Master Thesis ETHICAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND …

School of Social and Behavioral Sciences Human Resource Studies

Master Thesis

Abstract: This study examined the link between ethical leadership behavior, employee loyalty (in

which a distinction was made between cognitive and emotional loyalty), and job autonomy.

Stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. Results from 155

self-reports revealed that the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both types of

loyalty were significant and that these relationships occur via job autonomy, in which job

autonomy is a partial mediator.

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND EMPLOYEE LOYALTY:

THE MODERATOR ROLE OF JOB AUTONOMY

Student : Niki Noëlle Tuppert

ANR : 287346

Faculty : Social and Behavioral Sciences

Name program : Human Resource Studies

Supervisor : Dr. K. Kalshoven

MTO professor : S.C.H. André MSc

Second reader : Drs. J. Van Dijk

Project period : January 2012 – August 2012

Project theme : Ethical Leadership Behavior

Date : 29.08.2012

Ethical leadership behavior and employee loyalty: the moderator role of job autonomy P a g e |

M a s t e r Τ h e s i s - Ν . Ν . T u p p e r t ( 2 0 1 2 )

1

Table of contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………..2

2. Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………………………….3

2.1 Ethical leadership behavior………………………………………………………...………..3

2.1.1 Conservation of resources theory..............................................................................5

2.2 Ethical leadership behavior and employee loyalty……………………...………………...6

2.3 The moderator role of job autonomy………………………………………………………..7

3. Method…………………………………………………………………………………………………...9

3.1 Research design………………………………………………………………………………9

3.2 Sample and procedures……………………………………………………………………...9

3.3 Measures……………………………………………………………………………………..10

3.4 Statistical analysis…………………………………………………………………………...11

4. Results………………………………………………………………………………………………….12

4.1 Correlation……………………………………………………………………………………12

4.2 Regression………………………..................................................................................13

4.3 Additional Analyses………………………………………………………………………….16

5. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………..19

5.1 Theoretical implications...............................................................................................19

5.2 Limitations...............................……………………………………………………………..21

5.3 Practical implications………………………………………………………………………..23

5.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................................23

6. References................................................................................................................................24



2

1. Introduction

Ethical leadership behavior is starting to gain more attention due to ethical scandals such

as seen at Enron, WorldCom and TNT. These ethical scandals have heightened pressure from

different stakeholders to manage and control organizations ethically (Treviño, Weaver, &

Reynolds, 2006). As known for years, employees look to significant others rather than to

themselves for ethical guidance (Kohlberg, 1969; Treviño, 1986). Therefore, in organizational

settings leaders can be such ethical guides by being honest, fair, trustworthy, and caring (Brown

& Treviño, 2006). Likewise, in the research literature ethical leadership behavior is shown to be

positively related to in-role performance (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010;

Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman, & Christens, 2011), helping (Kalshoven, Den

Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2009; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009), satisfaction

and commitment (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011).

The current study extends previous studies by examining employee loyalty as a possible

outcome of ethical leadership behavior. This study follows the conception of other research

literature about loyalty being an attitude rather than a behavior (Klehe, Zikic, Van Vianen, & De

Pater, 2011, p. 221). Employee loyalty provides benefits for the organization in different ways, i.e.

loyal employees put forth extra efforts in their work, serve as positive public relations

representatives outside the organization, and go above and beyond the norm in doing the little

things that help the organization function effectively (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; O‟Reilly &

Chatman, 1986; Organ, 1988). Therefore, organizations might be interested in predictors of

employee loyalty. In the current study, the focus is on the relationship between ethical leadership

behavior and employee loyalty and as the work context is important in the effects of ethical

leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006), the moderator role of job autonomy is also studied

(Kalshoven & Boon, 2012).

As revealed in the global crisis (2008-2009) employees of even the most powerful

organizations will eventually worry about being redundant or feel unsatisfied with their jobs (Klehe

et al., 2011) and this crisis has placed loyalty in a precarious position. What happens is a

decrease of market conditions that promote employee loyalty such as long term job security.

While, at the same time, there is an increase of destructive market conditions such as downsizing

(Roehling, Roehling, & Moen, 2001), that might lower employee organizational loyalty (Sverke &

Goslinga, 2003; Brockner, Grover, Reed, De Witt, & O‟Malley, 1987; Robinson, Kraatz, &

Rousseau, 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1999). However, it is argued that employees often show

higher loyalty towards their organization, such that redundancy fosters career adaptive behaviors

(e.g. career planning), which positively predict employees' loyalty to the organization (Klehe et al.,

2011; Sverke, Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002; Sverke & Goslinga, 2003). Thus, this study predicts that

the context is essential in the extent to which employees show loyalty to their organization.

Hence, this study aims to explore whether organizations can promote employee loyalty through

ethical leadership behavior.



3

Several theories may help to explain the relationships between ethical leadership

behavior, employee loyalty and employee job autonomy. So far, the social learning theory (SLT)

(Bandura, 1986) and the social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) are most used in the ethical

leadership behavior research field (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Here, the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1998) will be applied to explain the

relationship between ethical leadership behavior and employee loyalty as this theory is recently

added to the ethical leadership field (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012). According to the COR theory

employees have a general motivation to obtain, retain, and protect resources they value (Hobfoll,

1998, p. 55). Ethical leaders are likely to provide job resources (e.g., ethical guidance or

emotional support; Kalshoven & Boon, 2012) and job autonomy is seen as a job resource. This

study expects a positive gain spiral to start when both ethical leadership behavior and job

autonomy are present. As a reaction to this, employees with excess resources are expected to

reinvest them back into the organization in the form of loyalty (Hobfoll, 1998). This study therefore

argues, that job autonomy might positively moderate the relationship between ethical leadership

behavior and employee loyalty.

Thus, this study aims to contribute to research on ethical leadership behavior by

unravelling the relationship between ethical leadership behavior and employee loyalty with a

moderator role of job autonomy in this relationship. The present study contributes to the literature

on ethical leadership behavior in different ways. First, only a few studies have tackled the

consequences of ethical leadership behavior (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Detert, Treviño,

Burris, & Andiappan, 2007; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009). Whereas

several studies recently approved the ideas that ethical leadership behavior certainly has

numerous favourable outcomes (e.g. Brown et al., 2005; Detert et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 2009),

employee loyalty is not researched yet and seems important using the COR theory and the

current economic crisis. Second, work context seems important in the ethical leadership and

employee outcome relationships (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012) and job autonomy is seen as a job

resource and therefore a possible moderator in the relationship between ethical leadership


Hence, the research question is: To what extent is ethical leadership behavior associated

with employee loyalty to the organization, and what is the moderator role of employee job

autonomy in this relationship?

In what follows, elaboration will be given on the theoretical foundations and corresponding

hypotheses plus a visual summary of the hypotheses. Furthermore, the methods will be provided,

as well as the results and the discussion.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Ethical leadership behavior

Brown et al. (2005) define ethical leadership behavior as “the demonstration of

normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships and the



4

promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and

decision-making” (p.120). From a social learning perspective, Brown et al. (2005) argued that

ethical leaders do not only inform employees about benefits of behaving in an ethical way, such

leaders also set clear standards and use rewards and balanced and fair punishment to hold

employees accountable for their ethical behavior (see also Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2003). In

line with these perspectives, Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, and Folger (2010) added that the

behavior of an ethical leader is critical to his or her credibility and potential to have meaningful

influence on employees within an organization. In addition, Brown et al. (2005) found that in order

to be an ethical leader who can influence employee outcomes, leaders should be viewed as

attractive, credible, and legitimate role models who engage in normatively appropriate behavior

and make the ethical message salient. Moreover, the literatures shows that ethical leaders

demonstrate social responsibility and that they do not act as role models of responsibility only, but

also make employees co-responsible for achieving common goals (De Hoogh & Den Hartog,

2008). Up till now, ethical leadership behavior has been shown to lead to many favourable

outcomes for organizations, such as; helping; organizational citizenship behavior (OCB);

perceived effectiveness of leaders; followers‟ job satisfaction; dedication; commitment; and

followers willingness to report problems to management (e.g. Brown et al., 2005; Detert et al.,

2007; Kalshoven, et al., 2011; Mayer et al., 2009). Moreover, ethical leadership behavior is seen

as a trust-based process (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Research shows positive relationships

between ethical leadership and several outcomes related to employee loyalty (Klehe et al., 2011).

Therefore, this study expects a similar result in the relationship between ethical leadership


The social learning theory (SLT) (Bandura, 1986), is commonly used in the research to

explain ethical leadership behavior and its effects. Based on the SLT, ethical leaders are capable

of rewarding, punishing, acting as significant role models and guiding employees to show desired

behaviors and attitudes (Bandura, 1986; Brown et al., 2005). Most organizations consider

employee loyalty as such a desired attitude (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; O‟Reilly &

Chatman, 1986; Organ, 1988). The ethical leadership style (like many other leadership styles)

highlights ethical leader‟s characteristics, such as being honest, fair, trustworthy, and caring

(Brown & Treviño, 2006). So far, several studies show that ethical leadership style is empirically

different from related leadership styles (Brown et al., 2005; Kalshoven et al., 2011).

In addition, the social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) is often used to explain ethical

leadership behavior and its effects (e.g. Mayer et al., 2009). At the core of the SET is the norm of

reciprocity; “positive, beneficial actions directed at employees by organizations generally create

feelings of obligation for employees to reciprocate in positive, beneficial ways”. Employees

normally feel positively treated by ethical leaders (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Therefore, the SET

suggests that to reciprocate the valued relationship with their leader, employees will be willing

show beneficial attitudes, such as loyalty (e.g. Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, Sowa, 1986;

Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997).

Thus, previous studies extensively used both the SLT and the SET in the research field of



5

ethical leadership behavior to explain its effects (Brown & Treviño, 2006). The current study may

add to the literature by applying the COR theory (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012) to explain ethical

leadership behavior and its effects.

2.1.1 Conservation of resources theory

So far, SLT and SET are mainly used in the ethical leadership field. In this study, the COR

theory is used to explain the relationships between ethical leadership behavior, employee loyalty

and job autonomy. COR theory states that: “resources are those objects, personal characteristics,

conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual or that serve as the means for attainment

of other objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies” (Hobfoll & Ford, 2007). The

basic principle of the COR theory is that employees have a general motivation to obtain, retain,

and protect resources they value (Hobfoll, 1998, p. 55). Employees strive to keep and build

resources, and that what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued

resources. At the same time, employees also seek to foster that what they value. Therefore,

employees work to gain resources they do not possess, retain resources they already have,

protect resources that are threatened, and promote gaining new resources by placing themselves

in profitable situations (Hobfoll & Ford, 2007).

Two major principles follow from the basic principle of the COR theory. The first principle

implies that resource gain is significantly less important than resource loss. For this reason,

resource loss should have much greater impact on the individual employee compared to resource

gain. The current study however, focuses mainly on the second principle of the COR theory,

which implies that employees should invest resources with the aim of protecting against resource

losses, recovering from losses, and gaining new resources. (Hobfoll, 1998, p. 63). Resource

investment may; compensate the negative impacts of resource loss on employees; protect

against threat of resource loss; or promote resource gain. The operation of the second principle is

underlined when resources (e.g. optimism, social support, or status) are offered by an

organization to compensate a stressful event. This study expects that organizations, who invest in

both the resources ethical leadership behavior and job autonomy, may particularly promote

resource gain and create positive moods among employees, whereas most studies in the ethical

leadership behavior literature has mainly focus on the resource losses and strain effects.

In general, research that has used the COR theory as its main theory, has emphasized

the relationship between resource loss and strain (e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Grandey &

Cropanzano, 1999; Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986; Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Russell, Altmaier,

& Van Velzen, 1987; Taylor, 1991). Recently, the COR theory is added as a theory to explain

outcomes of ethical leadership behavior (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012), to help understand and

explain employees‟ responses to ethical leadership behavior. Whereas some related studies

found that ethical leadership behavior has several favourable outcomes (e.g. Brown et al., 2005;

Detert et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 2009), literature still lacks rather important information

concerning ethical leadership behavior and its consequences, despite the attention for and

importance of ethical leadership behavior in organizations (Brown et al., 2005). Until now, the



6

relationship between ethical leadership behavior and for instance employee loyalty has not

explicitly been examined, yet, despite the findings that employee loyalty might be beneficial to

organizations (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; O‟Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Organ, 1988).

Therefore, this study attempts to extend the latter research results (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012), by

building on the second principle of the COR theory.

2.2 Ethical leadership behavior and employee loyalty

Employee loyalty is defined in many different ways in the literature. Some researchers

argue that employees who are loyal to their leader tend to be conscientious, willing to comply with

the leader‟s decision, and enthusiastic about their work (Lee, 1992). Likewise, Cheng (1995)

shows that loyalty includes accepting the leader‟s goals and values, willing to exert extra effort,

demonstrating unreserved dedication, and being faithful. Finally, Yee, Yeung, and Cheng (2010)

have developed a straightforward statement that says that employee loyalty is seen as “an

employee‟s feeling of attachment to his or her employing organization”. This study, however,

adopts the view of Klehe and colleagues (2011, p. 221). They argued that: “employee loyalty

should not be understood as the opposite of exit, but as positive attitudinal and emotional

reactions to the organization”. In following their vision, this study made a distinction between

cognitive and emotional employee loyalty (Landy & Conte, 2004). Cognitive loyalty is defined as

“a form of social identification by which employees define themselves via their membership in an

organization” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and “it reflects employees‟ perceived congruence of

individual and organizational values and the connection and feeling of oneness with or belonging

to that organization” (Saks & Ashforth, 2002). Emotional loyalty can be defined as “involvement

in, and emotional attachment to the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1996, p. 253).

According to the COR theory people have a basic motivation to obtain, retain, and protect

resources they value (Hobfoll, 1998, p. 55). As previously mentioned, the second principle of the

COR theory states that resources should be invested with the aim of protecting against resource

losses, recovering from losses, and gaining new resources (Hobfoll, 1998, p. 63), will be

underlined when resources (e.g. optimism) are offered by organizations. This is in line with other

research literature that suggested that organizations should arrange working conditions with

sufficient motivating and energizing resources in the first place in order to realize positive

resource gain spirals (Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova, 2006). Therefore, based on the COR theory

(Hobfoll, 1998), this study proposes that organizations offering ethical leadership behavior may

trigger employee optimism, given that ethical leaders are honest, fair, trustworthy, and caring

(Brown & Treviño, 2006). In turn, employees are expected to develop a positive mood, which

triggers positive attitudes such as employee loyalty. In other words, once ethical leadership

behavior is demonstrated, it will be the trigger for employees to gain even more resources,

meaning a positive gain spiral of resources starts here and results in employee cognitive and

emotional loyalty. Perhaps, there is a small difference between both types of loyalty triggered by

ethical leadership behavior. On the one hand, ethical leaders who provide employees with job

resources by successfully defending employees, protecting them from unfairness, or mobilizing



7

job resources, are likely to be positively related to employee cognitive loyalty, as cognitive loyalty

is based on key elements such as social identification, membership (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), and

oneness (Saks & Ashforth, 2002). On the other hand, employees who receive mainly social

resources, such as help, care, and emotional support from their ethical leader (Kalshoven et al.,

2011) are likely to affect employee emotional loyalty, as emotional loyalty is based on key

elements such as involvement, and attachment (Allen & Meyer, 1996, p. 253). Thus, based on

the COR theory this study hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 1: Ethical leadership behavior is positively related to cognitive employee

loyalty.

Hypothesis 2: Ethical leadership behavior is positively related to emotional employee

loyalty.

2.3 The moderator role of job autonomy

Job autonomy reflects the extent to which “a job allows the freedom, independence, or

discretion to schedule work, make decisions, or select the methods used to perform work tasks”

(Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Hackman and Oldman (1980) argued that once employees have job

autonomy, they have access and freedom to select job resources. And once the employees has

the power to schedule their work; make decisions; and select methods and resources, they

become self-directing and self-regulating and take ownership of the products of their work

(Stewart & Manz, 1995).

Recently, job autonomy has been studied as moderator in the ethical leadership field

(Kalshoven & Boon, 2012). Here, we look at it from a COR theory perspective in the relationship

between ethical leadership and employee cognitive and emotional loyalty. The COR theory

suggests that resource gain is strengthened by a second resource (Hobfoll, 2001). As job

autonomy is seen as a job resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), both resources (ethical

leadership behavior and job autonomy) strengthen each other and form an upward resource gain

spiral. Therefore, the relationship between ethical leadership behavior and employee cognitive

and emotional loyalty may be positively moderated by job autonomy. The motivational potential of

an upward resource gain spiral is also confirmed by previous related studies (e.g. Bakker &

Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). According to the COR

theory, employees with greater resources are less vulnerable to resource loss, compared to

employees with less resources. An upward resource gain spiral may result in positive employee

feelings, i.e., emotional loyalty. Besides, employees experiencing an upward resource gain spiral

are likely to be supported by their ethical leaders. At that moment, ethical leaders possibly dealing

with mobilizing employee job resources, i.e., cognitive loyalty. In addition, employees with excess

resources are expected to reinvest them back into the organization, which this study expects to

happen in terms of employees showing loyalty. Therefore, in the light of the COR theory, this

study argues that specifically employees who have an ethical leader and are provided with high



8

job autonomy, are likely to return beneficial employee attitudes, such as employee loyalty towards

their organization.

There is a moderator effect expected, because employees who experience high levels of

job autonomy and at the same time feel treated ethically by their leader are expected to have a

highly emotional and cognitive loyal attitude towards their organization. Whereas employees who

work in a low job autonomy context and do not feel treated ethically by their leader are expected

to show a low loyal cognitive and emotional attitude as this employees have gained less job

resources and thus have less motivation or possibilities to reinvest their excess resources back

into the organization (Hobfoll, 1998). Because, according to the COR theory, employees who are

not able to invest in resources are; more exposed to the threats of resource losses; less capable

to recover from resource losses; or not able to gain new resources.

Similarly, in a work context in which employees perceive high ethical leadership, but low job

autonomy, employees are less likely to be able to invest in resources as the context (job

autonomy) is essential in the extent to which employees show loyalty to their organization (Klehe

et al., 2011; Sverke, Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002; Sverke & Goslinga, 2003). Thus, here employee

also might have less motivation or possibilities to reinvest their excess resources back into the

organization (Hobfoll, 1998). In short, job autonomy is used as a moderator as its fluctuating

levels can affect the extent to which ethical leadership and cognitive and emotional loyalty are

related. Therefore, based on COR theory this study hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 3: Job autonomy moderates the relationship between ethical leadership

behavior and cognitive employee loyalty, such that the relationship between ethical

leadership behavior and cognitive employee loyalty is stronger when employees have

high job autonomy than when employees have low job autonomy.

Hypothesis 4: Job autonomy moderates the relationship between ethical leadership

behavior and emotional employee loyalty, such that the relationship between ethical

leadership behavior and emotional employee loyalty is stronger when employees have

high job autonomy than when employees have low job autonomy.

Figure 1 is a visual summary of the hypotheses of this study. The figure shows that the

hypotheses all indicate positive relationships.



9

+ H1

Job Autonomy

+ H3

Ethical Leadership Behavior

Emotional Loyalty

+ H4

+ H2

Cognitive Loyalty

Figure 1. Conceptual model

3. Method

3.1 Research design

As part of the Human Resource Studies master program of the University of Tilburg,

seven Master students have conducted research in the field of ethical leadership behavior. By

aiming to understand the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive

employee loyalty and emotional employee loyalty an explanatory study is applied. The research

question also asks for the examination of a moderated relationship between an independent

variable (ethical leadership behavior) and a dependent variables (cognitive and emotional

employee loyalty) moderated by job autonomy, which is best fitted by hypothesis testing

(Sekaran, 2003). For the purpose of data collection, the group of seven students collected data

from different organizations within their network. This means data was gathered using a

convenience sampling method. This study had a cross-sectional and quantitative research

design, which means that numerical data was collected at one specific point in time (Bryman,

2008). Furthermore, only self-report questionnaires were used.

3.2 Sample and procedures

Data was collected in spring 2012 from employees working in 19 different organizations

operating in different specialties in the Netherlands. Employees working in those organizations

were mainly provided with questionnaires via a contact person known by the student.

Questionnaires were as much as possible randomly distributed. In practice, however, distribution

of the questionnaires often proceeded by presence and willingness of the employees. A group of

seven students of Tilburg University was using the data for their own master thesis concerning

one common theme; ethical leadership behavior, meaning that the questionnaire was a

composition of (Dutch) items needed to gather data for those seven master theses. Therefore,

the questionnaires included items beyond those needed for this study and only data necessary



10

for this study was selected. Employees were asked to fill out the same series of questions. Filling

out these questionnaires lasted approximately 20 minutes on average. The questionnaires were

largely based upon scales that have been used in research before. As the interest of this study

was in attitudes of individual employees, all data was collected at the individual level (unit of

observation) and the unit of analysis was individuals (Sekaran, 2003). Information was retrieved

from each employee concerning ethical leadership behavior, employee loyalty, employee job

autonomy, and control variables.

The students themselves distributed the questionnaires to employees. It was expected to

acquire a higher response rate through the personal involvement and contact between students

and employees, compared to digital distribution (Fowler, 2002). Attached to the questionnaire the

potential respondents received a cover letter in which the following was explained; the research

was executed from the Tilburg University; participation was voluntarily but important for the

graduation of the researchers; there was no (monetary) reward; confidentiality of data was

assured; and completing the questionnaire would take about 20 minutes (Bourque & Fielder,

2003). As there were some questions with regard to the research, potential respondents were

provided with contact details of the researchers. Additionally, the potential respondents received

an envelope. In order to ensure anonimity while participating, potential respondents could deposit

their completed questionnaires in a closed envelope in a „drop box‟, which was placed at the

office by the researchers. Two weeks after distributing the questionnaires, the potential

respondents received a reminder to complete their questionnaires. Thereafter, the completed

questionnaires were collected by the researchers.

Initially, 225 questionnaires were distributed among potential respondents. 155

questionnaires were returned from employees working in different organizations in the

Netherlands, which resulted in a 68.9 % response rate. The participating employees were 46 %

male and 54 % female (SD = .5). Ages of the employees were ranging from 16 to 65 years, with

an average of 37 years (SD = 12.13). 89 of the 155 employees completed higher vocational

education or science education (SD = 1.46). This was about 60 % of the total sample, which

means the sample was above average educated.

3.3 Measures

The questionnaires applied to measure ethical leadership behavior, employee loyalty

and job autonomy. Unless indicated differently the Likert answering scales were used, ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Ethical leadership behavior was measured by the scale by Brown et al. (2005) which

consisted of 10 items. Example items are: “My supervisor defines success not just be the results

but also by the way they are obtained” and “My supervisor disciplines employees who violate

ethical standards”. Cronbach‟s alpha was used to check the reliability of each scale. Cronbach‟s

alpha values above .7 were sufficient, but above .8 were good (Pallant, 2007). The Cronbach‟s

alpha of ethical leadership behavior was 0.84, thus the reliability of this scale was good. By

applying factor analysis the concept validity of variables was tested, i.e. factor analysis was



11

performed to describe whether the scales consisted of smaller sets of linear combinations, called

constructs or factors (Pallant, 2007). Criteria for selecting the number of factors within one scale

were Kaiser‟s criterion (eigenvalue > 1), the Scree test of Catell and Common sense. Factor

analysis showed that this scale exists of two factors. Likewise, corrected item total correlation

was used as an indicator of reliability; an item with a corrected item total correlation less that .3

should be removed from the scale (Pallant, 2007). The second item “disciplines employees who

violate ethical standards” was less than .3 (even .21. In addition, factor analysis showed that this

item singly belonged to another factor. But statistically a factor cannot consist of one item

(Pallant, 2007). Also, it is not common in current research literature to remove this second item

(for instance Brown et al., 2005). Further, the reliability of the ethical leadership behavior scale

did not grow significantly after removal of this item. Therefore, it was decided to use ethical

leadership behavior as one scale, including this second item.

Cognitive and emotional employee loyalty were measured by using similar scales as used

by Klehe et al. (2011). In order to measure cognitive components of employee loyalty the six-item

scale of organizational identification was used (Mael & Tetrick, 1992). An example item was: “I

really feel as if this organization's problems are my own”. Cronbach‟s alpha is 0.84. In order to

measure the emotional components of employee loyalty the six-item scale of affective

commitment was used (Meyer, Allen, and Smith, 1993). An example item was: “My employment

in this organization is a big part of who I am”. Cronbach‟s alpha is 0.85. For these scales, the

factor analyses showed that both scales consisted of one single factor. The validated Dutch

translation of the scale was used (De Gilder, Van den Heuvel, & Ellemers, 1997).

Job autonomy was measured by using the scale derived from Van den Bossche,

Hupkens, De Ree, and Smulders (2007). Cronbach‟s alpha is 0,69. An example statement was:

“Can you decide yourself how to go about getting your job done?” The factor analyses showed

one single factor. Corrected item total correlation of the fifth item was .24. This item is stated:

“can you take leave whenever you want?”. If this item was removed from the job autonomy scale,

the reliability suddenly increased and became sufficient (α .73). Therefore, it was decided to

remove the fifth item from the scale.

Control variables. This study controlled for age, level of education (ranging from 1 =

VMBO to 5 = WO), gender (1 = male, 2 = female) of employees, and tenure with the leader and

organization. Age, as well as level of education was added, because previous research indicates

a positive impact of those control variables on job autonomy (Verdonk, Hooftman, Van

Veldhoven, Boelens, & Koppes, 2010). Gender was added because it is common control variable

in research.

3.4 Statistical analysis

In this study, analysis was conducted by using SPSS software (version 19.0) to test the

proposed hypotheses. First, the data was checked for any outliers and missing values. In case,

the data showed any outliers or missing values, respectively impossible, extreme scores or no

scores filled out by employees, it was tried to find substitute answers based on the average



12

scores calculated for a particular scale in which the outlier or missing value was found.

Employees were excluded from the data by option listwise exclusion, whenever it was not

possible to calculate substitute scores. In total, six employees were excluded from the data. The

hypotheses were tested by means of regression analysis, while taking into account the control

variables. In order to test both hypotheses 1 and 2, stepwise multiple regression analysis was

applied. In step 1, the control variables were regressed on both emotional and cognitive loyalty

and after that in step 2, ethical leadership was added. The hypotheses will be supported if the

value of significance is less than .05 (p < .05). Only then, ethical leadership behavior is making a

significant and unique contribution to the prediction of cognitive and emotional loyalty.

Subsequently, to test hypotheses 3 and 4, also stepwise multiple regression analysis was

applied. In step 3, the interaction term was added in line with the suggestions of Aiken and West

(1991), i.e., ethical leadership behavior and job autonomy (moderator) were mean centred and

multiplied in order to create the interaction term. With this input, hypotheses three and four might

be confirmed (both moderator effects) when a t-test revealed that the interaction term significantly

(p < .05) explained variance in cognitive and emotional loyalty.

4. Results

4.1 Correlation

In order to determine the strength of the relationships between the main variables in this

study and the control variables correlation analyses are performed. The correlation coefficients

including means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. The sample size includes 149

employees, because of missing values among six cases.

As shown in Table 1, a two-tailed test is conducted. When using a two-tailed test there is

tested for the possibility of the relationships between variables in both directions, regardless the

direction of the relationship this study hypothesizes. This means that the two-tailed test is a

stricter test compared to the one-tailed test. The strength of the relationships between variables

will not change as a two-tailed test will be used, nor will it change when a one-tailed test will be

conducted. Therefore, this study uses the two-tailed test (Pallant, 2007).



13

Table 1. Summary of intercorrelations, sample size, means, and standard deviations

** Correlation is significant at the .001 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

As presented in Table 1, a strong positive and significant relationship in this study is found

between both types of loyalty (r = .81, p < .001). This seems in line with the expectations and in

line with the theory (Klehe et al., 2011). Only emotional loyalty is significantly correlated with

tenure leader (r = .24, p < .001). Furthermore, ethical leadership behavior positively correlates

with both cognitive loyalty (r = .45, p < .001) and emotional loyalty (r = .41, p < .001), which is in

line with hypotheses 1 and 2. In addition, ethical leadership behavior correlates with job

autonomy (r = .34, p < .001). Further, job autonomy is significantly and positively correlated with

cognitive loyalty (r = .34, p < .001), and emotional loyalty (r = .38, p < .001), as expected. Job

autonomy is, next to the main variables, also significantly correlated with age (r = .28, p < .001),

tenure leader (r = .32, p < .001), and tenure organization (r = .21, p < .001). Both types of tenure

are also significantly correlated with each other (r = .37, p < .001), and with age, respectively

tenure leader (r = .38, p < .001), and tenure organization (r = .70, p < .001). Finally, there is a

significant, negative relationship between level of education and gender (r = -.21, p < .001). To

further examine the hypotheses regression analyses are performed.

4.2 Regression

In order to analyze the hypotheses stepwise regression analysis is performed. The results

on the one hand, show significant relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both

cognitive loyalty (β = .36, p < .001) and emotional loyalty (β = .32, p < .001) while control

Variable

N

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1. Ethical leadership behavior

149

3.78

.54

-

2. Cognitive loyalty

149

3.77

.62

.45**

-

3. Emotional loyalty

149

3.52

.67

.41**

.81**

-

4. Job autonomy

149

4.09

.48

.34**

.34**

.38**

-

5. Age

149

37.1

12.13

.14

.14

.08

.28**

-

6. Gender (1=male, 2=female)

149

1.46

.50

-.05

-.06

-.08

.06

-.07

-

7. Level of education (1=VMBO, 5=WO)

149

4.52

1.46

-.06

-.05

-.07

-.09

.03

-.21**

-

8. Tenure leader

149

3.65

5.56

.04

.15

.24**

.32**

.38**

-.04

.02

-

9. Tenure organization

149

9.08

11.01

.07

.12

.09

.21**

.70**

-.02

-.08

.37**

-



14

.36**

Job Autonomy

.01

Ethical Leadership Behavior

Emotional Loyalty

.04

.32**

Cognitive Loyalty

variables are taken into account. Therefore, both hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported. To test the

moderator role of job autonomy, Figure 2 shows that the interaction terms related to hypotheses 3

and 4, respectively the moderator role of job autonomy in the relationships between ethical

leadership behavior and both cognitive loyalty (β = .001, ns) and emotional loyalty (β = .04, ns)

are not significant. Therefore, hypotheses 3 and 4 are rejected. Figure 2 gives a comprehensive

visual indication of the results. Table 2 and 3 represent a summary of steps made in the

hierarchical regression analysis, respectively for cognitive and emotional loyalty.

Note. Proposed path significant at p < .001 Proposed path nonsignificant Figure 2. Moderation model



15

Table 2. Summary of stepwise multiple regression analysis predicting cognitive loyalty

Note. N = 149, entries for variables are standardized β coefficients, *p < .05; **p < .001

Model 1 Model 2a Model 3

Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Age

.01

.01

.10

.00

.01

.02

-.00

.01

-.02

Gender

-.09

.10

-.07

-.07

.09

-.06

-.09

.09

-.07

Education

-.03

.04

-.07

-.02

.03

-.04

-.01

.03

-.03

Tenure leader

.01

.01

.12

.01

.01

.10

.01

.01

.05

Tenure organization

-.00

.01

-.02

.00

.01

.04

.00

.01

.03

Ethical leadership behavior

.49

.09

.43**

.41

.09

.36**

Job autonomy

.28

.11

.22*

Interaction Ethical leadership and Job autonomy

.01

.05

.01

∆ F

.93

32.93**

3.40*

Adj. R²

-.00

.18**

.21*

∆ R²

.04

.18**

.04*



16

Table 3. Summary of stepwise multiple regression analysis predicting emotional loyalty


4.3 Additional Analyses

In the results presented in this study, no moderation effect is found for job autonomy in

the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both types of loyalty. However, the

results contain two main cues, so far, that might indicate a mediation role for job autonomy,

instead of a moderator role. First, the regression results show that there is a visible drop in the

standardized beta coefficient (β) of ethical leadership behavior from model 2a to model 3 for both

cognitive (Table 2) and emotional (Table 3) loyalty, (respectively β = .43, p < .001 to β = .36, p <

.001; β = .39, p < .001 to β = .32, p < .001). Second, job autonomy is a significant predictor of

employee cognitive and emotional loyalty in model 3 for both emotional and cognitive loyalty

while ethical leadership is included in the model. Thus, both variables seem to explain some

significant variance in both types of employee loyalty. Therefore, it is tested whether a mediation

effect of job autonomy within the relationships between ethical leadership and both types of

employee loyalty is found.

Mediation testing by means of the „causal steps approach‟ of Baron and Kenny (1986) is

used, which is a common method in the research literature (e.g. Yan, Chong, & Mak, 2010;

Kalshoven & Boon, 2012). Four steps should be taken and each of them must be true for

Model 1 Model 2a Model 3

Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Age

-.00

.01

-.01

-.01

.01

-.08

-.01

.01

-.11

Gender

-.10

.11

-.08

-.09

.10

-.07

-.13

.10

-.10

Education

-.03

.04

-.08

-.02

.04

-.05

-.02

.03

-.05

Tenure leader

-.04

.01

.29**

.03

.01

.26*

.02

.01

.18*

Tenure organization

-.00

.01

-.07

-.00

.01

-.02

.00

.01

.01


.49

.09

.39**

.40

.10

.32**

Job autonomy

.35

.11

.25*


.02

.05

.04

∆ F

2.05*

27.7**

4.83*

Adj. R²

.05*

.19**

.24*

∆ R²

.09*

.15**

.05*



17

mediation to be present. The first step can immediately be confirmed, the independent variable

(ethical leadership behavior) is significantly related to the dependent variables (cognitive (β = .43,

p < .001) and emotional loyalty (β = .39, p < .001)). Those results are found in Tables 2 and 3 in

model 2a. Next, Table 4, model 2b shows that the second step also can be confirmed, i.e. the

independent variable (ethical leadership behavior) is significantly and positively related to the

mediator (job autonomy) (β = .29, p < .001). The third step can be confirmed too, as the results in

Model 3 in Tables 2 and 3 show that the mediator (job autonomy) is significantly related to the

dependents variables (cognitive (β = .22, p < .05) and emotional loyalty (β = .25, p < .05). Finally,

step four, the effects of the independent variable (ethical leadership behavior) on the dependent

variables (cognitive and emotional loyalty) adjusted for the mediator (job autonomy), decreases

as stated above. As stated, results show a drop of ethical leadership behavior for both cognitive

(Table 2) and emotional (Table 3) loyalty, (respectively β = .43, p < .001 to β = .36, p < .001; β =

.39, p < .001 to β = .32, p < .001). This could indicate partial mediation rather than full mediation

of job autonomy in the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both types of loyalty

(Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Lastly, the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) is performed to actually test whether the beta drop

from ethical leadership is a significant drop. The Sobel test shows that job autonomy partially

mediates the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive loyalty (z =

2.43, p < .001) and emotional loyalty (z = 2.37, p < .001).

To summarize, Tables 2, 3, and 4 imply that job autonomy is a significant partial mediator

in the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both types of employee loyalty, while

this study actually expected job autonomy to strengthen (i.e. moderate) the relationships between

ethical leadership behavior and both types of employee loyalty. Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate the

mediator role of job autonomy in both models, respectively with cognitive loyalty and emotional

loyalty as dependent variables.



18

Table 4. Summary stepwise multiple regression analysis predicting job autonomy


Model 2b

Variable B SE B β

Age

.01

.00

.18

Gender

.11

.07

.11

Education

-.02

.03

-.06

Tenure leader

.03

.01

.27**

Tenure organization

-.00

.01

-.03


.25

.07

.29**

Job autonomy


∆ F

14.96**

Adj. R²

.21**

∆ R²

.08**



19

Job Autonomy

Ethical Leadership Behavior Cognitive Loyalty .25**

.36**

.22**

Job Autonomy

Ethical Leadership Behavior Emotional Loyalty .25**

.32**

Note.

Nonproposed path significant at p < .001

Figure 4. Partial mediation model

Note.

Nonproposed path significant at p < .001

Figure 5. Partial mediation model

5. Discussion

This study used the COR theory to examine to what extent ethical leadership behavior is

associated with employee loyalty to the organization, and the moderator role of employee job

autonomy in this relationship. As hypothesized, the results show that ethical leadership behavior

positively relates to both cognitive and emotional loyalty. The proposed moderator role of job

autonomy in the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive and

emotional loyalty could not be confirmed, however, the results show that job autonomy positively

and partially mediates the relationships between ethical leadership and both cognitive and

emotional loyalty in stead. Thus, this study found support for the positive relationships between

ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive and emotional loyalty, via job autonomy, while this

was not proposed.

5.1 Theoretical implications

The results of this study may have several theoretical impacts on existing and future

research. Recently, the COR theory is added as a theory to explain outcomes of ethical

leadership behavior (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012). Hence, this study uses the COR theory in an

effort to explain the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive and

emotional employee loyalty.

.25**



20

Firstly, the COR theory argues that employees have a general motivation to obtain, retain,

and protect resources they value (Hobfoll, 1998, p. 55). The theory suggests that ethical

leadership behavior can be a motivating and energizing resource for employees, because we

argued that ethical leaders are honest, fair, trustworthy, and caring (Brown & Treviño, 2006) and

moreover, provide employees with job resources (e.g., power sharing or emotional support). In

turn, employees (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006) can realize positive resource gain

spirals. Positive gain spirals trigger employees to gain even more resources, and according to the

COR theory employees are expected to reinvest excess resources back into the organization

(Hobfoll, 2001), for instance by demonstrating cognitive and emotional loyalty. Employee loyalty

is in the interest of organizations, because it provides them with several benefits (Mowday,

Porter, & Steers, 1982; O‟Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Organ, 1988). From this point of view, the first

aim of this study was to test the role of employee loyalty in relation to ethical leadership behavior.

It was found that ethical leadership behavior was positively and significantly related to both

cognitive and emotional loyalty, thus hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

Second, no support was found for the positive moderation of job autonomy in the

relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive and emotional loyalty, thus

hypotheses 3 and 4 were rejected. Kalshoven and Boon (2012), however, found a moderator role

of job autonomy on the relationship between ethical leadership and employee responsibility. It

was expected that the resources obtained from the ethical leader and job autonomy strengthen

each other and therefore stimulated employee loyalty.

After additional analysis, however, there is found support for job autonomy to be a

positive and partial mediator in the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both

cognitive and emotional loyalty. Meaning that the extent to which employees show cognitive and

emotional loyalty to their organization depends on both ethical leadership behavior as well as job

autonomy. Others also found support for relationships in which job autonomy has a role as

(partial) mediator (Yan et al., 2010; Piccolo et al., 2010; Marchese & Ryan, 2001).

Re-reading the literature provided insight in how job autonomy can be a partial mediator in the

relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both types of employee loyalty. That is to

say, Kalshoven et al. (2011) argue that ethical leaders characteristically share their power with

employees. Through the leaders‟ ability to share power, this study suggests that ethical leaders

are more able to create employee job autonomy. This indicates that ethical leaders are likely to

create a work context high on job autonomy, which in turn positively relates to employee cognitive

and emotional loyalty, next to the direct relationships that are confirmed between ethical

leadership is directly related to both types of loyalty. Likewise, Kalshoven et al. (2011) argued that

employees who rate their leader higher on power sharing show more OCB. Power sharing in

likely to relate to job autonomy and OCB is, as employee loyalty, seen as a positive attitude

towards the organization. Therefore, in line with findings from Kalshoven and colleagues (2011), it

is likely to expect similar positive relations between ethical leadership behavior and both types of

employee loyalty with job autonomy as partial mediator.



21

Moreover, the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both types of

employee loyalty mediated by job autonomy can also be explained by the COR theory. The COR

theory argues that resource investment is likely to promote resource gain (Hobfoll, 1998, p. 63).

That is to say, ethical leaders provide employees with resources (e.g. ethical guidance or

emotional support; Kalshoven & Boon, 2012), and therewith stimulate the positive resource gain

spiral. In turn, job autonomy is gained, as it is seen as job resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;

Demerouti, et al., 2001), and thereon employee loyalty is created, as employees are expected to

reinvest their excess resources back into the organization (Hobfoll, 1998).

Based on the COR theory, other job resources might be mediators in the ethical

leadership and loyalty relationship as well. Besides job autonomy (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;

Demerouti, et al., 2001) other job resources, such as skill variety, task identity, task significance,

and performance feedback are seen as positive job resources. Therefore, this study suggests

that these resources also play an important role as (partial) mediator in the relationships between

ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive and emotional loyalty. Future research in this area

should show the evidence however, to confirm these expectations.

5.2 Limitations

As with any study, this study has a few limitations. First, single source data collection

refers to collection of data by employees filling out the questionnaires themselves. Single source

data collection is quite common in the social and behavioral sciences (Avolio, Yammarino, &

Bass, 1991), though common method bias is a methodological threat (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). For future research, multi-source data collection can be applied using

different raters for leaders‟ behavior and employees‟ attitudes.

Second, this study is cross sectional; data is collected at one specific point in time, which

makes it difficult to test causality in relationships between variables. Based on theory and

previous studies it seems that ethical leadership behavior predicts employee loyalty, rather than

that employee loyalty predicts ethical leadership behavior. To be sure, however, it is

recommended for future research to perform a longitudinal research to demonstrate causality

between those variables (Bryman, 2004).

Further, data is collected through the convenience sampling method, meaning that the

organizations are approached from the researchers‟ own social network. Nevertheless,

questionnaires were as much as possible randomly distributed, which means in practice that

distribution often proceeded by presence and willingness of the employees. Furthermore, this

study is restricted to profit organizations operating in the Netherlands. Therefore, results can

differ among different (non-profit) sectors (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008).Thus, generalisation of

the results from the current study should be done with care.

Also the length of the questionnaire may be a limitation of the study. It takes a single

employee about 20 minutes to complete the 97 items of the questionnaire. This can impair

particularly the results following from questions at the end of the questionnaire; job autonomy is



22

one of them. Despite the advantage of having a greater data set gathered by using this

questionnaire, it is suggested for future research to shorten the questionnaire as a whole.

Moreover, factor analysis showed that item two of the ethical leadership scale, which is:

“disciplines employees who violate ethical standards” loaded to another factor, while the other

items all belong to the same factor. Despite these results, it is decided to keep the ethical

leadership behavior scale as a whole, in order to be able to compare research results with the

results of other studies in the ethical leadership field (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006). However,

future research should perhaps re-validate the ethical leadership scale as several studies show

empirically difficulties with this scale (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Also, the same applied

to an item of the job autonomy scale: “can you take leave whenever you want?”. In this case

however, it is decided to remove the item from the scale, in order to increase the reliability of the

scale from insufficient to sufficient. As various scales for job autonomy are used in the

management literature this affects the comparability with other studies less than the ethical

leadership scale (e.g. Van den Bossche et al., 2007).

Finally, employee loyalty was operationalized with organizational identification to measure

cognitive loyalty and affective commitment to measure emotional loyalty in line with the study of

Klehe et al. (2011). Klehe et al. (2011) follow Riketta (2005) in his view to use the organizational

identification scale to measure employee cognitive loyalty. Riketta (2005) states that

organizational identification frequently has changed in terms of definition, but most of the

researchers still conceptualize organizational identification as a “cognitive construct, in particular,

as the congruence of individual and organizational values” (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970;

Pratt, 1998; Stengel, 1987). Future research might work on clear operationalization of loyalty.

Likewise, there is a clear overlap (theoretically and empirically) between the scales measuring

cognitive loyalty (organizational identification scale) and emotional loyalty (affective commitment

scale). However, Ashfort and Mael (1989), one of the most influential scientists in the research

literature according to Riketta (2005), distinguish between organizational identification and

affective commitment. They stated that organizational identification is “a perceptual cognitive

construct that is not necessarily associated with any specific behaviors of affective states”. Many

supporters shared their view of (e.g. Meal & Tetrick, 1992; Pratt, 1998; Edwards, 2003). Still, their

view has also been criticized (Harquail, 1998). For instance, Riketta (2005) argues that the

organizational identification scale of Mael and Tetrick (1992), which is one of the most common

organizational identification scales in the research literature, is based on the definition of Ashfort

and Mael (1989). The items of the organizational identification scale of Mael and Tetrick (1992)

do not significantly overlap with items from affective commitment scales (Riketta, 2005). Similarly,

others suggested that affective commitment scale is a broader and vaguer scale than

organizational identification (Pratt, 1998; Edwards, 2003; Ashfort & Mael, 1989). Therefore, based

on the literature, this study decided to use the organizational identification scale to measure

cognitive loyalty.



23

5.3 Practical implications

With the results, this study adds to the existing empirical evidence proposing that ethical

leadership behavior is related to both cognitive loyalty and emotional loyalty. Particularly in these

days of economical uncertainty and financial crisis, organizations might want to know how to

foster and promote employee loyalty. Especially, when being aware of the number of benefits

employee loyalty might provide to organizations (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; O‟Reilly &

Chatman, 1986; Organ, 1988). Ethical leadership behavior may be a helpful way to start creating

employee loyalty. For ethical leaders it is important to create job resources for their employees,

such as protection to unfairness, help, and emotional support. In creating such resources, ethical

leaders stimulate employee loyalty. Thus, organizations might be able to influence their market

position through their human resources.

Although not hypothesized, it is interesting to note that job autonomy is a significant

partial mediator in the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive

loyalty and emotional loyalty. Therewith, this study adds to the existing empirical evidence

proposing that having job resources (i.e. job autonomy) is essential in the relationships between

ethical leadership behavior and both cognitive loyalty and emotional loyalty. That is to say, ethical

leaders provide employees with resources. Typically, they share their power. Therewith, they are

able to create a context of high job autonomy. Employees are provided with several job resources

and a positive resources gain spiral starts (Hobfoll, 1998). In reinvesting their excess resources

back into the organization, employees show employee loyalty. Organizations may take advantage

of this knowledge by being aware of the importance of job autonomy when promoting ethical

leadership, particularly when they pursue employee loyalty. As they now have the evidence to

believe that employee loyalty increases by ethical leadership (possibly via job autonomy), they

can adjust their decisions regarding which job resources to provide and what job context to

create.

5.4 Conclusion

This study represents a contribution to the literature on ethical leadership behavior with

initially a moderation model, which turned out to be a mediation model after additional analysis.

Study results respond to the need for more understanding of the factors and context in which

ethical leaders influence employee attitudes. Specifically, we found that job autonomy is a

significant (partial) mediator in the relationships between ethical leadership behavior and both

cognitive loyalty and emotional loyalty.



24

6. References

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the

organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,

252−276.

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 20−39.

Avolio, B.J., Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with

data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management,

17(3), 571–587.

Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.

Journal of Management Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Bourque, L.B., & Fielder, E.P. (2003). How to conduct self-administered and mail surveys.

Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Inc.

Brockner, J., Grover, S.L., Reed, T.F., DeWitt, R.L., & O‟Malley, M.N. (1987). Survivors‟

reactions to layoffs: We get by with a little help from our friends. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 32, 526–541.

Brotheridge, C.M., & Lee, R.T. (2002). A conservation of resources test of the dynamics of

emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 57–67.

Brown, M.E., & Treviño, L.K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and

deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954–962.

Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K., & Harrison, D.A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning

perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cheng, B.S. (1995). Chinese CEO’s employee categorization and managerial behavior.

Paper presented at the Symposium on Indigenous Behavior in Effective Management and

Organizations, sponsored by the International Association of Applied Psychology,

Guangzhou, China.

De Gilder, D., Van den Heuvel, H., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Het drie-componentenmodel van

commitment. [The threecomponent model of commitment] Gedrag en Organisatie,



25

10, 95–106.

De Hoogh, A.H.B., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with

leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates'

optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297–311.

Den Hartog, D.N., & de Hoogh, A.H.B. (2009). Empowerment and leader fairness and integrity:

Studying ethical leader behavior from a levels-of-analysis perspective. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 199–230.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001) The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Detert, J.R., Treviño, L.K., Burris, E.R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of

influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level

investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 993–1005.

Edwards, M.R. (2003). Disentangling organizational identification: A case study of an NHS trust.

Unpublished PhD thesis.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71(3), 500–507.

doi: 00004565-198608000-00021

Fowler, F.J. (2002). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Inc.

Grandey, A.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–

family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley.

Hall, D.T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H.T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176–190.

Harquail, C.V. (1998). Organizational identification and the ‘‘whole person’’: Considering affect,

behavior, and cognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hobfoll, S.E. (1998). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General

Psychology, 6(4), 307–324. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307

Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested self in the stress

process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337–421.

Hobfoll, S.E., & Ford, J.S. (2007). Conservation of resources theory. Elsevier Inc, 1, 519-525.

Jackson, S.E., Schwab, R.L., & Schuler, R.S. (1986). Toward and understanding of the burnout

phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630–640.

Kalshoven, K., & Boon, C.T. (2012). Ethical leadership, employee well-being, and helping: The

moderating role of human resource management. Journal of Personnel Psychology 11(1),

60–68. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000056

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D.N., & De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work

questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The

Leadership Quarterly, 22, 51–69.

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307



26

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D.N., & De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2012). Ethical leadership and followers'

helping and initiative: The role of demonstrated responsibility and job autonomy.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1, 1–30.

Klehe, U.C., Zikic, J., Van Vianen, A.E,M., & De Pater, I.E. (2011). Career adaptability, turnover

and loyalty during organizational downsizing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79,

217–229. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.01.004

Kohlberg, L. (1969). State and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization.

Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Landy, F.J., & Conte, J.M. (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to Industrial and

organizational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lee, M.H. (1992). An explanation of the significance, influencing factors, and the results of

behaviors of loyalty to organization: A case of middle and small enterprises in Taiwanese.

Master Dissertation: Institute of Applied Psychology of Fu Ren University, Taiwan.

Lee, R.T., & Ashforth, B.E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three

dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.

Mael, F.A., & Tetrick, L.E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 52, 813–824.

Marchese, M.C., & Ryan, J. (2001). Capitalizing on the benefits of utilizing part-time employees

through job autonomy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(4), 549–560.

doi: 10.1023/A:1007814816178

Mayer, M.D., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does

ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:

Extension and test of a 3-component conceptualization. The Journal

of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee–organization linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

O‟Reilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Piccolo, R.F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D.N., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between

ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31,

259–278. doi: 10.1002/job.627

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879−903.

https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/x17537k772776316/

https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/x17537k772776316/



27

Pratt, M.G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. Identity in

organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

66, 358-384.

Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Changing obligations and the

psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37,

137-152.

Roehling, P.V., Roehling, M.V., & Moen, P. (2001). The relationship between work-life policies

and practices and employee loyalty: A life course perspective. Journal of Family and

Economic Issues, 22(2), 141–170.

Russell, D.W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress, social support, and

burnout among classroom teachers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 269–274.

Saks, A.M., & Ashforth, B.E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends

on the fit. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 646−654.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement

with a short questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (4 ed.). New York

(NY): John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation

models. Sociological methodology, 290–313.

Stengel, M. (1987). Identifikationsbereitschaft, Identifikation, Verbundenheit mit einer

Organisation oder ihren Zielen. Zeitschrift fuer Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie,

31, 152–166.

Stewart, G.L. & Manz, C.C. (1995). Leadership for self-Managing work teams: A typology and

integrative model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747–770. doi: 0.1177/001872679504800702

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job

insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7,

242–264.

Sverke, M., & Goslinga, S. (2003). The consequences of job insecurity for employers and unions:

Exit, voice and loyalty. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 241–270.

Taylor, S.E. (1991). Asymmetric effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-

minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85.

Treviño, L.K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person – situation interactionist

model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.

Treviño, L.K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L..P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived

executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite.

Human Relations, 56(1), 5–37. doi: 10.1177/0018726703056001448

Treviño, L.K., Weaver, G.R., & Reynolds, S.J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A

review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.

http://hum.sagepub.com/search?author1=Greg+L.+Stewart&sortspec=date&submit=Submit



28

Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit,

voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895-922.

Van den Bossche, S.N.J., Hupkens, C.L.H., De Ree, S.J.M., & Smulders, P.G.W. (2007).

Nationale enquête arbeidsomstandigheden 2006: Methodologie en globale resultaten.

Verdonk, P., Hooftman, W.E., Van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M., Boelens, L.R.M., & Koppes L.L.J.

(2010). Work-related fatigue: the specific case of highly educated women in the

Netherlands. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 83, 309–321.

doi: 10.1007/s00420-009-0481-y

Walumbwa, F.O., Mayer, D.M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christens, A.L. (2011).

Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member

exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 115, 204–213.

Walumbwa, F.O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice

behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–

member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40,

82−111.

Yan, Y., Chong, C.Y., & Mak, S. (2010). An exploration of managerial discretion and its impact on

firm performance: Task autonomy, contractual control, and compensation. International

Business Review, 19, 521–530.

Yee, R.W.Y., Yeung, A.C.L., & Cheng, T.C.E. (2010). An empirical study of employee loyalty,

service quality and firm performance in the service industry. Production Economics, 124,

109–20.

Master Thesis ETHICAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND …

Documents