MacKinlay, 2013). Many CEOs, such as JamesBurke of Johnson & Johnson, are admired fortheir care and compassion, while others, such asWhole Foods CEO John Mackey, are admired fortheir focus on purity. Regardless of the actionsfor which these leaders are most renowned (e.g.,actions that reflect justice, compassion, loyalty,

or purity), all of them have demonstrated anability to leverage morality as a means of gar-nering commitment to a cause, tapping intotheir followers’ moral beliefs and conveyingwhat it takes to be moral in a given place and ata given point in time.

In contrast to these canonical yet divergentexamples of ethical leaders, the organizationalsciences paint a comparatively narrow view ofwhat it means to be an ethical leader. Scholarshave cultivated a notion of ethical leaders asthe embodiment of justice and compassion, fa-cilitating prosocial behavior and fair treatmentby showing their followers that this behavior isexpected and rewarded (Bass, 2008; Brown &Treviño, 2006; Eisenbeiss, 2012). At the sametime, ethical leadership researchers have down-played the role of other, less studied compo-nents of morality, such as purity (Chapman &Anderson, 2013) and loyalty (van Vugt & Hart,2004), and have remained relatively silent aboutthe processes through which leaders’ actionsare given moral weight (Rozin, 1999). A focus ononly a narrow slice of the moral domain pro-vides an unstable foundation on which to builda comprehensive theory of ethical leadership.Scholars risk overlooking issues that are ofprime moral importance to many individuals

We would like to thank Bruce Avolio, Morela Hernandez,and David M. Mayer for helpful comments on earlier ver-sions of this manuscript. We extend additional thanks toformer associate editor (now editor) Belle Rose Ragins andthree anonymous reviewers for their invaluable assistancethroughout the review process.

1 For the purposes of this article, we treat the terms moraland ethical as synonyms.

� Academy of Management Review2015, Vol. 40, No. 2, 182–209.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0358

182Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

throughout the world, developing an oversimpli-fied view of what it means to be an ethicalleader, and only acknowledging a subset of thebehaviors that ethical leadership might encour-age (Haidt, 2012; Henrich, Heine, & Noren-zayan, 2010).

In this article we develop a model of ethicalleadership built on a more expansive view ofthe moral domain. We begin with a follower-centric definition of ethical leadership focusedon the moralization of a leader’s actions—thatis, a follower’s perception of a leader’s actionsas morally right (Bligh, Kohles, & Pillai, 2011;Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas,2013; Rozin, 1999). To specify when followersmoralize their leaders’ actions, we draw frommoral foundations theory (MFT), a theory thatdistinguishes six discrete domains of humanmorality, including care/harm, fairness/cheat-ing, loyalty/betrayal, sanctity/degradation, au-thority/subversion, and liberty/oppression (Gra-ham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009; Graham et al., 2011;Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012). Herewe argue that followers are most likely to mor-alize their leaders’ actions when those actionsare aligned with (a) the follower’s moral founda-tions or (b) the moral foundations of the organi-zational culture.

After establishing when followers moralizetheir leaders’ actions, we turn to the question ofhow moralization influences followers’ motiva-tions and behavior. First, we argue that moral-ization produces two distinct motivations: (1) amotivation to maintain moral self-regard and (2)a motivation to maintain a moral reputation. Wethen argue that these motivations cause follow-ers to act in value-consistent ways—in waysthat reflect the values underlying their leaders’moralized actions. For instance, leaders’ com-passionate actions motivate followers to actprosocially, whereas leaders’ loyal actions mo-tivate followers to act pro-organizationally.

We begin with a brief overview of the currentliterature on ethical leadership in the organiza-tional sciences, followed by a delineation of thecomponents of our new ethical leadershipmodel. In the Discussion section we consider theimplications of our model for future research,emphasizing the importance of a revised theo-retical conceptualization of ethical leadershipand new approaches to the empirical assess-ment of ethical leadership and its effects.

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP:HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS

Leaders are often expected to be beacons ofmorality (Bass, 2008). Philosophers have recog-nized the importance of this responsibility sinceantiquity. Plato envisioned his ideal republic asa city-state led by an ethical philosopher-king(Plato, 2009). Aristotle likewise argued that lead-ers must be virtuous and demonstrate strongmoral character (Aristotle, 2011; Solomon, 1992).In the organizational sciences a wide array ofprominent leadership theories have incorpo-rated ethical components. Researchers have ar-gued that transformational leaders raise themoral consciousness of their followers (Bass &Steidlmeier, 1999; Zhu, Avolio, Riggio, & Sosik,2011). Treviño, Hartman, and Brown (2000) con-tend that ethical leaders are both transforma-tional and transactional, inspiring their follow-ers to behave ethically and enacting reward andpunishment systems that reinforce ethical con-duct. Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008)include “behaving ethically” as a core compo-nent of servant leadership, echoing Greenleaf’s(1977) theorizing three decades earlier. Avolio,Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) define authenticleadership as a “pattern of transparent and eth-ical” behavior and emphasize authentic leaders’abilities both to act ethically and to serve asethical role models. Paternalistic leadership“remoralizes the workplace,” with morality rep-resenting a core component of paternalisticleadership theory (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, &Farh, 2004; Erben & Güneser, 2008). Spiritualleadership similarly requires moral characterand facilitates ethical climates (Fry, 2003;Reave, 2005).

In recent years scholars have shifted from afocus on ethical behavior as a component ofbroader leadership styles toward a more tar-geted focus on ethical leadership as a distinctleadership style in and of itself. Building on thequalitative findings of earlier ethical leadershipresearch (Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2003),Brown, Treviño, and Harrison defined ethicalleadership as “the demonstration of normativelyappropriate conduct through personal actionsand interpersonal relationships, and the promo-tion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and deci-sion-making” (2005: 120). Recent empiricalstudies have linked ethical leadership to fol-

2015 183Fehr, Yam, and Dang

lower prosocial behavior, whistle-blowing, andother desirable outcomes (for reviews see Brown& Mitchell, 2010, and Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Although ethical leadership scholars havemade significant strides in recent years, most oftheir work has focused on the consequences ofethical leadership at the employee and organi-zational levels, rather than on what ethical lead-ership itself entails. With regard to the latter,ethical leadership research is built on a narrowset of features. Brown and Treviño (2006: 597)offer a general outline of characteristics andtraits typically associated with ethical leader-ship, noting that they are “honest and trustwor-thy,” “fair and principled decision-makers” with“altruistic” motivations. However, it is unclearwhy these particular factors define what itmeans to be an ethical leader, or why otherfactors (e.g., purity, loyalty to one’s ingroup)do not.

The notion that ethical leadership is solelyfounded on the demonstration and promotion ofa narrow set of universally desirable behaviors(e.g., honesty and trustworthiness) stands incontrast to research demonstrating that leader-ship is a social construction, with different indi-viduals possessing different ideas about thecharacteristics most indicative of a leader(Epitropaki et al., 2013). Due in part to their ownpersonalities (Keller, 1999), upbringings (Ay-man-Nolley & Ayman, 2005), and cultural envi-ronments (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, &Gupta, 2004), followers possess divergent con-ceptions of what leadership entails (Epitropaki& Martin, 2004) and the traits they prefer to see intheir leaders (Fiedler, 1967). For instance,whereas paternalistic leadership is central tothe functioning of Japanese firms, it is often re-jected by followers in Western firms (Uhl-Bien,Tierney, Graen, & Wakabayashi, 1990).

In general, followers appear to prefer leaderswho are similar to themselves (Keller, 1999) andprototypical of the group (van Knippenberg,2011). In tandem with research documenting di-vergent constructions of morality across culturalbackgrounds (Schwartz et al., 2012), political ori-entations (Iyer et al., 2012), personalities (Lewis& Bates, 2011), and socioeconomic backgrounds(Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993), these findings pointto a need to take a broader perspective on ethi-cal leadership that clarifies its mechanisms, al-lows for variation in the types of behaviors thatfollowers perceive to be morally relevant, and

aligns these perceptions with follower behavior.To develop such a perspective, we turn to theconcept of moralization.

MORALIZATION

For the purposes of this research, we defineethical leadership as the demonstration andpromotion of behavior that is positively moral-ized. Moralization, in turn, refers to the processthrough which an observer confers a leader’sactions with moral relevance (Rozin, 1999; Rozin,Markwith, & Stoess, 1997). Although anyonecould moralize a leader’s actions, our focus is onthe follower. When a follower moralizes a lead-er’s behavior, the behavior becomes a matter ofright and wrong. Positive moralization involvesperceiving a leader’s behavior as morally right.Negative moralization involves perceiving aleader’s behavior as morally wrong.2

The downstream implications of moralizationare significant. Moralization legitimizes andmotivates subsequent action in support of whatis morally right (Effron & Miller, 2012). Individu-als experience feelings of shame and guilt whenthey fail to support these morally right actions(Cohen, Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011) and rejectthose who vocalize morals that contradict theirown (Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom, 2003). Thus, themoralization of a leader’s actions holds impor-tant implications for how a follower might sub-sequently behave.

Critically, differences in the moralization ofspecific behaviors are common. What is morallyrelevant to one individual at a given place andpoint in time often varies drastically from whatis morally relevant to another individual in an-other place at another point in time. For exam-ple, whereas divorce traditionally was viewedas a moral issue in the United States, the major-ity of Americans now view it as a preference(Rozin, 1999). Similarly, whereas cigarette smok-ing traditionally was viewed as a preference inthe United States, many Americans now view itas immoral (Helweg-Larsen, Tobias, & Cerban,2010; Rozin & Singh, 1999). Eating meat is a be-havior with moral implications for some cul-tures and individuals, but a matter of preference

2 Moralization also holds relevance for unethical leader-ship. A comprehensive discussion of unethical leadership isbeyond the scope of this article. Nonetheless, we encouragefuture work to consider this issue in depth.

184 AprilAcademy of Management Review

for others (Rozin et al., 1997). The business com-munity has seen entire industries shift into themoral realm. For instance, coffee production his-torically evaded moral concern, but recent yearshave witnessed a dramatic increase in its mor-alization. New governance mechanisms havearisen to manage these moral concerns, culmi-nating in greater attention to the coffee supplychain through comprehensive sustainability ini-tiatives (Andorfer & Liebe, 2012).

As noted by Skitka, Bauman, and Lytle, “Basicquestions remain about what qualifies asmoral,” and, furthermore, “there are likely to begaps between what any two individuals per-ceive to be moral” (2009: 568). Individuals’ no-tions of morality can vary drastically, leading todeep disagreement about the content of themoral domain (Rai & Fiske, 2011). To provide anaccount of when followers will moralize theirleaders’ actions, some order is needed. For thiswe turn to MFT, a framework that delineates therange of humans’ moral concerns and identifiessystematic trends in their variation (Graham etal., 2009, 2011; Haidt, 2012; Weaver & Brown, 2012;Weaver, Reynolds, & Brown, 2014).

MORAL FOUNDATIONS AND THE CONTENTOF MORALIZED BEHAVIOR

Lawrence Kohlberg argued that the entirety ofthe moral domain is unified by a single elementand that “the name of this ideal form is justice”(1971: 232; see also Graham et al., 2013). JohnRawls similarly declared that “justice is the firstvirtue of social institutions” (1971: 6). For Kohl-berg and Rawls, justice was the cornerstone ofmorality—its defining and only feature. A de-cade later Gilligan (1982) argued that an “ethicof care” also deserved a position within themoral domain. The legitimacy of care as a com-ponent of morality was widely adopted, and thisdual focus on justice and care came to define themoral domain in the social sciences. Othermoral principles, such as deference to authority,were relegated to the realm of social convention.Kohlberg (1971), for instance, claimed that au-thority concerns indicate a lower level of moralreasoning than justice concerns. Reflecting a fo-cus on care and justice, Turiel offered a widelycited definition of the moral domain as “pre-scriptive judgments of justice, rights, and wel-fare pertaining to how people ought to relate toeach other” (1983: 3). The organizational sci-

ences have displayed a similar focus, typifiedby Weaver et al.’s observation that “researchtypically has viewed organizational ethics interms of fairness and welfare (avoiding harm toand caring for others)” (2014: 113).

In the years following the proliferation of mo-rality research based on care and justice,Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, and Park (1997) con-tended that care and justice represent only asubset of the moral domain, skewed toward anotion of morality that is emphasized in Westernsocieties. Drawing from extensive field work inIndia, Shweder et al. delineated morality acrossthree distinct domains: (1) an ethic of autonomy(with a focus on care, justice, and the welfare ofautonomous individuals), (2) an ethic of commu-nity (with a focus on duty, respect, loyalty, andthe maintenance of social order), and (3) an ethicof divinity (with a focus on purity, sanctity, andprotection against degradation through hedo-nistic, impure behavior). Building on this re-search and additional insights on morality pro-vided by evolutionary psychology (De Waal,1996), value pluralism (Ross, 1930), and anthro-pology (Fiske, 1992; Rai & Fiske, 2011), Haidt andcolleagues (Haidt, 2012; Haidt et al., 1993) devel-oped a modular theory of morality, MFT, whichcharacterizes human morality according to a setof discrete moral domains or foundations (Gra-ham et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2011; Haidt, 2012;Haidt & Joseph, 2004; Iyer et al., 2012). Each moralfoundation encompasses an array of interre-lated components, including constellations ofvalues (i.e., abstract, transsituational notions ofwhat is good, right, and desirable; Graham etal., 2009; Knafo, Roccas, & Sagiv, 2011), intuitions(Weaver et al., 2014), and social practices (Gra-ham et al., 2013).

Six moral foundations have been identified todate (Haidt, 2012). These foundations include (1)care/harm, which entails a concern with suffer-ing and its alleviation;, (2) fairness/cheating,which entails a concern with the utilization ofestablished equity, equality, and need norms todistribute resources; (3) loyalty/betrayal, whichentails a concern with group-oriented devotionand sacrifice; (4) sanctity/degradation, whichentails a concern with keeping oneself spiritu-ally and physically clean and free of contami-nants; (5) authority/subversion, which entails aconcern with using status hierarchies to main-tain social order; and (6) liberty/oppression,which entails a concern with individuals’ auton-


omy and control over their own affairs.3 MFTdemonstrates that although these six broad do-mains form the foundation of morality, individ-uals differ in their endorsement of each founda-tion (Graham et al., 2013).

As a theory of human morality, MFT has par-ticularly important implications for ethical lead-ership (Weaver et al., 2014). A leader’s fair treat-ment might be moralized by a follower whoendorses the fairness/cheating moral domain,but not by a follower whose moral code is lessdefined by fairness. Similarly, a leader’s dem-onstration of loyalty to the firm might be moral-ized by a follower who endorses the loyalty/betrayal moral domain, but not by a followerwhose moral code is less defined by loyalty. Forexample, interviewees in one examination ofethical leadership varied greatly in their per-ceptions of the Clinton-Lewinski scandal(Treviño et al., 2003). Whereas some observersmoralized the scandal, others (presumably thosewhose moral code was less defined by the sanc-tity/degradation moral foundation) did not, thussevering the link between the behavior and per-ceptions of the leader’s ethicality. These find-ings support Moore’s (1903) concept of the natu-ralistic fallacy, which states that concepts suchas care and fairness cannot be used to reduc-tively define morality but, rather, are manifesta-tions of morality rooted in a particular place andtime (Ross, 1930).

Sources of Moral Foundations inthe Workplace

For a follower to moralize his or her leader’sbehavior, the leader’s actions must align withmoral foundations that are relevant to the fol-lower. Within organizations, we propose thatthese moral foundations can originate from twodistinct sources: (1) followers themselves and (2)their organizations’ cultures. Individuals’ moralfoundations are associated with an array of fac-tors, including their political orientations (Gra-

ham et al., 2009), socioeconomic status (Haidt etal., 1993), and psychophysiology (Lewis, Kanai,Bates, & Rees, 2012). As a result, differences infollowers’ moral foundations should be ex-pected, even when they work in the same orga-nization or on the same team. Whereas somefollowers might prioritize the care/harm andfairness/cheating moral foundations, othersmight prioritize the liberty/oppression and sanc-tity/degradation moral foundations. These dif-ferences in followers’ moral foundations implydifferences in the types of leader actions indi-vidual followers will moralize. For example, fol-lowers who prioritize the care/harm foundationshould be more likely to moralize leaders’ com-passionate behavior than followers who do notprioritize that foundation.

Beyond the individual, moral foundations canalso be linked to an organization’s culture.Schein (2010) conceptualizes organizational cul-ture as a pattern of shared assumptions learnedby members of an organization through social-ization and communication. This includesshared assumptions about the moral domain,with different organizations possessing differ-ent notions of what it means to act morally.Hospitals are often renowned for emphasizingthe moral importance of care and compassion(i.e., the care/harm moral foundation), whereasthe military is renowned for emphasizing themoral importance of loyalty and authority (i.e.,the loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversionmoral foundations; Hannah et al., 2013; Lilius etal., 2011). These notions of morality translateinto morally laden organizational practices(Gehman, Treviño, & Garud, 2013), organiza-tional climates (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins,2003), and norms that describe how members ofthe organization “should approach their workand interact with one another” (Hammer, Saks-vik, Nytrø, Torvatn, & Bayazit, 2004: 84). Employ-ees may disagree with their organizations’ no-tions of the moral domain but nonethelessunderstand what it means to be moral in a givenorganization at a given point in time. For exam-ple, a solider in the U.S. Army might not person-ally endorse the loyalty/betrayal foundation butunderstand that behavior associated with thisfoundation has moral significance within theorganization. The soldier can, in turn, be ex-pected to moralize leaders’ loyalty and self-sacrifice, recognizing the moral relevance ofthese actions to the organizational culture re-

3 MFT only claims that these domains represent “the mostobvious and least debatable foundations” (Graham et al.,2013: 107) and that the list is not final or closed to debate.Nonetheless, these foundations represent an important steptoward a more complete understanding of human morality.A detailed discussion of the criteria used to define a moralfoundation is beyond the scope of this article but can befound in Graham et al. (2013).


gardless of his or her own moral beliefs. Al-though our focus is on the organization as awhole, subcultures can also be expected to de-velop within organizations. A culture built oncare and compassion might develop within theintensive care unit of a hospital but play a lesscentral role in the radiology unit.

Key Assumptions

Before proceeding with our formal proposi-tions, it is important to be explicit about two keyassumptions. First, we assume that followers’and organizations’ moral foundations do notneed to be aligned for followers to moralize theirleaders’ behavior. Instead, we assume that ei-ther is sufficient. Later in this article we con-sider how alignment between organizations’and followers’ moral foundations might influ-ence followers’ actions. However, for now wesimply note that alignment between followers’and organizations’ moral foundations is not aprerequisite for moralization.

Our second assumption concerns the directimpact of leadership on followers’ and organi-zations’ moral foundations. Leadership involvesinfluence (Bass, 2008), and leaders can have animpact on their followers’ (Conger & Kanungo,1998) and organizations’ (Schein, 2010) morals.Leaders can encourage their followers to adoptnew moral foundations, and they can shape themoral foundations of their organizations’ cul-tures. At the same time, research suggests thatindividuals’ notions of morality are fairly stableover time (Schwartz, 1992) and less amenable tosocialization and external influence than atti-tudes (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Likewise,organizational culture is relatively stable, sug-gesting that organizations’ notions of moralitytend not to change dramatically (Zucker, 1991).In the Discussion section we consider severalfactors that might facilitate leaders’ abilities toshape their followers’ and organizations’ moralfoundations. However, for now we make the as-sumption that followers’ and organizations’moral foundations will tend to persist over time.

In the sections that follow we delineate the sixmoral foundations suggested by MFT and de-velop a set of formal propositions summarizingthe types of leader behaviors and styles thatfollowers might moralize. Although we recog-nize the conceptual and empirical overlap asso-ciated with many leadership styles and subdi-

mensions (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013), ouranalyses drill down to the dimensional level,with the goal of highlighting potential distinc-tions among behaviors associated with differentmoral foundations. We do not attempt to exhaustall possibilities or directly address ongoing de-bates regarding the distinctiveness of specificconstructs but, rather, to illustrate how MFTlinks to prototypical behavior associated withpopular leadership styles. Table 1 presents anoverview of leadership styles associated witheach moral foundation, links between the moralfoundations and existing ethical leadershipmeasures, and behaviors associated with eachmoral foundation.

SIX FOUNDATIONS OF ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Ethical Leadership Foundation #1: SupportFollower Well-Being

The care/harm foundation traces its origins tothe adaptive challenge of protecting vulnerableoffspring from predators and other threats(Goodall, 1986). Today, the care/harm foundationis characterized by a general desire to alleviatesuffering and foster well-being. In the context oforganizations, leaders have the capacity to fos-ter the physical and psychological well-being oftheir followers in many ways. Behaviors that areconsistent with the care/harm moral foundationinclude helping followers develop their skills,showing compassion for followers’ personalproblems, volunteering in the local community,and setting up work tasks to reduce followerstress and fatigue. Examples of behaviors thatoppose the care/harm moral foundation includecompromising followers’ welfare for personalgain, taking advantage of vulnerable followers,and demonstrating indifference to followers’personal problems.

Given the ubiquity of the care/harm foundation,it is perhaps no surprise to find themes of careembedded in many leadership styles. The individ-ualized consideration subfactor of transforma-tional leadership, which focuses on paying atten-tion to followers’ needs, is a prime example of aleader behavior that is consistent with the care/harm foundation (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Judge,Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). The idealized influence sub-factor of transformational leadership, wherebyleaders place followers’ needs above their own, islikewise indicative of the care/harm foundation,


TABL

E1

Mor

alFo

unda

tion

san

dA

ssoc

iate

dLe

ader

ship

Styl

es,M

easu

res,

Beha

vior

s,an

dV

alue

s

Mor

alFo

unda

tion

sR

epre

sent

ativ

eLe

ader

ship

Styl

esLi

nks

toEt

hica

lLe

ader

ship

Mea

sure

sR

epre

sent

ativ

eLe

ader

Beha

vior

sO

ppos

ing

Lead

erBe

havi

ors

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Val

ues

Val

ue-C

onsi

sten

tBe

havi

ors

Ca

re/h

arm

•C

—S

ensi

tivi

tyto

mem

ber

s’n

eed

s•

TL—

Idea

lize

din

flu

ence

•T

L—In

div

idu

ali

zed

con

sid

era

tion

•S

erva

nt

•E

LS•

ELW

—P

eop

leor

ien

tati

on•

Ass

ist

foll

ower

sin

dev

elop

ing

thei

rsk

ills

•S

how

com

pa

ssio

nfo

rfo

llow

ers’

per

son

al

pro

ble

ms

•S

acr

ific

efo

llow

ers’

wel

l-b

ein

gfo

rp

erso

na

lg

ain

•S

how

ind

iffe

ren

ceto

foll

ower

s’p

erso

na

lp

rob

lem

s

•C

ari

ng

•C

omp

ass

ion

•K

ind

nes

s

•P

roso

cia

lb

eha

vior

Fa

irn

ess/

chea

tin

g•

AL—

Ba

lan

ced

pro

cess

ing

•R

ewa

rdin

g•

TR

—C

onti

ng

ent

rew

ard

•E

LS•

ELW

—F

air

nes

s•

Pro

vid

efo

llow

ers

wit

heq

ua

lop

por

tun

itie

s•

Pu

bli

cly

reco

gn

ize

hig

hp

erfo

rmer

s

•P

rom

ote

foll

ower

sb

ase

don

per

son

al

pre

fere

nce

s•

Ta

kecr

edit

for

foll

ower

s’w

ork

•F

air

nes

s•

Just

ice

•T

rust

wor

thin

ess

•P

roso

cia

lb

eha

vior

Loya

lty/

bet

raya

l•

C—

Str

ate

gic

visi

ona

nd

art

icu

lati

on•

Sel

f-sa

crif

icia

l•

TL—

Insp

ira

tion

al

mot

iva

tion

•N

ocl

ear

lin

k•

Inst

ill

foll

ower

sw

ith

pri

de

inth

eor

ga

niz

ati

on•

Sa

crif

ice

one’

sow

nw

ell-

bei

ng

for

the

wel

l-b

ein

gof

the

gro

up

•E

xplo

itor

ga

niz

ati

onfo

rp

erso

na

lg

ain

•F

req

uen

tly

cha

ng

eor

ga

niz

ati

ons

oru

nit

sw

ith

inth

eor

ga

niz

ati

on

•Lo

yalt

y•

Pa

trio

tism

•S

elf-

sacr

ific

e

•P

ro-o

rga

niz

ati

ona

lb

eha

vior

Sa

nct

ity/

deg

rad

ati

on•

Sp

irit

ua

l•

No

clea

rli

nk

•C

ond

uct

per

son

al

life

ina

pu

rem

an

ner

•M

ain

tain

spir

itu

al

an

dp

hys

ica

lcl

ean

lin

ess

•A

ccep

t“d

irty

wor

k”•

Con

du

ctp

erso

na

lli

fein

an

imp

ure

ma

nn

er

•C

lea

nli

nes

s•

Pie

ty•

Tem

per

an

ce

•P

ro-o

rga

niz

ati

ona

lb

eha

vior

Au

thor

ity/

sub

vers

ion

•D

irec

tive

•P

L—A

uth

orit

ari

an

•E

LW—

Eth

ica

lg

uid

an

ce•

ELW

—R

ole

cla

rifi

cati

on•

Ass

ign

gro

up

mem

ber

sto

spec

ific

task

s/ro

les

•E

sta

bli

shcl

ear

per

form

an

ceg

oals

•P

rote

ctfo

llow

ers

from

thre

ats

•In

sist

tha

tfo

llow

ers

call

you

by

you

rfi

rst

na

me

•P

rovi

de

foll

ower

sw

ith

litt

led

irec

tion

•D

efer

ence

•O

bed

ien

ce•

Res

pec

t

•P

role

ad

erb

eha

vior

Lib

erty

/op

pre

ssio

n•

Coa

chin

g•

Em

pow

erin

g•

TL—

Inte

llec

tua

lst

imu

lati

on

•E

LW—

Pow

ersh

ari

ng

•A

llow

foll

ower

sto

cra

ftth

eir

own

sch

edu

les

•A

llow

foll

ower

sto

det

erm

ine

how

they

com

ple

tea

ssig

nm

ents

•F

orce

foll

ower

sto

wor

ku

nd

erri

gid

sch

edu

les

•P

rovi

de

rig

idg

uid

elin

esfo

rta

skp

roce

du

res

•A

uto

nom

y•

Ind

epen

den

ce•

Em

pow

erm

ent

•P

roin

div

idu

al

beh

avi

or

Not

e:A

L�

au

then

tic

lea

der

ship

;C

�ch

ari

sma

tic

lea

der

ship

;P

L�

pa

tern

ali

stic

lea

der

ship

;T

L�

tra

nsf

orm

ati

ona

lle

ad

ersh

ip;

TR

�tr

an

sact

ion

al

lea

der

ship

;E

LS�

Eth

ica

lLe

ad

ersh

ipS

cale

(Bro

wn

,Tre

viñ

o,&

Ha

rris

on,2

005)

;ELW

�E

thic

al

Lea

der

ship

at

Wor

kQ

ues

tion

na

ire

(Ka

lsh

oven

,Den

Ha

rtog

,&D

eH

oog

h,2

011)

.

and research has shown that transformationalleadership is more strongly linked to care thanjustice (Simola, Barling, & Turner, 2010). Care andcompassion are also reflected in the “sensitivity tomembers’ needs” subfactor of charismatic leader-ship (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Rowold & Heinitz,2007) and in the construct of servant leadership. Asnoted by Greenleaf, servant leaders “first makesure that other people’s highest priority needsare being served” (1970: 4; see also Mayer,Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008). Recent research on eth-ical leadership as a distinct construct also in-corporates behaviors associated with care andharm. Brown et al.’s (2005: 127, Study 6) EthicalLeadership Scale asks if the leader “has the bestinterests of followers in mind,” and the scaleitself is correlated with idealized influence atr � .71. Kalshoven, Den Hartog, and De Hoogh’s(2011) Ethical Leadership at Work Questionnaireincludes a people orientation subfactor focusedon care and support for one’s followers (seeTable 1).

Although the care/harm moral foundation iswidely endorsed (Haidt, 2012), the strength of itsemphasis varies across individuals, cultures,and organizations. Some cultures, such as theBuddhists, have historically placed a great dealof emphasis on care/harm, whereas others, suchas classical Sparta and Nazi Germany, have not(Koonz, 2003). Cross-cultural research suggeststhat the perceived desirability of a care orienta-tion among leaders varies significantly acrosscultures (House et al., 2004). At the organiza-tional level, research suggests that the care/harm moral foundation plays a central role inthe health care industry (Lilius et al., 2011), ex-emplified by Barsade and O’Neill’s (in press)work on cultures of compassionate love in long-term care facilities. At the individual level,meta-analytic data suggest that women favorthe care/harm moral foundation more than men(d � 0.28; Jaffee & Hyde, 2000). Here we proposethat the link between leader behavior associ-ated with care/harm and the moralization of thisbehavior requires the care/harm moral founda-tion to also be endorsed by the follower or orga-nization.

Proposition 1: Followers will moralizeleader behavior that is consistent withthe care/harm moral foundation whenthe foundation is also endorsed by

(a) the follower or (b) the organiza-tional culture.

Ethical Leadership Foundation #2: TreatFollowers Fairly

Like care/harm, fairness/cheating is oftencharacterized as a universal moral foundation,which Kohlberg (1971) and Rawls (1971) arguedto be the defining domain of morality. The fair-ness/cheating moral foundation traces its ori-gins to the adaptive challenge of punishing actsof cheating and rewarding acts of cooperationwith direct interaction partners (Trivers, 1971).Today, the fairness/cheating foundation is alsoextended to third parties, even in the absence ofdirect interaction (Cropanzano, Goldman, &Folger, 2003). To followers who emphasize thefairness/cheating moral foundation, ethicalleaders should embody values including trust-worthiness, fairness, and a justice orientation.Behaviors consistent with the fairness/cheatingmoral foundation include providing followerswith equal opportunities, rewarding followerswho perform well, and withholding rewardsfrom followers who perform poorly. Conversely,behaviors that oppose the fairness/cheatingmoral foundation include taking credit for fol-lowers’ work, distributing rewards to followersbased on obtuse personal preferences, and dol-ing out unjust punishments.

Scholars have often noted the importance offairness in leadership (van Knippenberg, 2011).Leaders are responsible for the allocation ofsuch resources as promotions, salary, job as-signments, and bonuses. Leadership research,in turn, has drawn from justice theory (Colquitt,2001) to suggest that fair treatment is a neces-sary component of effective leadership (vanKnippenberg, De Cremer, & van Knippenberg,2007). Janson, Levy, Sitkin, and Lind (2008), forexample, documented a direct impact of fair-ness heuristics on positive leader perceptions.The contingent reward factor of transactionalleadership is also representative of the fairness/cheating moral foundation (Podsakoff, Todor, &Skov, 1982). Among leaders who emphasize con-tingent reward, followers’ inputs are directly as-sociated with their outputs. Rewarding leader-ship, whereby leaders reward their followers forexemplary performance, is likewise closelyaligned with the underpinnings of the fairness/cheating moral foundation (De Cremer, van


Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Mullenders, &Stinglhamber, 2005). The balanced processingfactor of authentic leadership places a similaremphasis on fairness (Avolio et al., 2009). Ac-cording to Avolio and colleagues (2009), authen-tic leaders must consider all of the relevantinformation before coming to a decision. Consis-tent with the notion that fairness and ethics areoften discussed in tandem, fairness is embed-ded in the Brown et al. (2005) Ethical LeadershipScale, with items such as “makes fair and bal-anced decisions,” and it occupies an entire fac-tor of the Ethical Leadership at Work Question-naire (Kalshoven et al., 2011).

As with the care/harm foundation, althoughfairness/cheating is a near-universal moralfoundation, its importance varies across individ-uals, groups, and cultures (Graham et al., 2009:2011). Past research has demonstrated that someorganizations possess stronger justice climatesthan others (Ambrose, Schminke, & Mayer, 2013;Whitman, Caleo, Carpenter, Horner, & Bernerth,2012) and that individuals vary in their sensitiv-ity to the moral implications of fairness (Beugré,2012). Thus, we propose that leader behavioraligned with the fairness/cheating foundationwill only be moralized when a follower or orga-nizational culture also endorses the fairness/cheating moral foundation.

Proposition 2: Followers will moralizeleader behavior that is consistent withthe fairness/cheating moral founda-tion when the foundation is also en-dorsed by (a) the follower or (b) theorganizational culture.

Ethical Leadership Foundation #3: DemonstrateLoyalty to the Collective

The loyalty/betrayal moral foundation isgrounded in a need for individuals to form co-hesive coalitions that can compete against othercoalitions. This foundation can be traced to theimportance of coalition building for group sur-vival and is found in humans and close relativessuch as chimpanzees (Goodall, 1986). Today, theloyalty/betrayal moral foundation is evidencedin humans’ readiness to form coalitions forsports teams, nations, and other groups, exem-plified by the classic Robbers Cave study,wherein two Boy Scout troops moralized loyaltyto their quickly formed groups, placing a strong

moral emphasis on allegiance to the collective(Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). Tofollowers who emphasize the loyalty/betrayalmoral foundation, ethical leaders should repre-sent values that include self-sacrifice, loyalty,and patriotism. Behaviors that are consistent withthe loyalty/betrayal moral foundation include em-phasizing pride in the organization, demonstrat-ing a willingness to sacrifice one’s own well-being for the well-being of the group, andspeaking highly of the group to outsiders. Behav-iors that oppose the loyalty/betrayal moral foun-dation include expressing a willingness to leavethe organization, attempting to exploit the groupfor personal gain, and denigrating the groupwhen speaking with outsiders.

Several leadership styles are consistentwith the loyalty/betrayal moral foundation.The inspirational motivation subfactor oftransformational leadership involves articu-lating and emphasizing the organization’s vi-sion—a rallying cry for the organization andits mission (Burns, 1978). The strategic visionand articulation subfactor of charismatic lead-ership similarly focuses on motivating follow-ers around a collective goal, drawing atten-tion to the group’s legitimacy and importance(Rowold & Heinitz, 2007). Self-sacrificial lead-ership emphasizes “foregoing self-interest forthe good of the group . . . [and] securing thegroup’s welfare” (De Cremer, Mayer, vanDijke, Schouten, & Bardes, 2009: 887). Althoughmany cultures consider leaders who displayloyalty and a collective orientation to be eth-ical (Resick et al., 2011), popular measures ofethical leadership do not take loyalty to thecollective directly into account.

As with the care/harm and fairness/cheatingmoral foundations, we propose that leader be-havior aligned with the loyalty/betrayal founda-tion will only be moralized when a follower ororganizational culture also endorses the loyalty/betrayal moral foundation. One example of anorganizational culture that reflects the loyalty/betrayal moral foundation is the U.S. Army. Ofthe Army’s seven core values, the first two areloyalty and duty (Department of the Army, 2006),and most Army Cadets strongly identify withthese values (Hannah et al., 2013):

Proposition 3: Followers will moralizeleader behavior that is consistent withthe loyalty/betrayal moral foundation


when the foundation is also endorsedby (a) the follower or (b) the organiza-tional culture.

Ethical Leadership Foundation #4: SustainPhysical and Spiritual Purity

The fourth foundation of ethical leadership,and one of the least studied to date, is sanctity/degradation. Its evolutionary origins can betraced to a desire to avoid contact with patho-gens—a “behavioral immune system” that en-abled individuals to avoid dangerous, disease-inducing objects in increasingly dense livingenvironments (Schaller & Park, 2011; Tybur,Lieberman, Kurzban, & DeScioli, 2013). Overtime, this avoidance of physical contaminantsextended into the moral realm. In addition toavoiding toxins, parasites, and bacteria, indi-viduals also sought to avoid moral impurities.For example, in one study by Rozin, Markwith,and McCauley (1994), participants refused towear clothing previously worn by individualswith communicable diseases (demonstrating aconcern with bodily purity) or clothing previ-ously worn by criminals (demonstrating a con-cern with purity of the soul). Sanctity/degrada-tion is closely associated with feelings ofdisgust, which emerge whenever physical, sex-ual, or moral impurity is witnessed (Rozin, Low-ery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999), and reflects an ethicof divinity (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987).To followers who emphasize the sanctity/degradation foundation, leaders should embodyvalues that include purity, temperance, andcleanliness. They should conduct their personaland professional lives in a pure manner andcontrol their baser instincts. They should neverdegrade themselves or engage in “dirty work”that involves managing dirty objects (e.g., work-ing with animal waste) or engaging in certainsexual practices (e.g., prostitution) or othertainted behavior (e.g., selling used cars; Ash-forth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, 2007).

Sanctity/degradation has received compara-tively little attention in the leadership literature,and extant ethical leadership measures do notcapture behaviors relevant to this foundation.However, some research does hint at the notionthat purity may play an important role in ethicalleader perceptions. Spiritual leadership seemsto be particularly closely aligned with the sanc-tity/degradation domain, whereby a leader cre-

ates a sense of fusion among the body, mind,heart, and spirit (Fry, 2003) and maintains moraland physical purity both within and outside ofthe organization. Eisenbeiss’s (2012) focus onmoderation as a virtue associated with ethicalleadership similarly speaks to the purity moraldomain. It is worthwhile to note that perceptionsof leaders’ ethicality are often influenced by per-ceptions of their purity in their personal lives,such as President Bill Clinton’s relationshipwith an intern, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Ber-lusconi’s extramarital relationships, and U.S.Congressman Anthony Weiner’s distribution ofsexual images via social media (Treviño et al.,2003). Here we propose that leader behavior as-sociated with the sanctity/degradation moralfoundation will only be moralized when a fol-lower or organizational culture also endorsesthe sanctity/degradation moral foundation. Forexample, research suggests that purity concernsare strongly associated with religiosity (Koleva,Graham, Iyer, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012), suggestingthat the sanctity/degradation domain is partic-ularly relevant to religious organizations.

Proposition 4: Followers will moralizeleader behavior that is consistent withthe sanctity/degradation moral foun-dation when the foundation is also en-dorsed by (a) the follower or (b) theorganizational culture.

Ethical Leadership Foundation #5: MaintainOrder and Direction

The authority/subversion moral foundation fo-cuses on the importance of managing and main-taining effective status hierarchies. This foun-dation’s origins can be traced to the adaptivechallenge of forging beneficial hierarchical re-lationships, whereby high- and low-power indi-viduals agree that the high-power individual’sposition is legitimate and that the low-powerindividual will, in turn, benefit from a stablesocial structure (De Waal, 1982; Fiske, 1991). To-day, the authority/subversion foundation partlyexplains the legitimacy granted to high-powerindividuals and social institutions (e.g., CEOs,courts of law, and police officers). The authority/subversion foundation is not simply aboutpower. Leaders with authority carry a responsi-bility to maintain order—to “fulfill the dutiesassociated with their position on the social lad-


der” (Koleva et al., 2012: 185). In this sense au-thority is akin to a parent-child relationship. Asnoted by Fiske, “Authority ranking relationshipsare based on perceptions of legitimate asymme-tries, not coercive power; they are not inherentlyexploitative” (1992: 700). To followers who en-dorse the authority/subversion moral founda-tion, ethical leaders should embody values thatinclude obedience, deference, and respect. Be-haviors consistent with the authority/subversionmoral foundation include establishing clearperformance goals, protecting followers againstthreats to the organization, and providing guid-ance for completing tasks. Conversely, behav-iors that oppose the authority/subversion moralfoundation include leaving followers to fend forthemselves, disregarding signs of respect by in-sisting that followers call leaders by their firstname, and asking followers to make executivedecisions that are normally the purview of theleader.

Several leadership styles are consistent withthe authority/subversion moral foundation,most notably paternalistic and directive leader-ship. Cheng et al. (2004) include an “authoritar-ian” subscale in their paternalistic leadershipmeasure, incorporating such items as “My su-pervisor asks me to obey his/her instructionscompletely.” Interestingly, this subscale of pa-ternalistic leadership demonstrated positive ef-fects on follower perceptions of the leader in astudy of workers in China, including “identifica-tion and imitation” (e.g., “I very much admire mysupervisor’s manner and behavior”), “compli-ance without dissent” (e.g., “I completely obeymy supervisor’s instructions”), and “gratitudeand repayment” (e.g., “I would sacrifice my ownbenefits to maintain my supervisor’s benefits”).Directive leadership, where leaders providetheir followers with clear direction (House, 1971,1996), also appears to have a positive effect onfollower outcomes. The role clarification andethical guidance subfactors of Kalshoven et al.’s(2011) Ethical Leadership at Work Question-naire, which include items such as “explainswhat is expected of each group member,” attestto its ethical relevance. We propose that when afollower or organizational culture endorses theauthority/subversion moral foundation, leaderbehavior aligned with this foundation will bemoralized. For instance, research on paternalis-tic leadership suggests that the authority/subversion moral foundation is much more im-

portant to some cultures (e.g., Japan; Uhl-Bien etal., 1990) than it is to others.

Proposition 5: Followers will moralizeleader behavior that is consistent withthe authority/subversion moral foun-dation when the foundation is also en-dorsed by (a) the follower or (b) theorganizational culture.

Ethical Leadership Foundation #6: CultivateFollower Autonomy

Beyond concerns of care, fairness, loyalty, pu-rity, and authority, many individuals display anorientation toward the moral foundation of lib-erty/oppression (Haidt, 2012). The liberty/oppres-sion moral foundation’s origins can be traced tothe adaptive challenge of protecting oneselfagainst alpha males who would otherwise seekto manipulate the group for personal gain(Boehm, 2012). The liberty/oppression foundationgained popularity among Enlightenment think-ers (Locke, 1988/1690) and today is applied to anysituation where individuals’ rights and auton-omy are infringed upon. This includes both neg-ative liberty, which entails freedom from exter-nal interference, and positive liberty, whichentails the availability of systems (e.g., educa-tion, health care) that enable individuals to pur-sue their goals (Berlin, 1969). To followers whoendorse the liberty/oppression moral founda-tion, ethical leaders should embody the valuesof autonomy, empowerment, and independence.Behaviors that support the liberty/oppressionmoral foundation include providing followerswith opportunities to complete their assign-ments as they see fit, allowing followers to crafttheir own schedules, and providing opportuni-ties for followers to grow as individuals. Behav-iors that contradict the liberty/oppression foun-dation include providing followers with rigid,strictly enforced procedures for completing theirwork and denying them resources enablingthem to accomplish their self-appointed goals.

Several leadership styles are consistent withthe liberty/oppression moral foundation. Re-search on empowering leadership emphasizesthe importance of respecting follower autonomy.According to De Cremer et al., “Empowermentrefers to specific leadership behaviors that acti-vate a process in which a leader creates condi-tions for the followers to develop and promote


their sense of competence and self” (2005: 4).Coaching leadership has also been described inthis way. According to DeRue, Barnes, andMorgeson, coaching leadership “involves en-couraging the team to manage its own affairsand developing the team’s capacity to functioneffectively without direct intervention from theteam leader” (2010: 622). Themes of empower-ment can likewise be found in the intellectualstimulation subfactor of transformational lead-ership, whereby followers are encouraged toquestion assumptions and reframe problems(Bass & Avolio, 2000; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007).

It is important to note that the liberty/oppres-sion moral foundation does not imply a prefer-ence for an absence of leadership altogether,and it is not consistent with a laissez-faire lead-ership style (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). To ad-here to the liberty/oppression foundation, leadersmust both allow their followers to take ownershipof their own lives (i.e., negative liberty) and pro-vide followers with the resources they need topursue their goals (i.e., positive liberty). In a studyof leadership across the world, Resick et al. (2011)identified empowerment as an important compo-nent of ethical leadership. Kalshoven et al.’s (2011)measure of ethical leadership also includes apower-sharing factor that is closely related to theliberty/oppression moral foundation. Exampleitems include “Allows subordinates to influencecritical decisions” and “Permits me to play a keyrole in setting my own performance goals.” Aswith the other moral foundations, we propose thatbehavior aligned with the liberty/oppressionmoral foundation will only be moralized when afollower or organizational culture also reflects theliberty/oppression moral foundation. Individualswith a libertarian political orientation, for exam-ple, rank the importance of the liberty/oppressionmoral foundation above all others (Iyer et al., 2012).

Proposition 6: Followers will moralizeleader behavior that is consistent withthe liberty/oppression moral foundationwhen the foundation is also endorsedby (a) the follower or (b) the organiza-tional culture.

MORALIZATION ANDVALUE-CONSISTENT BEHAVIOR

MFT clarifies when followers will moralizetheir leaders’ actions. To this point, however,

scholars have not considered the impact of mor-alization on follower behavior. To examine howmoralization might impact follower behavior,we turn to the literature on values. As previouslydefined, values are abstract, transsituationalnotions of what is good, right, and desirable,and each moral foundation partly comprises aninterrelated set of values (Graham et al., 2013;see Table 1). Decades of research indicate thatvalues guide attention and action, encouragingsome behaviors and discouraging others(Schwartz, 1992; Verplanken & Holland, 2002).Here we propose that moralization motivatesfollowers to engage in value-consistent behav-ior—behavior that reflects a particular set ofvalues (Maio, Pakizeh, Cheung, & Rees, 2009).When followers moralize leaders’ compassion-ate actions, they become motivated to act com-passionately, but not fairly. Similarly, when fol-lowers moralize leaders’ loyal actions, theybecome motivated to act loyally, but not purely.Thus, the impact of leaders’ moralized actionson follower behavior depends on the values thatthe leaders’ actions reflect.

In the sections below we link moralization tofollowers’ value-consistent behavior throughtwo paths (see Figure 1). First is a self-focusedpath. Here we argue that leaders’ moralized ac-tions activate followers’ values, motivating fol-lowers’ value-consistent behavior as a means ofmaintaining positive moral self-regard. Secondis an other-focused path. Here we argue thatleaders’ moralized actions facilitate a sociallearning process, motivating followers’ value-consistent behavior as a means of maintainingpositive moral reputations. We then consider theinteractive effects of these two pathways andsubsequently examine the specific actions thatmoralization might encourage.

The Self-Focused Path: Moral Self-Regard

The first path from moralization to value-consistent behavior is self-focused. We refer tothis path as self-focused because it centers onfollowers’ own morals. Specifically, we proposethat leaders’ moralized actions motivate follow-ers to engage in value-consistent behavior tomaintain moral self-regard—a sense of meetingone’s personal moral standards (Blasi, 1980;


Dunning, 2007).4 Moral self-regard is a criticalcomponent of individuals’ momentary feelingsof self-worth (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008; Monin& Jordan, 2009) that fluctuates over time andacross situations (Jones & Ryan, 1997; Nisan,1990, 1991). Thus, individuals try to act in waysthat reflect their moral standards and try to com-pensate when they fall short of these standards(Miller & Effron, 2010). For example, a followerwho endorses the care/harm moral foundation,and thus values compassion, might seek tomaintain moral self-regard by covering for asick coworker.

Value activation theory highlights the roleleaders can play in conveying the potential rel-evance of a given set of behaviors for followers’moral self-regard (Verplanken & Holland, 2002).According to this theory, contextual factors playan important role in strengthening or weaken-ing the impact of one’s moral code (i.e., themoral foundations one endorses) on behavior(Torelli & Kaikati, 2009). Individuals are mostlikely to act in a manner that reflects their moralstandards when those standards are also cogni-tively activated by the context (Higgins, 1996;Kruglanski, 1996). Moral standards can be acti-vated through many different means (Verplan-

ken, Walker, Davis, & Jurasek, 2008). For exam-ple, the moral importance of honesty can beactivated by reminders of religious rules andhonor codes (Mazar et al., 2008), and the moralimportance of fairness can be activated by sym-bols of justice, such as the famous statue withbalancing scales, Justitia (Karremans & VanLange, 2005). Leaders occupy a particularly im-portant role in followers’ work environments(Grojean, Resick, Dickson, & Smith, 2004) and,hence, can play a key role in activating theirfollowers’ moral standards (Lord & Brown, 2004).Thus, value activation theory takes on uniquepower within the context of ethical leadershipbecause leaders’ actions demonstrate how fol-lowers need to act to meet their own moral stan-dards. For example, a follower who endorses thecare/harm moral foundation might see a leaderallow a coworker to leave work early to care fora sick child, and therefore be reminded thatcompassion is a central part of what it means tobe a moral person.

Previous research supports the notion thatvalue activation hinges on alignment betweenfollowers’ moral standards and leaders’ actions.For instance, in a recent study, Shao, Resick,and Hargis (2011) found that abusive supervi-sion strengthens the negative effect of socialdominance orientation (SDO) on interpersonalcitizenship and argued that abusive supervisorsactivate high-SDO followers’ beliefs in statusseeking and competitiveness. Thus, the firstpath guiding the impact of leaders’ moralized

4 Moral self-regard is related to but distinct from moralidentity. Moral self-regard reflects a dynamic, state-basedsense of meeting one’s moral standards. Moral identity, incontrast, is a trait-based construct that reflects the generalimportance of morality to an individual (Schaumberg & Wil-termuth, 2014).

FIGURE 1The Moralization of Leader Behavior and Its Effects on Followers’ Motivations and Actions

Leaderbehavior

Moral foundations ofthe organizational

culture(P1–P6)

Followers’

Followers’

motivation to maintain

motivation to maintain

moral self-regard (P7)

Followers’ value-consistent behavior

(P10–P13)

a moral reputation (P8)

Moral foundations of the follower

(P1–P6)

Followers’ moralization of leader behavior

Followers’ moralization ofleader behavior

Other-focused pathway

Self-focused pathway

Social learning

Value activation

Interaction between moralself-regard and moral

reputation motivations (P9)


actions on followers’ value-consistent behaviorcan be summarized as follows.

Proposition 7: Leaders’ moralizedactions motivate followers to act invalue-consistent ways to maintainpositive moral self-regard.

The Other-Focused Path: MoralReputation Management

The second path from moralization to value-consistent behavior is other focused. We refer tothis path as other focused because it centers onthe moral foundations of the organizational cul-ture. Specifically, we propose that leaders’ mor-alized actions motivate followers to engage invalue-consistent behavior to maintain a moralreputation—an outward-facing image as amoral person. Decades of research demonstratethat individuals are motivated to be seen posi-tively by others, especially with regard to moralissues (Ellemers, Pagliaro, Barreto, & Leach,2008). For instance, individuals are motivated tobe perceived as unbiased toward racial minori-ties (Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson, 2010) andto engage in conciliatory behavior when theirpublic images are threatened (Shnabel &Nadler, 2008). Organizational culture can, inturn, serve as an important source of informa-tion about the organization’s moral norms(Ostroff et al., 2003). As noted by Verplanken andHolland, a moral standard “might be perceivedas important not only because it is a part of aperson’s self-concept but also because of socialnorms or self-presentation motives” (2002: 435).For example, a follower whose organization en-dorses the care/harm moral foundation as partof its culture might seek to maintain a moralreputation at work by helping a suffering em-ployee meet a difficult deadline, regardless ofthe moral foundations the individual personallyendorses.

Social learning theory highlights the role thatleaders can play in conveying the potential rel-evance of a given set of behaviors for followers’moral reputations (Bandura, 1977, 1986; Brown &Treviño, 2006). According to the social learningperspective, followers learn by (a) observinghow their leaders act and (b) observing the typesof actions their leaders reward. When theseleaders’ action are aligned with the organiza-tional culture, the leader becomes an attractive,

credible, and legitimate role model, in turn af-fecting followers’ motivations and behavior. Forinstance, when leaders model and reward com-passionate behavior in organizations that en-dorse the care/harm moral foundation, followersbecome motivated to engage in compassionatebehavior as well (Brown et al., 2005; Mayer,Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012). Thus, so-cial learning takes on unique power within thecontext of ethical leadership because followerslearn what it takes to maintain a moral reputa-tion in the organization (Schaubroeck et al.,2012). For example, a follower whose organiza-tion endorses the care/harm moral foundationmight see a leader develop a new child careprogram at work, and thus be reminded thatcompassion is a central part of what it means tobe a moral person within the organization.

Previous research supports the notion that so-cial learning hinges on the alignment of organi-zations’ moral norms with leaders’ actions. Forinstance, Mayer, Nurmohamed, Treviño, Sha-piro, and Schminke (2013) found that an organi-zation’s norms in support of whistle-blowing aremost likely to facilitate an individual employ-ee’s willingness to take action when the leaderalso espouses moral standards in support ofwhistle-blowing (e.g., fairness over loyalty).Thus, the second path guiding the impact ofleaders’ moralized actions on followers’ value-consistent behavior can be summarized asfollows.

Proposition 8: Leaders’ moralizedactions motivate followers to act invalue-consistent ways to maintainpositive moral reputations.

The Interactive Effects of the Self- andOther-Focused Pathways

In sum, two distinct processes underlie themotivational effects of leaders’ moralized ac-tions on followers’ value-consistent behavior.Through the self-focused path, followers engagein value-consistent behavior to maintain moralself-regard. Through the other-focused path, fol-lowers engage in value-consistent behavior tomaintain positive moral reputations. However,each of these distinct pathways has notable lim-itations. The self-focused pathway suggests thatfollowers may only behave in value-consistentways in the absence of organizational-level con-


straints. For instance, they may need to forgocompassion when the organization demandsthat they display loyalty. The other-focusedpathway suggests that followers may only be-have in value-consistent ways if the organiza-tion demands it. For instance, they may lookpast the organization’s emphasis on fairnesswhen a manager is on vacation.

Self- and other-focused motivations for behav-ior are often pitted against each other, concep-tualized as polar opposites. For example, socialpsychologists have devoted decades of researchto the question of whether helping behavior isultimately driven by egoistic or altruistic mo-tives (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder,2005). In contrast, recent research indicates thatself- and other-focused motivations can coexist.Research by De Dreu and Nauta (2009) suggeststhat self- and other-focused concerns are inde-pendent. Grant and Mayer (2009) found thatprosocial and reputational motives exhibit aninteractive effect on prosocial behavior suchthat employees who have high levels of inter-nally driven prosocial motives and externallydriven reputational motives engage in the mostprosocial behavior. These findings suggest thatmoralization is most likely to motivate followersto act in value-consistent ways when the moralfoundations of the follower and organizationalculture are aligned.

Proposition 9: Followers’ motivations tomaintain moral self-regard and moralreputations exhibit an interactive effecton value-consistent behavior.

THE DIVERGING IMPLICATIONS OFVALUE-CONSISTENT BEHAVIOR

Propositions 7, 8, and 9 clarify how moraliza-tion is likely to encourage value-consistent be-havior. An important implication of MFT, how-ever, is that the specific behaviors moralizationencourages will depend on the particular moralfoundation or set of moral foundations underly-ing the moralized behavior. An employee whobecomes motivated to align his or her behaviorwith the care/harm moral foundation is likely toact very differently than an employee who be-comes motivated to align his or her behaviorwith the sanctity/degradation moral foundation.For example, Waytz, Dungan, and Young (2013)found that whistle-blowing is consistent with

the fairness/cheating moral foundation but thatdeciding not to blow the whistle is consistentwith the loyalty/betrayal moral foundation. Inthis section we propose that the behavioral con-sequences of moralization hinge on the particu-lar moral foundations a leader emphasizes. Spe-cifically, we suggest that (1) the care/harm andfairness/cheating foundations emphasize val-ues that lead to prosocial behavior, (2) theloyalty/betrayal and sanctity/degradation foun-dations emphasize values that lead to pro-orga-nizational behavior, (3) the authority/subversionfoundation emphasizes values that lead to pro-leader behavior, and (4) the liberty/oppressionfoundation emphasizes values that lead to pro-individual behavior (see Table 1).

Prosocial Behavior

Prosocial behavior refers to voluntary actionundertaken to benefit others, including donat-ing, sharing, comforting, and helping (Penner etal., 2005). Oftentimes, prosocial behavior occurswithin the walls of an organization, as when oneemployee helps another on a difficult project(Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). However,prosocial behavior can also extend beyond thewalls of the organization, as when an employeevolunteers for a charity in his or her community,donates money to a cause, or alleviates astranger’s suffering (Winterich, Aquino, Mittal, &Swartz, 2013). Put differently, prosocial behaviorentails helping anyone who might benefit fromassistance within or beyond the walls of theorganization.

Converging lines of research suggest thatprosocial behavior is most consistent with thecare/harm and fairness/cheating moral founda-tions and with values such as kindness, com-passion, and justice. Graham et al. (2009, 2011)conceptualized the care/harm and fairness/cheating moral foundations as “individuating,”meaning they apply to all individuals, regard-less of their membership in a given group. Con-sistent with this idea, Boer and Fischer (2013)linked the care/harm and fairness/cheatingmoral foundations to the “self-transcendent”values of benevolence and universalism inSchwartz’s (1992) value taxonomy, which areclosely linked to prosocial behavior. Within or-ganizations, it is interesting to note that theleadership styles most closely associated withthe care/harm and fairness/cheating moral foun-


dations (e.g., servant leadership, transforma-tional leadership) are also frequently linked toprosocial behavior (Ehrhart, 2004; Grant, 2012).

Proposition 10: When followers moral-ize leader behavior that is consistentwith (a) the care/harm foundation or(b) the fairness/cheating foundation,they will be motivated to engage inprosocial behavior.

Pro-organizational Behavior

Proposition 10 reflects the majority of the eth-ical leadership literature. Leaders who act in amanner consistent with the care/harm and fair-ness/cheating foundations motivate prosocialbehavior in followers that is consistent with val-ues such as compassion and fairness. However,research from anthropology, evolutionary psy-chology, and other fields suggests that moralitycan encourage behaviors that are very differentfrom this type of universal prosociality. For in-stance, a principal function of morality is to bindgroups together, helping them to protect them-selves against outside threats (DeScioli & Kurz-ban, 2013). To act in accordance with the moralfoundations of loyalty/betrayal, sanctity/degrada-tion, authority/subversion, and liberty/oppression,followers might be expected to engage in behav-ior that is not indiscriminately prosocial but,rather, targeted toward a narrower audience.

The first example of this narrower form ofprosociality is pro-organizational behavior (Um-phress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010; Waytz et al.,2013). At first glance, pro-organizational behav-ior might appear to reflect a universally proso-cial orientation. However, existing research sug-gests that pro-organizational behavior can alsoentail direct harm to other individuals or groups.A principal example of this type of behavior is“unethical pro-organizational behavior” (Um-phress et al., 2010). Umphress and colleagues(2010) demonstrated that employees sometimesact in ways that help the company but hurt otherindividuals. For example, they might lie for theirorganization or submit fraudulent documents,thus benefiting the organization but hurtingother stakeholders in a way that contradicts themandates of the care/harm and fairness/cheat-ing moral foundations. We suggest that pro-organizational behavior is most likely to stem

from the loyalty/betrayal and sanctity/degrada-tion moral foundations.

The loyalty/betrayal moral foundation is de-fined by a dedication to the ingroup and reflectssuch values as patriotism, self-sacrifice, and al-legiance. Loyalty enables individuals to favortheir own cultures over other cultures (Miller &Bersoff, 1992), their own nations over other na-tions (Baron, Ritov, & Greene, 2013), and theirown groups over other groups by limiting thescope of moral concern (Rai & Fiske, 2011). In thename of loyalty, individuals will sacrifice them-selves to save their group members (Swann, Gó-mez, Dovidio, Hart, & Jetten, 2010) and will spendtime and money to punish individuals who harmmembers of their group (Lieberman & Linke,2007). When activated, the loyalty/betrayalmoral foundation often implies engaging in oth-erwise unethical behavior in the name of thegroup, such as covering up for illegal activities.Waytz et al. (2013) demonstrated that individualswho adhere to the loyalty/betrayal moral foun-dation are unlikely to whistle-blow, and con-strue the decision as a moral imperative, wherewhistle-blowing would be an act of treacheryagainst the organization.

The sanctity/degradation moral foundation isdefined by a belief in the importance of avoid-ing biological, sexual, and moral contaminantsand is represented by values such as purity andcleanliness. Several lines of research convergeto suggest that this moral foundation is alsomost closely associated with pro-organizationalbehavior. Historically, the sanctity/degradationmoral foundation has been enacted through thedevelopment of group standards of purity andcleanliness. These standards define what itmeans to be part of the group, and they serve asa means of protecting against outgroup mem-bers and ousting deviants from the ingroup. His-tory is rife with examples of purity concernsdriving the dehumanization of outgroup mem-bers, from the creation of leper colonies to theexcommunication of impure church members.

Recent empirical data indicate that disgust—the primary emotional indicator of violations ofthe sanctity/degradation moral foundation—leads to negative evaluations of outgroup mem-bers such as immigrants, foreign ethnic groups,and low-status outgroups (Hodson & Costello,2007). In fact, groups that evoke feelings of dis-gust have also been shown to decrease individ-uals’ brain activation in areas associated with


person processing (Harris & Fiske, 2006), indicat-ing that disgust leads individuals to dehuman-ize outgroup members (Harris & Fiske, 2007; Hod-son & Costello, 2007). Finally, it is important tonote that the sanctity/degradation moral foun-dation is closely linked to religiosity (Ellison,1991; Graham et al., 2011; Sosis & Bulbulia, 2011).Although religious doctrines often emphasizeprosociality, recent reviews and meta-analysessuggest that religiously motivated prosocialityis best characterized as progroup behavior (Boer& Fischer, 2013; Galen, 2012; Henrich, Ens-minger, et al., 2010; Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008).

Proposition 11: When followers moral-ize leader behavior that is consistentwith (a) the loyalty/betrayal moral foun-dation or (b) the sanctity/degradationmoral foundation, they will be moti-vated to engage in pro-organizationalbehavior.

Proleader Behavior

Prosocial behavior refers to actions designedto help other individuals, regardless of who theymight be. Pro-organizational behavior narrowsthe circle of moral regard to the ingroup, definedfor our purposes as the boundary of the organi-zation. A still narrower realm of moral regard isdirected solely at one’s leader—what we refer tohere as proleader behavior. Just as pro-organi-zational behavior can involve prosocial behav-ior or a sacrifice of the general welfare in thename of the group, proleader behavior can in-volve pro-organizational behavior or a sacrificeof the organization’s welfare in the name of theleader. When engaging in proleader behavior, afollower might simply help the leader meet animpending deadline, but the follower might alsosabotage another employee to improve a lead-er’s reputation.

Proleader behavior is most consistent with theauthority/subversion moral foundation and val-ues such as obedience, deference, and respect.In everyday situations, low-status individualsoften act to protect high-status leaders, receiv-ing needed resources and support in exchange(Fiske, 1991; Rai & Fiske, 2011). Sometimes theseprotective acts entail going against the group ororganization within which the leader and fol-lower are embedded, as with military coups,union walkouts, and employees who leave an

organization to start a competing firm. In ex-treme circumstances, behavior driven by valuessuch authority and deference can starkly di-verge from behavior driven by values such ascompassion and justice. In 1968 a company ofU.S. soldiers murdered over 500 Vietnamese ci-vilians, mostly women and children, in what thesoldiers characterized as an act driven by re-spect for the authority of a trusted leader (Bilton& Sim, 1993).

Proposition 12: When followers moral-ize leader behavior that is consistentwith the authority/subversion moralfoundation, they will be motivated toengage in proleader behavior.

Proindividual Behavior

The final realm of behavior we consider isproindividual behavior. By this we do not meanproself or selfish behavior (De Dreu & Nauta,2009) but, rather, behavior that is aimed at en-abling individuals to act autonomously.Whereas prosocial behavior often involves di-rect interventions that constrain autonomous ac-tion, such as finishing an overburdened employ-ee’s project for him/her, proindividual behavioris focused on interventions that enable autono-mous action, such as letting an employee decidewhen to come to work and when to telecommute.

Proindividual behavior is most consistentwith the liberty/oppression moral foundationand values such as autonomy and indepen-dence. Prototypical of the idea of proindividualbehavior is empowerment, whereby individualsare provided with the resources they need to geta job done. Recent evidence suggests that em-powerment is highly desirable (Maynard, Gil-son, & Mathieu, 2012), especially among individ-uals with an autonomy orientation (Liu, Zhang,Wang, & Lee, 2011). Although empowerment isoften characterized as something that leadersgrant their followers, research suggests that fol-lowers can also empower each other and thatorganizations vary in their emphasis on empow-erment as a feature of the way they do business(Wallace, Johnson, Mathe, & Paul, 2011). It isimportant to note that, as with prosocial, pro-organizational, and proleader behavior, whenproindividual behavior is moralized, it becomesa matter of right and wrong. Although manyindividuals might prefer autonomy and empow-


erment, a narrower range of individuals arelikely to view it as a moral imperative. The ideathat autonomy and empowerment are moralmandates is exemplified by the philosophy oflibertarianism, where values such as autonomysupersede all others, including compassion andfairness (Iyer et al., 2012).

Proposition 13: When followers moral-ize leader behavior that is consistentwith the liberty/oppression moral foun-dation, they will be motivated to en-gage in proindividual behavior.

DISCUSSION

Ethics is frequently recognized as an impor-tant component of leadership. Although schol-ars have examined the behavior associatedwith ethical leadership for many years, theirdiscussions tend to adopt a narrow approach tothe ethical realm (Weaver et al., 2014). In thisarticle we have sought to expand the notion ofethical leadership through a follower-centricmodel specifying when followers can be ex-pected to moralize their leaders’ actions, as wellas the implications of moralization for followerbehavior. Below we examine the theoretical andpractical contributions of our model, highlightkey areas for future research, and discuss sev-eral potential limitations of the model.

Theoretical Contributions

First and foremost, it is important to be ex-plicit about how we believe the ideas presentedin this article contribute to ethical leadershiptheory. As previously reviewed, researchers todate have primarily adopted a narrow concep-tualization of ethical leadership, founded onspecific assumptions about the content of themoral domain. By adopting a follower-centricapproach to ethical leadership, we emphasizethe critical role of moralization in the develop-ment of ethical leader perceptions. For leadersto be perceived as ethical, followers must confermoral relevance on their actions. This perspec-tive, in turn, emphasizes the importance of look-ing to followers’ moral foundations and themoral foundations of the organizational culturewhen seeking to understand when moralizationwill occur and when it will not. MFT provides anorganizing framework through which these

moral foundations can be understood, empha-sizing that followers are likely to moralize adiverse range of behaviors, from compassionand fair treatment to empowerment and self-sacrifice.

We contribute to ethical leadership theory byhighlighting two paths through which moraliza-tion influences follower behavior once a lead-er’s actions are moralized. First, through a self-focused pathway, followers become motivatedto maintain a sense of moral self-regard, whichencourages them to act in value-consistentways so they can view themselves as moralpeople. Second, through an other-focused path-way, followers become motivated to maintain amoral reputation, which encourages them to actin value-consistent ways so others view them asmoral people. These two distinct pathwaysmove beyond current research on the mecha-nisms of ethical leadership’s effects, clarifyingwhen followers are most likely to be motivatedthrough social learning and when they are mostlikely to be motivated through value activation.

Finally, we contribute to ethical leadershiptheory by offering more nuanced predictionssurrounding ethical leadership’s effects. Previ-ous research has primarily focused on ethicalleadership’s effects on prosocial behavior, suchas helping behavior and whistle-blowing(Mayer et al., 2013). By introducing the notion ofvalue consistency, we propose a broader rangeof behaviors that ethical leadership is likely toencourage. Beyond prosocial behavior, ethicalleadership might also motivate pro-organiza-tional behavior, proleader behavior, andproindividual behavior. Thus, it is not immedi-ately clear that ethical leadership always leadsto universally desirable outcomes. In some cir-cumstances ethical leadership might encouragefollowers to help their organizations at the ex-pense of individuals outside the organization, ormight encourage followers to help their leadersat the expense of the organization.

Practical Considerations

Beyond the theoretical contributions men-tioned above, the current research highlightsimportant practical considerations for ethicalleadership research. Most notably, we empha-size the importance of a deeper consideration ofethical leadership measurement and the chal-


lenges of a model of ethical leadership built onmultiple moral foundations.

How should ethical leadership be measured?To date, empirical studies of ethical leadershiphave primarily relied on the Ethical LeadershipScale (Brown et al., 2005), which is most consis-tent with the care/harm and fairness/cheatingmoral foundations (see Table 1). The care/harmand fairness/cheating moral foundations are im-portant components of the moral domain, andpeople around the world appear to recognize themoral relevance of these foundations (Grahamet al., 2009; Resick et al., 2011). However, a strictfocus on these two foundations is limiting.Given that individuals’ moral foundations aredetermined by an array of intersecting factors,from culture and socioeconomic status to per-sonality and political orientation (Graham et al.,2013), research that relies on only two moralfoundations risks overlooking issues that are ofprime moral importance to the employees beingassessed.

A more promising option is to expand mea-sures of ethical leadership to include a broaderarray of moral foundations. This would allowscholars to tailor their measures to the moralfoundations most relevant to a particular con-text. For example, the real estate industry is ahighly autonomous domain that places a highvalue on individual freedom and personal ini-tiative (e.g., Crant, 1995). Thus, scholars mightwish to include measures of empowerment thatrecognize the likely relevance of the liberty/oppression moral foundation to ethical leaderperceptions in this domain. Similarly, scholarsmight wish to explicitly consider authority andloyalty when studying ethical leadership in mil-itary contexts, or purity in religious contexts. Insum, we recommend that scholars adopt a morecontextualized approach to the measurement ofethical leadership, aligning their measures withthe moral foundations theorized to apply to aparticular group of employees, organization, orindustry. Although this approach is not withoutits challenges, it presents many advantages. Weview our discussion as a starting point and en-courage future research to further develop thismore comprehensive approach to ethical lead-ership research.

The challenge of multiple foundations. A cen-tral assumption of the ethical leadership litera-ture is that leaders should be “moral managers”and build organizational policies that encour-

age moral behavior (Treviño et al., 2000). How-ever, MFT suggests a complex set of practicalchallenges for leaders hoping to leverage mo-rality in the pursuit of a more dedicated andinspired workforce. Leaders cannot easily relyon a set of best practices for ethical leadership.Instead, the benefits of being a moral managermay hinge on the alignment between a leader’sactions and the moral foundations of the leader’sfollowers and organization. Consider the exampleof Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s public stanceagainst same-sex marriage. In some parts of thecountry, his statement was met with praise byemployees who interpreted his actions as consis-tent with the sanctity/degradation moral founda-tion. In other parts of the country, employees in-terpreted his statement as a violation of the care/harm and fairness/cheating moral foundations,leading to acts of deviance and sabotage.

The frequency with which the moral founda-tions of leaders, followers, and their organiza-tions collide is an important empirical question.Attraction-selection-attrition theory suggeststhat organizations become more homogenousover time, increasing moral alignment as em-ployees with diverging moral perspectives quitthe organization and employees with alignedmoral perspectives are hired (Schneider, Gold-stein, & Smith, 1995). Moral alignment might beparticularly common in small family firms,where employees share common backgrounds(Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone, & De Castro, 2011).Nonetheless, it is likely that organizations’ em-ployees will frequently possess unalignedmoral foundations, especially in large organiza-tions with employees from different back-grounds (Haidt et al., 1993).

Leaders can address the challenge of multi-ple, potentially conflicting moral foundations byfocusing on the moral foundations that are mostcentral for a particular group of employees ororganization. For instance, leaders in hospitalsand other social welfare organizations can le-verage the motivational power of morality byaligning their actions with the care/harm foun-dation, especially when the organization’s cul-ture is strong (Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats,2002). A focus on moral foundations can helpleaders be more effective in other ways as well.For example, leaders might find that followerswho endorse the authority/subversion moralfoundation are more responsive to their actionsthan followers who place less emphasis on this


foundation, and they can adjust their behavioraccordingly. Similarly, leaders might find thatfollowers who endorse the loyalty/betrayalmoral foundation are particularly responsive togroup norms and behavior.

Future Directions

The active role of the leader. Future researchshould carefully consider when and how lead-ers might be able to shape the moral founda-tions of their followers and organizational cul-tures. Although individuals’ moral foundationsare typically described as transsituational, theyare also less stable than personality traitsand are susceptible to gradual change over time(Haidt, 2012). Similarly, organizational culture issusceptible to gradual change, especially whenthe organization is private, small, and new (Tsui,Zhang, Wang, Xin, & Wu, 2006).

Some leaders are more successful than othersat shaping their followers’ and organizations’morals. Visionary and charismatic leaders areparticularly adept at exerting moral influence(Schein, 2010). This impact could be exerted di-rectly or indirectly. Schaubroeck et al. (2012)found that leaders indirectly influence their em-ployees’ ethical cognitions and behaviorthrough their organizations’ cultures, as well asby influencing the ethics of leaders beneaththem in the organizational hierarchy. In addi-tion to impacting followers’ and organizations’moral foundations, leaders might attempt toframe their behaviors in morally relevant ways(Feinberg & Willer, 2013). In one study donationsincreased dramatically when nonprofits tai-lored messages to donors’ moral foundations(Winterich, Zhang, & Mittal, 2012).

Given that leaders, their followers, and theorganizational culture all play important rolesin the development and consequences of ethicalleader perceptions, future research might bene-fit from an approach reminiscent of the leader-member exchange perspective, whereby leadersdevelop idiosyncratic relationships with theirindividual followers (Graen & Scandura, 1987).Presuming that leaders’ actions reflect theirmoral foundations, it is likely that leaders andfollowers with aligned moral foundations willquickly develop high-quality relationships.Leaders and followers with unaligned moralfoundations might find that high-quality rela-tionships develop very slowly over time. The

potential role of the leader as an influencer offollowers’ and organizations’ moral foundationshighlights the importance of taking a temporalperspective on the moralization of leader behav-ior. Longitudinal designs can carefully pinpointthe amount of influence leaders have on themoral foundations of their organizations and fol-lowers and can allow researchers to unpack thecausal pathways implied by our propositions.

In addition to considering how leaders mightshape their followers’ moral foundations, futureresearch should also consider how leaders canguide employee behavior. Our model assumesthat followers understand what is required touphold the moral code of the individual and/orhis or her organization. However, this might notalways be the case (Warren & Smith-Crowe,2008). Even when leaders cannot shape their fol-lowers’ moral foundations, they can exert ameaningful impact by being explicit about howfollowers can align their actions with a givenmoral foundation. For example, a leader whoemphasizes the care/harm moral foundationmight illustrate how followers can show com-passion by participating in volunteer initiatives.

Contingencies of moralization. Throughoutthis article we have provided only a few exam-ples of individual and organizational factorsthat might determine when a particular moralfoundation will be endorsed and when it willnot. Existing research suggests systematic andpredictable differences in when followers willmoralize their leaders’ actions, highlighting im-portant issues for researchers to consider. At thedispositional level, Graham et al. (2009, 2011)demonstrated that liberals primarily emphasizethe care/harm and fairness/cheating founda-tions, whereas conservatives more equally em-phasize all six moral foundations (see also Iyeret al., 2012). Thus, future research might wish toexplicitly consider followers’ and organizations’political orientations when assessing the moralfoundations of ethical leadership. Several stud-ies have also reliably documented correlationsbetween MFT and the Big Five personality traits(Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu, & Peterson, 2010; Iyer et al.,2012; Lewis & Bates, 2011), suggesting that orga-nizations and their leaders might be able todraw inferences about followers’ moral founda-tions from these traits.

At the contextual level, several studies havelinked compassionate organizational cultures(Fehr & Gelfand, 2012) and compassionate


action (Dutton, Worline, Frost, & Lilius, 2006) tothe health care industry (Lilius et al., 2011). TheU.S. military seems to particularly endorse theloyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion moralfoundations (Department of the Army, 2006; Han-nah et al., 2013), whereas purity is strongly as-sociated with religiosity (Koleva et al., 2012) andis often linked to food (Rozin, 1999). At the orga-nizational level, culture and climate researchsuggests that organizations differ in their en-dorsement of the fairness/cheating moral foun-dation (Whitman et al., 2012), the care/harmmoral foundation (Weber, Unterrainer, &Schmid, 2009), and the liberty/oppression moralfoundation (Wallace et al., 2011). Thus, futureresearch can leverage an understanding of aparticular industry or organization to predictwhich moral foundations are most likely to berelevant in that context.

Beyond these contingencies, it is important toconsider the limits of moralization—the circum-stances under which moralization might notlead to value-consistent behavior. Followersmight forgo moral behavior when they morallydisengage from their behavior at work (Moore,Detert, Treviño, Baker, & Mayer, 2012) or de-couple their personal identity from their workidentity (Bhattacharjee, Berman, & Reed, 2013).Furthermore, in contexts with overwhelming jobdemands, followers might lack the self-controlresources needed to carry out value-consistentbehavior (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely,2011). We encourage future research to examinethese issues in depth.

The automaticity of ethics. In this article wehave primarily focused on the content of MFT—the types of behaviors an individual might per-ceive to be morally relevant in a given place ata given point in time. It is important to note thatMFT also encompasses discussions of the pro-cess of ethical decision making, suggesting thatindividuals’ perceptions of moral issues are si-multaneously driven by deliberative (e.g., Mayeret al., 2012) and intuitive (Haidt, 2001; Sonen-shein, 2007) processes. A detailed discussion ofthese issues is beyond the scope of this article.Nonetheless, we note that the dual-process ap-proach favored by MFT holds significant poten-tial for future research, especially in its call forresearch that complements but moves beyondthe cognitive-developmental tradition (Rest,1986). For instance, the automaticity of moraljudgment suggests that followers might find it

difficult to explain their moral responses to theirleaders, creating a barrier for leaders seeking tobetter understand their followers’ moral con-cerns. Likewise, the intuitive component of MFTsuggests that emotions play an important role inhow followers respond to their leaders’ moral-ized actions. Detailed discussions of the rele-vance of this aspect of MFT for the organiza-tional sciences can be found in Weaver andBrown (2012) and Weaver et al. (2014).

Critiques of a Moral Foundations Approach

The theory developed in this article is notwithout limitations. Most notably, it is importantto recognize that MFT has been criticized onseveral grounds (Gray, Waytz, & Young, 2012;Suhler & Churchland, 2011). A principal criticismis that the set of foundations MFT proposes isincomplete. For example, Suhler and Church-land argue that “both the theory’s proposednumber of moral foundations and its taxonomyof the moral domain appear contrived, ignoringequally good candidate foundations and thepossibility of substantial intergroup differencesin the foundations’ contents” (2011: 2103). In itsnascent form MFT proposed only four founda-tions (Haidt & Joseph, 2004), which later wereexpanded to five (Graham et al., 2009) and nowsix foundations (Haidt, 2012). Haidt and col-leagues acknowledge that their taxonomy ofmoral foundations is only a starting point andthat revisions are likely (Graham et al., 2013).They have discussed the potential of includingwastefulness as a moral foundation and of re-vising the fairness/cheating foundation to ex-plicitly include an equity principle but excludeequality and need principles. In our opinionMFT’s ability to be revised is one of its mostimportant strengths, since it enables research-ers to expand and revise the theory when newevidence becomes available. These potential re-visions suggest exciting new directions for eth-ical leadership research. If and when new moralfoundations emerge, they can provide new op-portunities for an enhanced understanding ofwhat it means to be an ethical leader. Nonethe-less, we note that even when the moral founda-tions are revised and expanded, the underlyingmechanisms of our model will remain un-changed. Moralization remains at the core of theperception of ethical leadership, and value con-sistency remains at the core of its effects.


Other critics have argued that MFT, in its de-scriptive approach, risks becoming overly rela-tivistic (Jost, 2012). In this criticism it is importantto distinguish between moralization and moral-ity. As John Stuart Mill once said, “Nature cannotbe a proper model for us to imitate. Either it isright that we should kill because nature kills;torture because nature tortures; ruin and devas-tate because nature does the like; or weought not to consider what nature does, butwhat it is good to do” (quoted in Jost, 2012: 526).Put differently, a predisposition to view a givenissue or behavior as moral does not imply that itis desirable. We make no normative argumentsin this article, nor do we suggest that a percep-tion of ethical leadership based on sanctity/degradation is any more or less legitimate thana perception of ethical leadership based oncare/harm. However, the empirical question ofhow these different types of ethical leadershipinfluence organizational outcomes is intriguing.Is purity-based ethical leadership just as effec-tive at facilitating organizational citizenship ascare-based ethical leadership? Do counterpro-ductive work behaviors subside to the same de-gree under fairness-based ethical leadership asthey do under loyalty-based leadership? Do fol-lowers expect certain types of leaders (e.g., pol-iticians) to be purer than others (e.g., managersat retail stores)? These questions are beyond thescope of this article but represent important av-enues for future research.

CONCLUSION

Morality is a vital force. It brings individualstogether and motivates them in a way that fewother forces can. At the same time, morality isenigmatic. The broad array of moral domainsidentified by MFT presents unique challengesfor leaders. Best practices may need to be tem-pered with an understanding of the moral foun-dations that are most important to a given fol-lower or in a given organization. By taking thefull range of human morality into account, ethi-cal leadership research stands to make an evenmore effective and powerful contribution to theorganizational sciences.

REFERENCES

Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. 2013. Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional

justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 98: 678–689.

Andorfer, V. A., & Liebe, U. 2012. Research on fair tradeconsumption—A review. Journal of Business Ethics, 106:415–435.

Aristotle. 2011. Nicomachean ethics. Seattle: Pacific Publish-ing Studio.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. 2007.Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for counter-ing occupational taint. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 50: 149–174.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. 2009. Leader-ship: Current theories, research, and future directions.Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421–449.

Ayman-Nolley, S., & Ayman, R. 2005. Children’s implicit the-ories of leadership. In B. Schyns & J. R. Meindl (Eds.),Implicit leadership theories—Essays and explorations:227–274. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, J., Ritov, I., & Greene, J. D. 2013. The duty to supportnationalistic policies. Journal of Behavioral DecisionMaking, 26: 128–138.

Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. In press. What’s love got to dowith it? A longitudinal study of the culture of compan-ionate love and employee and client outcomes in thelong-term care setting. Administrative Science Quar-terly.

Bass, B. M. 2008. The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory,research, and managerial implications. New York: FreePress.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 2000. MLQ: Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, andauthentic transformational leadership behavior. Lead-ership Quarterly, 10: 181–217.

Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. 2010. To beliked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracialinteractions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 99: 248–264.

Berlin, I. 1969. Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Beugré, C. D. 2012. Development and validation of a deonticjustice scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42:2163–2190.

Bhattacharjee, A., Berman, J. Z., & Reed, A., II. 2013. Tip of thehat, wag of the finger: How moral decoupling enablesconsumers to admire and admonish. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 39: 1167–1184.

Bilton, M., & Sim, K. 1993. Four hours in My Lai. New York:Penguin.

Blasi, A. 1980. Bridging moral cognition and moral action: Acritical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin,88: 1–45.


Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. 2011. Romancing lead-ership: Past, present, and future. Leadership Quarterly,22: 1058–1077.

Boehm, C. 2012. Moral origins: The evolution of virtue, altru-ism, and shame. New York: Basic Books.

Boer, D., & Fischer, R. 2013. How and when do personalvalues guide our attitudes and sociality? Explainingcross-cultural variability in attitude-values linkages.Psychological Bulletin, 139: 1113–1147.

Brown, M., & Mitchell, M. 2010. Ethical and unethical leader-ship: Exploring new avenues for future research. Busi-ness Ethics Quarterly, 20: 583–616.

Brown, M., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethicalleadership: A social learning perspective for constructdevelopment and testing. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 97: 117–134.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: Areview and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17:595–616.

Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Chapman, H. A., & Anderson, A. K. 2013. Things rank andgross in nature: A review and synthesis of moral dis-gust. Psychological Bulletin, 139: 300–327.

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L.2004. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate re-sponses: Establishing a leadership model in Chineseorganizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7: 89–117.

Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. 2011.Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt andshame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 100: 947–966.

Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizationaljustice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86: 386–400.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadershipin organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crant, J. M. 1995. The proactive personality scale and objec-tive job performance in real estate agents. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 80: 532–537.

Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. 2003. Deontic jus-tice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 1019–1024.

De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., van Dijke, M., Schouten, B. C., &Bardes, M. 2009. When does self-sacrificial leadershipmotivate prosocial behavior? It depends on followers’prevention focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 887–899.

De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D.,Mullenders, D., & Stinglhamber, F. 2005. Rewardingleadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 3–12.

De Dreu, C. K., & Nauta, A. 2009. Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: Implications forjob performance, prosocial behavior, and personal ini-tiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 913–926.

Department of the Army. 2006. Field manual 6–22. Armyleadership: Competent, confident, and agile. Washing-ton, DC: Department of the Army.

DeRue, D. S., Barnes, C. M., & Morgeson, F. P. 2010. Under-standing the motivational contingencies of team lead-ership. Small Group Research, 41: 621–651.

DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. 2013. A solution to the mysteries ofmorality. Psychological Bulletin, 139: 477–496.

De Waal, F. 1982. Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex amongapes. London: Jonathan Cape.

De Waal, F. B. M. 1996. Good natured: The origins of right andwrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Dunning, D. 2007. Self-image motives and consumer behav-ior: How sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in themarketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17: 237–249.

Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006.Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 51: 59–96.

Effron, D. A., & Miller, D. T. 2012. How the moralization ofissues grants social legitimacy to action one’s attitudes.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38: 690–701.

Ehrhart, M. G. 2004. Leadership and procedural justice cli-mate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizen-ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57: 61–94.

Eisenbeiss, S. 2012. Re-thinking ethical leadership: An inter-disciplinary integrative approach. Leadership Quar-terly, 23: 791–808.

Ellemers, N., Pagliaro, S., Barreto, M., & Leach, C. W. 2008. Isit better to be moral than smart? The effects of moralityand competence norms on the decision to work at groupstatus improvement. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 95: 1397–1410.

Ellison, C. G. 1991. Religious involvement and subjectivewell-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32:80–99.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. 2004. Implicit leadership theoriesin applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability,and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology,89: 293–310.

Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas,A. 2013. Implicit leadership and followership theories“in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processingapproaches to leadership and followership in organiza-tional settings. Leadership Quarterly, 24: 858–881.

Erben, G. S., & Güneser, A. B. 2008. The relationship betweenpaternalistic leadership and organizational commit-ment: Investigating the role of climate regarding ethics.Journal of Business Ethics, 82: 955–968.

Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. 2012. The forgiving organization: Amultilevel model of forgiveness at work. Academy ofManagement Review, 37: 664–688.

Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. 2013. The moral roots of environ-mental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24: 56–62.


Fiedler, F. E. 1967. A theory of leadership effectiveness. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, A. P. 1991. Structures of social life: The four elementaryforms of human relations: Communal sharing, authorityranking, equality matching, market pricing. New York:Free Press.

Fiske, A. P. 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality:Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psy-chological Review, 99: 689–723.

Frimer, J. A., Biesanz, J. C., Walker, L. J., & MacKinlay, C. W.2013. Liberals and conservatives rely on common moralfoundations when making judgments about influentialpeople. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,104: 1040–1059.

Fry, L. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Lead-ership Quarterly, 14: 693–727.

Galen, L. W. 2012. Does religious belief promote prosocial-ity? A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 138:876–906.

Gehman, J., Treviño, L. K., & Garud, R. 2013. Values work: Aprocess study of the emergence and performance oforganizational values practices. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 56: 84–112.

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. 2011.Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletionpromotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 115: 191–203.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. 2011.The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservationin family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5:653–707.

Goodall, J. 1986. The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns ofbehavior. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 1987. Toward a psychology ofdyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behav-ior, 9: 175–208.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik,S. P., & Ditto, P. H. 2013. Moral foundations theory: Thepragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Ex-perimental Social Psychology, 47: 55–130.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. 2009. Liberals and con-servatives use different sets of moral foundations. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 1029–1046.

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto,P. H. 2011. Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 101: 266–385.

Grant, A. 2012. Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact,prosocial impact, and the performance effects of trans-formational leadership. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 55: 458–476.

Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. 2009. Good soldiers and goodactors: Prosocial and impression management motivesas interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behav-iors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 900–912.

Gray, K., Waytz, A., & Young, L. 2012. The moral dyad: Afundamental template unifying moral judgment. Psy-chological Inquiry, 23: 206–215.

Greenleaf, R. K. 1970. The servant as leader. Indianapolis:Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. 1977. Servant leadership. New York: PaulistPress.

Grojean, M., Resick, C., Dickson, M. W., & Smith, D. B. 2004.Creating the desired climate regarding ethics: The roleof values and organizational leadership. Journal of Busi-ness Ethics, 55: 223–241.

Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: Asocial intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psycho-logical Review, 108: 814–834.

Haidt, J. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people aredivided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. 2004. Intuitive ethics: How innatelyprepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues.Daedalus, 133: 55–66.

Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. 1993. Affect, culture, andmorality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 64: 613–628.

Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. 2003. Differentiating di-versities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 33: 1–36.

Hammer, T. H., Saksvik, P.Ø, Nytrø, K., Torvatn, H., & Bayazit,M. 2004. Expanding the psychosocial work environment:Workplace norms and work-family conflict as correlatesof stress and health. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 9: 83–97.

Hannah, S. T., Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., Lord, R. G.,Treviño, L. K., Kozlowski, S. W. Avolio, B. J., Dimotakis, N.,& Doty, J. 2013. Joint influences of individual and workunit abusive supervision on ethical intentions and be-haviors: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 98: 579–592.

Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. 2006. Dehumanizing the lowest ofthe low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups.Psychological Science, 17: 847–853.

Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. 2007. Social groups that elicitdisgust are differentially processed in mPFC. SocialCognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2: 45–51.

Helweg-Larsen, M., Tobias, M. R., & Cerban, B. M. 2010. Riskperception and moralization among smokers in the USAand Denmark: A qualitative approach. British Journal ofHealth Psychology, 15: 871–886.

Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C.,Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E.,Henrich, N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer, D., &Ziker, J. 2010. Markets, religion, community size, and theevolution of fairness and punishment. Science, 327:1480–1484.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. 2010. The weirdestpeople in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33:61–135.

Higgins, E. T. 1996. The “self-digest”: Self-knowledge serving


self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 71: 1062–1083.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. 2008. An examination of“nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to leaderreward omission and punishment omission. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93: 1234–1248.

Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. 2010.Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Asso-ciations of agreeableness with political ideology andvalues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36:655–664.

Hodson, G., & Costello, K. 2007. Interpersonal disgust, ideo-logical orientations, and dehumanization as predictorsof intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18: 691–698.

House, R. J. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 321–338.

House, R. J. 1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons,legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quar-terly, 7: 323–352.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., &Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations:The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. 2012.Understanding libertarian morality: The psychologicaldispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS ONE,7(8): e42366.

Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. 2000. Gender differences in moralorientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,126: 703–726.

Janson, A., Levy, L., Sitkin, S. B., & Lind, E. A. 2008. Fairnessand other leadership heuristics: A four-nation study.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 17: 251–272.

Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. 1997. The link between ethicaljudgment and action in organizations: A moral appro-bation approach. Organization Science, 8: 663–680.

Jost, J. T. 2012. Left and right, right and wrong. Science, 337:525–526.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. 2004. The forgotten ones?The validity of consideration and initiating structure inleadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89:36–51.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. 2011.Ethical Leadership at Work Questionnaire (ELW): Devel-opment and validation of a multidimensional measure.Leadership Quarterly, 22: 51–69.

Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. M. 2005. Does activatingjustice help or hurt in promoting forgiveness? Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 41: 290–297.

Keller, T. 1999. Images of the familiar: Individual differencesand implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly,10: 589–607.

Knafo, A., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. 2011. The value of values incross-cultural research: A special issue in honor of Sha-

lom Schwartz. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42:178–185.

Kohlberg, L. 1971. From is to ought: How to commit the nat-uralistic fallacy and get away with it in the study ofmoral development. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive devel-opment and epistemology: 151–235. New York: AcademicPress.

Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. 2012.Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (espe-cially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journalof Research in Personality, 46: 184–194.

Koonz, C. 2003. The Nazi conscience. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Kruglanski, A. W. 1996. Motivated social cognition: Princi-ples of the interface. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles:493–520. New York: Guilford.

Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C. 2011. From left to right: How thepersonality system allows basic traits to influence pol-itics via characteristic moral adaptations. British Jour-nal of Psychology, 102: 546–558.

Lewis, G. J., Kanai, R., Bates, T. C., & Rees, G. 2012. Moralvalues are associated with individual differences in re-gional brain volume. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,24: 1657–1663.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. 2008.Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensionalmeasure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quar-terly, 19: 161–177.

Lieberman, D., & Linke, L. 2007. The effect of social categoryon third party punishment. Evolutionary Psychology, 5:289–305.

Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Kanov, J., Maitlis, S.,& Frost, P. J. 2011. Understanding compassion capability.Human Relations, 64: 873–899.

Liu, D., Zhang, S., Wang, L., & Lee, T. W. 2011. The effects ofautonomy and empowerment on employee turnover:Test of a multilevel model in teams. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 96: 1305–1316.

Locke, J. 1690/1988. Two treatises of government. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. 2004. Leadership processes andfollower identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates.

Maio, G. R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W. Y., & Rees, K. J. 2009.Changing, priming, and acting on values: Effects viamotivational relations in a circular model. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 97: 699–715.

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. 2012.Who displays ethical leadership and why does it mat-ter? An examination of antecedents and consequencesof ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal,55: 151–171.

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. 2008. Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizationaljustice perspective. European Journal of Work and Or-ganizational Psychology, 17: 180–197.


Mayer, D. M., Nurmohamed, S., Treviño, L. K., Shapiro, D. L.,& Schminke, M. 2013. Encouraging employees to reportunethical behavior internally: It takes a village. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121:89–103.

Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. 2012. Empow-erment—Fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past twodecades of research. Journal of Management, 38: 1231–1281.

Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. 2008. The dishonesty ofhonest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance.Journal of Marketing Research, 45: 633–644.

Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. 2010. Psychological license: Whenit is needed and how it functions. Advances in Experi-mental Social Psychology, 43: 115–155.

Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. 1992. Culture and moral judg-ment: How are conflicts between justice and interper-sonal responsibilities resolved? Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 62: 541–554.

Monin, B., & Jordan, A. H. 2009. The dynamic moral self: Asocial psychological perspective. In D. Narvaez & D. K.Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character: Ex-plorations in moral psychology: 341–354. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer,D. M. 2012. Why employees do bad things: Moral disen-gagement and unethical organizational behavior. Per-sonnel Psychology, 65: 1–48.

Moore, G. 1903. Principia ethica. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nisan, M. 1990. Moral balance: A model of how people arriveat moral decisions. In T. E. Wren (Ed.), The moral do-main: 283–314. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nisan, M. 1991. The moral balance model: Theory and re-search extending our understanding of moral choiceand deviation. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.),Handbook of moral behavior and development, vol. 3:213–249. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. 2008. The origin and evolutionof religious prosociality. Science, 322: 58–62.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006.Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, anteced-ents, and consequences. London: Sage.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. 2003. Organiza-tional culture and climate. In W. C. Berman, D. R. Ilgen,& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Volume12: I/O psychology. New York: Wiley.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A.2005. Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. An-nual Review of Psychology, 56: 365–392.

Plato. 2009. The republic. Accessed at classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Skov, R. 1982. Effect of leadercontingent and non-contingent reward and punishmentbehaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction.Academy of Management Journal, 25: 810–821.

Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. 2011. Moral psychology is relation-

ship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy,equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review,118: 57–75.

Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Reave, L. 2005. Spiritual values and practices related toleadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 655–687.

Resick, C. J., Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Dickson, M. W.,Kwan, H. K., & Peng, C. 2011. What ethical leadershipmeans to me: Asian, American, and European perspec-tives. Journal of Business Ethics, 101: 435–457.

Rest, J. R. 1986. Moral development: Advances in researchand theory. New York: Praeger.

Ross, W. 1930. The right and the good. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. 2007. Transformational and charis-matic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent,and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leader-ship Quarterly, 18: 121–133.

Rozin, P. 1999. The process of moralization. PsychologicalScience, 10: 218–221.

Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. 1999. The CAD triadhypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions(contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (com-munity, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 76: 574–586.

Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & McCauley, C. 1994. Sensitivity toindirect contacts with other persons: AIDS aversion as acomposite of aversion to strangers, infection, moraltaint, and misfortune. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,103: 495–505.

Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. 1997. Moralization andbecoming a vegetarian: The transformation of prefer-ences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psy-chological Science, 8: 67–73.

Rozin, P., & Singh, L. 1999. The moralization of cigarettesmoking in the United States. Journal of Consumer Psy-chology, 8: 321–337.

Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. 2011. The behavioral immune sys-tem (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psycho-logical Science, 20: 99–103.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski,S. W. J., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., Dimotakis, N., & Peng,A. C. 2012. Embedding ethical leadership within andacross organization levels. Academy of ManagementJournal, 55: 1053–1078.

Schaumberg, R. L., & Wiltermuth, S. S. 2014. Desire for apositive moral self-regard exacerbates escalation ofcommitment to initiatives with prosocial aims. Organi-zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123:110–123.

Schein, E. H. 2010. Organizational culture and leadership.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. 1995. The ASAframework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48: 747–773.


http://classics.mit.edu/plato/republic.html

http://classics.mit.edu/plato/republic.html

Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. 2002. Climatestrength: A new direction for climate research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 220–229.

Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structureof values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 25: 1–65.

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E.,Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M.,Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., &Konty, M. 2012. Refining the theory of basic individualvalues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103: 663– 668.

Shao, P., Resick, C. J., & Hargis, M. B. 2011. Helping andharming others in the workplace: The roles of personalvalues and abusive supervision. Human Relations, 64:1051–1078.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C.1961. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The RobbersCave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma In-stitute of Group Relations.

Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. 2008. A needs-based model ofreconciliation: Satisfying the differential needs of victimand perpetrator. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 94: 116–132.

Shweder, R. A., Mahapatra, M., & Miller, J. 1987. Culture andmoral development. In J. Kagan & S. Lamb (Eds.), Theemergence of morality in young children: 1–83. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. 1997.The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, anddivinity), and the “big three” explanations of suffering.In A. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health: 119–169. New York: Routledge.

Simola, S. K., Barling, J., & Turner, N. 2010. Transformationalleadership and leader moral orientation: Contrasting anethic of justice and an ethic of care. Leadership Quar-terly, 21: 179–188.

Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Lytle, B. L. 2009. Limits onlegitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as con-straints on deference to authority. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 97: 567–578.

Solomon, R. C. 1992. Corporate roles, personal virtues: AnAristotelean approach to business ethics. Business Eth-ics Quarterly, 2: 317–339.

Sonenshein, S. 2007. The role of construction, intuition, andjustification in responding to ethical issues at work: Thesensemaking-intuition model. Academy of ManagementReview, 32: 1022–1040.

Sosis, R., & Bulbulia, J. 2011. The behavioral ecology of reli-gion: The benefits and costs of one evolutionary ap-proach. Religion, 41: 341–361.

Suhler, C. L., & Churchland, P. 2011. Can innate, modular“foundations” explain morality? Challenges for Haidt’smoral foundations theory. Journal of Cognitive Neurosci-ence, 23: 2103–2116.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., & Jetten,J. 2010. Dying and killing for one’s group: Identity fusion

moderates responses to intergroup versions of the trol-ley problem. Psychological Science, 21: 1176–1183.

Torelli, C. J., & Kaikati, A. M. 2009. Values as predictors ofjudgments and behaviors: The role of abstract and con-crete mindsets. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 96: 231–247.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. 2003. A qualitativeinvestigation of perceived executive ethical leadership:Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite.Human Relations, 55: 5–37.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. 2000. Moral personand moral manager: How executives develop a reputa-tion for ethical leadership. California Management Re-view, 42(4): 128–142.

Trivers, R. L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quar-terly Review of Biology, 46: 35–57.

Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Z., Wang, H., Xin, K. R., & Wu, J. B. 2006.Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadershipbehavior and organizational culture. Leadership Quar-terly, 17: 113–137.

Turiel, E. 1983. The development of social knowledge: Moral-ity and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. 2013.Disgust: Evolved function and structure. PsychologicalReview, 120: 65–84.

Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P. S., Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi, M.1990. Company paternalism and the hidden-investmentprocess: Identification of the “right type” for line man-agers in leading Japanese organizations. Group andOrganization Studies, 15: 414–430.

Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Uneth-ical behavior in the name of the company: The moder-ating effect of organizational identification and positivereciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational be-havior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 769–780.

van Knippenberg, D. 2011. Embodying who we are: Leadergroup prototypicality and leadership effectiveness.Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1078–1091.

van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, B.2007. Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. Eu-ropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,16: 113–140.

van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. 2013. A critical assess-ment of charismatic-transformational leadership re-search: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Man-agement Annals, 7: 1–60.

van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. 2004. Social identity as socialglue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 86: 585–598.

Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. 2002. Motivated decision-making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of val-ues on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 82: 434–447.

Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., & Jurasek, M. 2008.Context change and travel mode choice: Combining the


habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. Jour-nal of Environmental Psychology, 28: 121–127.

Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. 2011.Structural and psychological empowerment climates,performance, and the moderating role of shared feltaccountability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 840–850.

Warren, D. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. Deciding what’s right:The role of external sanctions and embarrassment inshaping moral judgments in the workplace. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 28: 81–105.

Waytz, A., Dungan, J., & Young, L. 2013. The whistleblower’sdilemma and the fairness-loyalty tradeoff. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 49: 1027–1033.

Weaver, G. R., & Brown, M. E. 2012. Moral foundations atwork: New factors to consider in understanding the na-ture and role of ethics in organizations. In A. E. Ten-brunsel & D. DeCremer (Eds.), Behavioral business eth-ics: Ideas on an emerging field: 143–172. New York:Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

Weaver, G. R., Reynolds, S. J., & Brown, M. E. 2014. Moralintuition: Connecting current knowledge to future orga-nizational research and practice. Journal of Manage-ment, 40: 100–129.

Weber, W. G., Unterrainer, C., & Schmid, B. E. 2009. The

influence of organizational democracy on employees’socio-moral climate and prosocial behavioral orienta-tions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 1127–1149.

Whitman, D. S., Caleo, S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M. T., &Bernerth, J. B. 2012. Fairness at the collective level: Ameta-analytic examination of the consequences andboundary conditions of organizational justice climate.Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 776–791.

Winterich, K. P., Aquino, K., Mittal, V., & Swartz, P. 2013.When moral identity symbolization motivates prosocialbehavior: The role of recognition and moral identityinternalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 759–770.

Winterich, K. P., Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. 2012. How politicalidentity and charity positioning increase donations: In-sights from moral foundations theory. International Jour-nal of Research in Marketing, 29: 346–354.

Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. 2011. The effectof authentic transformational leadership on followerand group ethics. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 801–817.

Zucker, L. G. 1991. The role of institutionalization in culturalpersistence. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), Thenew institutionalism in organizational analysis: 59–82.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ryan Fehr ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of management at the Michael G.Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle. He received his Ph.D. inorganizational psychology from the University of Maryland, College Park. His currentresearch interests include ethics, morality, and conflict management.

Kai Chi (Sam) Yam ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of organizational be-havior at the National University of Singapore. He completed his doctoral training inorganizational behavior at the Michael G. Foster School of Business, University ofWashington, Seattle. His research focuses on behavioral ethics, ethical leadership,and behavioral decision making.

Carolyn Dang ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of organizational behaviorat the University of New Mexico. She received her Ph.D. in organizational behaviorfrom the Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle. Herresearch focuses on behavioral ethics, job design, and social hierarchy.


MORALIZED LEADERSHIP: THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONSEQUENCES...

Documents

Transcript of MORALIZED LEADERSHIP: THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONSEQUENCES...