重大災害指揮中心作業模式(二)：指揮與管控

Submitted on 消防月刊, March 2016

                                                                                                                          文/新北市政府消防局 黃德清 羅凱文
                                                                                                                          圖/ 羅凱文提供
壹、接續而來的問題(Follow-up problems)
當各縣市消防局救災救護指揮中心(以下簡稱指揮中心)應用重大災害指揮中心作業模式(Incident Dispatch Operation Model, 以下簡稱IDOM)(羅凱文、林易慶、傅光廷, 2016)建立適合的應變架構後，第一個明顯的改變是更有效率的人力運用。IDOM能運用指揮中心既有人力，因應突發事件的大量進線狀況，解決原先分工不明確所造成的問題。例如，隸屬獨立功能編組(General Staff)中的受理組能消化大量話務並上報重要的訊息，派遣管制組能評估並管制目前派遣人車數量，指揮通報組能負責與現場指揮官連繫並能縱橫向通報，以及救護管制組能調度救護車及彚整傷亡名冊。而隸屬指揮官幕僚(Command)中的災情彙報官能掌控救災進程並即時稽核缺漏之處，連絡官能即時通報並回應首長需求，而新聞官能主動提供媒體訊息並避免訛傳。

然而，具備有效率的應變架構後，某些很熟悉的情境還是可能會發生：

一個平常的午后，指揮中心如往常一樣作業。突然間，電話開始湧進。沒滿線時，各執勤員還能游刃有餘，但只要一滿線，大螢幕上的語音數量就開始向上累計。這表示，後續播打119的民眾無法被受理，而轉入自動語音系統之中。此時，無形的壓力就如大海嘯似地將整個指揮中心淹沒，因為大量進線狀況已經來臨。

伴隨著尖銳的電話鈴聲，各分隊出勤的無線電回報也開始此起彼落。執勤員必須一手拿著話筒，一手還得按壓無線電回應外勤的呼叫，還得利用空檔，將剛剛民眾的報案與外勤的回報快速地鍵入系統內的案情摘要內。因為，在指揮中心的每一個人必須仰賴案情摘要來掌握目前各個案件的最新發展。

執勤官詢問目前狀況的音量逐漸變的大聲，因為有許多問題還沒有釐清。真的有人受困嗎？到底受困幾人？火勢會不會延燒？是否要提昇指揮層級？即將打電給長官的他，目前仍沒有足夠且明確的訊息可以回報。

一旁的執勤專員坐立不安了，進入語音的話量一直居高不下。電話鈴聲、無線電回報聲、執勤員講著電話試圖安撫抱怨消防車輛仍未到達的民眾、執勤官連珠砲的詢問聲、小組長不斷催促的無線電呼叫聲。現在能做的是，看著不斷更新訊息的電腦螢幕，努力拼湊整個案件的全貌。

過了幾分鐘，指揮中心主任與備勤上線的同仁一起進來了。剛剛執勤官回報的內容僅有案發訊息，現場狀況目前仍然不明，但大量進線電話已快癱瘓指揮中心。主任看著所有執勤人員陸續依原先分組就定位，每個人都努力地要完成編組內的分工事項，而督導席上的執勤官與執勤專員拿著話筒一直在講電話，電話鈴聲、無線電呼叫聲、彼此喊叫聲、鍵盤Key in聲等各式聲響充斥著整個指揮中心。

目前現場回報的狀況如何？受困人數確認了嗎？火勢受到控制還是持續惡化？指揮層級派到那個階層？橫向通報的單位已有那些？縱向通報的進度到那裡了？長官有任何指示嗎？目前最應該做何種指揮決策？主任的腦海裡仍充滿了一堆問號.....

在台灣，只要有擔任過消防指揮官的夥伴們，一定對上述的情境毫不陌生，差別只在救災現場或是在中心裡面。身為指揮官，常常會面臨訊息掌握不易及指揮調度困難的狀況。為何有了合適的應變架構，運作起來仍然會感覺到些許的滯礙呢？

原因可能源於指揮與管控(Command and Control)的紀律不彰，使得編組人員不經直屬指揮官決策而擅自行動，導致「行動自主化」的現象產生，進而衍生出許多災害現場常常發生的問題，如人員安全、資訊混亂，與資源浪費等問題。

人員安全的危害可能出自於編組內人員的行動不經由所屬指揮官的指令或授權，使得指揮官無法掌握人員動態，就無法確保作業期間的安全。此外，編組內自主化的行動也可能導致資訊混亂的問題，因為指揮官無法獲得由下而上主動回報的訊息，而做出片面或錯誤的通報及決策。最後，資源浪費也會如併發症似的發生。因為各任務編組間各行其事，缺乏所屬指揮官的訊息整合與資源調配，各任務編組間的工作進度可能會彼此干擾與阻礙，導致事倍而功半、資源運用較無效率的情形發生。
 
貳、指揮與管控(Command and Control)
救災跟作戰有著相類似的情境。本文參考美國海軍陸戰隊(Marine Corps’ Doctrinal Publication (MCDP)-6 Command and Control)作戰守則，其認為指揮與管控的基本要素包含人(people)與資訊(information)。人是最重要的，人的行動驅動了指揮與管控系統，而系統存在的目的則在提供人種種的服務。資訊，不論形式，目的都在提供決策判斷與行動依據。因此，要解決先前「行動自主化」的種種缺點，必須透過指揮與管控的系統將參與救災作業的人與資訊整合起來(MCDP-6, 1996)。

至於指揮與管控的關係，如圖1。MCDP-6(1996)認為有二種：傳統上，指揮與管控都是從最高指揮官發動的，屬於由上而下單向式的。然而，近代認為指揮是由上而下的任務指派(initiation of action)，而管控是由下而上的情況回報(feedback)，讓指揮官得以修正或調整命令的下達。藉由雙向式的互動，讓整個組織可以隨不同的情況而隨之適時的因應。此種綿密互動的系統非常值得救災單位的指揮官參考。

圖1 指揮與管控的關係-傳統與近代的觀點
Reference:  MCDP-6(1996, p41)              

          

類似於美國海軍陸戰隊的指揮與管控的系統，美國聯邦緊急事務管理署(Fedral Emergency Management Agency, FEMA)的災害現場指揮體系(Incident Command System, ICS)，針對指揮權亦有二個重要的原則(FEMA, 2013)： 

一、指揮鏈(Chain of Command)原則： 
ICS認為指揮鏈原則是職權的順序(Orderly line of authority)(FEMA, 2013)，等同於古典的組織理論，其認為組織利用這一條明確且唯一的職權流(flow of authority)來建立整個階層的關係(Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970)。因此指揮鏈，簡單的來說，就是權力鏈。透過這個原則，指揮官必須指派任務與工作給予所屬(或所轄)的任何個人、編組或組織，她/她就可以明確知道所屬人員的預計執行的任務與動態。 

二、指揮一致(Unity of Command)原則：
因為有上述指揮鏈的原則，自然而然就產生指揮一致的原則(Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970)。特別說明的是，此時的指揮(Command)，應該偏重為指揮官(Commander)，也就是一個指揮官原則。除此之外，與指揮鏈不同的還有訊息流動的方向。由上而下地，指揮官必須指派任務給予所屬(或所轄)的人員或編組。而由下而上地，執行任務的任何一個人員或編組，都只向一個直屬的指揮官負責與回報。簡單地說，在這個原則下，誰指派工作給你，你就向誰回報。
遵從這兩個原則(FEMA, 2013)，就可以建立起指揮與管控的系統(MCDP-6,1996)，將「行動自主化」的救災編組，搖身一變成為「行動紀律化」的作戰部隊，應該可以解決先前所遇到的人員安全、資訊混亂，與資源浪費等問題。 

所以，救災現場的狀況應該變成下面這樣子： 

所有參與救災的人員或編組必須先等直屬的指揮官指派任務後，才能開始進行作業。也就說，進行作業的這一群人是有一個專責的長官在看顧的。若此時有另一個同階甚至更高階的長官過來做出不一樣的指示，這一群人是可以拒絕的。因為，他們只聽原本的長官的指示。因此，人員的作業與安全是經審慎評估與管控的。 

因為只有一個直屬的指揮官，其所屬人員必須將作業過程及是否請求支援等狀況回報上去。這些充足且綿密的訊息足以讓直屬指揮官可以掌握任務執行的進度，並因應狀況調整或修正，做出更好的決策。因此，所有編組內的作業進度資訊得以被掌握，不致產生混淆。 

最後是編組間(Between group)資源調配的問題。由於每個編組指揮官已經可以確實掌握到編組內(Within group)的人員安全與訊息回報，此時若需要編組以外更多資源的投入，就必須向更高層級的指揮官請求支援。更高層級的指揮官就可以調配權責範圍內的其他編組，予以資源協助。因此，資源還是掌握在各階層指揮官身上，由他們視現場狀況進行調整或修正，資源運用較有效率。

圖2 指揮鏈原則與指揮一致原則 for IDOM

再運用這二個原則至IDOM，如圖2，紅色實線為指揮鏈原則，而藍色虛線為指揮(官)一致原則。一開始，指揮中心指揮官(簡稱中心IC)指派指揮通報組組長A及派遣管制組組長B，而指揮通報組長A再指派指揮班班長X及通報班班長Y。請注意，X與Y都是A所指派，而不是中心IC指派。所以，只要是任務指派，就是應用指揮鏈原則(如紅色實線)。

若此時，指揮班班長X接獲現場救災指揮官回報需再增援水庫車10輛，他/她須向指揮通報組組長A回報。因為增援車輛的權責非屬指揮通報組，因此組長A需向中心IC回報現場的請求事項。當中心IC評估後決定增派，就指示派遣管制組組長B增援水庫車10輛。所以，中心IC一方面知道現場救災進況，另一方面也可調度其他資源協助。涉及進度回報與請求支援，就是指揮一致原則(如藍色虛線)。
 
參、討論與建議(Discussion and Suggestion)
由於IDOM已有明確的任務分工，只要再結合第二節指揮與管控的系統：指揮鏈與指揮一致，中心IC就可以解決在文章第一節所面臨的問題。

例如，獨立功能編組部份(general staff)應依權責回報重要處置進度。指揮通報組應主動回報現場最高指揮官的救災進度(i.e., 火勢狀況、受困情形、救災進程...等)，以及縱向、橫向通報單位(i.e., 警察局、水電瓦斯等事業單位、縣市EOC、消防署...等)；派遣管制組應主動回報目前派遣人車能輛與請示是否再增派支援；受理組應主動回報目前受理概況及有無重要單位致電119的情形；救護管制組應主動回報目前現場救護指揮官為誰與傷者後送情況。

例如，指揮官幕僚組部份(command staff)部份，連絡官應要主動回報局本部長官的指示事項及研擬市府長官簡訊內容；新聞官應主動回報目前新聞掌握與媒體記者進線詢問情形；災情彙整官應主動提醒目前各編組有無應辦事項遺漏與回報中心IC彙整進度。

至此，中心IC就有充足的資訊可以研判目前整體災害的狀況，並能直接指揮調度各編組。當災情持續惡化時，中心IC甚至能直接通報機關首長做進一步的重要決策事項。例如，提昇至縣市政府層級的救災模式，或者是請求其他縣市增援。

然而，這仍是理想狀態，如何落實指揮與管控系統至整個IDOM之中是身為中心IC的挑戰。為了讓所有指揮官層級人員與編組內人員清楚知道整個處置過程的成功與否，應該於事件過後進行災害管理評定(Incident Management Assessment)(FEMA,2013)，其中的一種方法是災後檢討(After-Action Review)。災後檢討應要能討論以下的問題：

• 原本預計做何事(What did we set out to do)?
  
• 事實上發生何事( What actually happened)?
  
• 為何會發生(Why did it happen)?
  
• 若再來一次，我們將會做那些不同的事(What are we going to do different next time)?
  
• 有沒有必須要分享的經驗教訓( Are there lessons learned that should be shared)?
  
• 需要何種的策進作為(What followup is needed)?

我們也認為災後檢討與策進是IDOM能否發揮功效的重要關鍵，但所付出的成本與效益必須同時考量。效益上，最好能逐案檢討，讓每一次參與IDOM的成員，都能將累積經驗，培養彼此的默契。此外，將當下的檢討過程記錄起來的文書作業也很必要，因為這些資料可以做經驗傳遞與接續教育之用。然而，這些耗時耗力的文書作業的成本，會增加承辦人員的負擔。有沒有成本低廉並兼具檢討實效的方法呢?本文建議運用臉書(Facebook)的社團功能，如圖3。

每週的想定訓練及每次啟動備勤上線的案件，由執勤官於臉書社團先成立案件說明，再由每一個參與訓練或實際上線的同仁，將每一個人的經驗書寫上去，轉化成文字資料。指揮官們可以從每一位同仁的心得內容知悉是否完全知道自己的缺點與應如何改進。如此一來，不僅節省整體彙整資料的時間，其他未參與的人員亦可以從大家的討論之中學習成長。

圖3 運用臉書社團的逐案檢討

 

肆、結論(Conclusion)
IDOM係從一個各縣市指揮中心最常面臨的大哉問開始，即「如何應用有限資源，發揮最大效能，解決所面臨的各式問題？」，透過群體的問題式腦力激盪，發想問題並歸納問題，最後將形成為了解決這些問題的組織架構(羅凱文等, 2016)。再運用指揮與管控的系統，將每個編組整合起來，使指揮官能掌握訊息並做出決策。最後，透過成本低廉的逐案檢討方法，建立指揮中心內的幹部與執勤人員彼此間的共識與默契。

因此，IDOM得以逐漸成熟並發揮功效，用整體團隊的力量解決重大災害所面臨的各種問題。
 
 
參考文獻

1. 羅凱文、林易慶、傅光廷(2016)，重大災害指揮中心作業模式(Incident Dispatch Operation Model, IDOM)，消防月刊，Vol.3, pp.17-22, Available at: http://www.nfa.gov.tw/flippingbook/index.aspx?EBID=582 [Accessed March 2015]
2. Marine Corps’ Doctrinal Publication-6 (MCDP-6)(1996),  Command and Control. Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, Headquarters United States Marine Corps. Available at: http://www.usmcofficer.com/marine-corps-knowledge/marine-corps-publications/ [Accessed March 2015]
   
3. Fedral Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) (2013), IS-200. Available at: https://training.fema.gov/is/coursematerials.aspx?code=IS-200.b [Accessed March 2015]
   
4. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 150-163.

Ethical Leadership and Multidimensional Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Mediating Effects of Self-Efficacy, Respect, and Leader-Member Exchange

Published on Group and Organization Management, June 2016 vol. 41 no. 3 343-374.

Chyan Yang
Cherng G. Ding
Kai Wen Lo

Kai Wen Lo, Institute of Business and Management, National Chiao Tung University, 118 Chung-Hsiao West Road, Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan. Email: kevinlo093@gmail.com
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between ethical leadership and multidimensional organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), specifically organization-targeted OCBs (OCBO) and individual-targeted OCBs (OCBI). In addition, the study examined the multiple mediating effects of self-efficacy, respect, and leader-member exchange (LMX) on the relationship between ethical leadership and OCBO, as well as the relationship between ethical leadership and OCBI. Through the application of a hierarchical linear model, an analysis of the results from 656 dyadic supervisor-subordinate data from 145 business units in Taiwan showed that both respect and LMX significantly mediated the ethical leadership-OCBO and -OCBI relationships. The implications of these results for theory and practice and directions for future research are also discussed.

Keywords ethical leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, self-efficacy, respect, leader-member exchange


Executive commitment to ethics has important consequences for ethics governance in companies and managers should take their role seriously. (Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran, 1999, p. 55).
“Ethics is at the heart of leadership” (Ciulla, 2004, p. 8), hence, leaders divorced from ethics may contribute to corporate collapse with inevitable and disastrous social consequences. Prior financial crises, as experienced by Enron (2001), WorldCom (2002), AIG (2005), and Lehman Brothers (2008), have repeatedly told us the truth. As a result, ethical leadership has been argued to be important for enterprises because of its effects on promoting enhanced positive attitudes and behaviors among members of an organization (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2011). Although previous research has demonstrated a positive relationship between ethical leadership and various forms of OCBs (e.g.Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris, & Zivnuska, 2011; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009), relatively few studies have tested how and why ethical leadership relates to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), especially for multidimensional OCBs. We believe that an examination of this relationship could expand our understanding of ethical leadership in organizational contexts.
Leadership researchers have generally acknowledged several mechanisms between leader behaviors and follower outcomes either through a mediator (e.g., Kacmar, Andrews, Harris, & Tepper, 2013; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) or through two mediators (e.g., Piccolo et al., 2010; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Rare empirical studies examine multiple mediating effects on the relationship between ethical leadership and multidimensional OCBs, even though multiple simultaneous mediators are needed to compare potentially competing mechanisms in one model (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). We have responded to the view that examining multiple mediators within the same study allows scholars to clarify the relative importance of each mediator (Walumbwa et al., 2011).
The group engagement perspective (Tyler & Blader, 2003), which assumes that employees may assess their leader’s quality of treatment and quality of decision making, thereby influencing their discretionary cooperative behaviors (e.g., OCB) through the feedback they perceive from their leader, is used to explain how ethical leadership is related to multidimensional OCBs through multiple mediators. Although respect perceived by employees played an important role in the relationships between employees and their organization (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Lind, 1992), little attention has been paid to examine the role of mediation on the link between ethical leadership and OCBs. Therefore, we contribute to the literature on ethical leadership by adding perceived respect to the integrated model. In addition to perceived respect, other assessments from employees may mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and employee outcomes, such as self-efficacy (Walumbwa et al., 2011), which is related to self-capability assessment (Bandura, 1986), and leader-member exchange (LMX) (Hansen, Alge, Brown, Jackson, & Dunford, 2013; Walumbwa et al., 2011), which is associated with dyadic relationship assessment between a leader and his/her member (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Consequently, respect, self-efficacy, and leader-member exchange (LMX) were included as the mediators in this study.
In light of the above, our research purpose is to build a model that examines not only the links between ethical leadership and multidimensional OCBs, but also the mechanisms that we believe help account for the links. Our central argument is that ethical leaders motivate employees’ citizenship behaviors towards their organization and individuals within the organization. This relationship works simultaneously by enhancing employee self-efficacy, expressing autonomous respect to employees, and maintaining high-quality LMX that enforces the connections of dyadic relationship with each promoting self-capacity assessment, intragroup status evaluation, and connections of dyadic relationships, respectively.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

OCBs have been defined in various ways throughout literature (e.g.,Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1997). However, the central nature of OCBs involves the idea that OCBs are employee beneficial behaviors that are vital to facilitate organizational functioning (Lee & Allen, 2002; Organ, 1997). Examples of OCBs include helping coworkers, volunteering, keeping up with the affairs of an organization and conveying a positive image of an organization to outsiders (e.g., Lee & Allen, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Thus, OCBs seem to have different targeted dimensions. Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) found at least two major dimensions of OCBs: altruism, which refers to aiding specific persons (e.g., helping others who have been absent), and generalized compliance, which refers to a more impersonal style of conscientiousness in relation to an organization rather than being directed at specific persons (e.g., attendance at work that is above the norm). A number of studies have found that OCBs differentiate two specific constructs based on two targets: (a) individual-targeted citizenship behavior (OCBI, such as taking time to listen to coworkers’ problems and worries) and (b) organization-targeted citizenship behavior (OCBO, such as giving advanced notice when unable to come to work) (e.g.,Lee & Allen, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991).
OCBs may be affected by employees’ perceptions of OCB meanings (Jiao, Richards, & Zhang, 2011) and OCB roles (Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). Effective leaders may promote their followers’ OCBO or OCBI by respectively enhancing the extent to which they believe that OCB contributes to organization-targeted or to individual-targeted effectiveness (Jiao et al., 2011). These findings implied that leaders may affect the conception and comprehension of their members who tend to exhibit citizenship behaviors, thereby promoting their OCBO or OCBI. In addition, employees who perceive their jobs broadly or view OCB outcomes as valued outputs are more likely to engage in interpersonal helping (e.g., voluntarily helping newer coworkers settle into a job) and to take charge (e.g., attempting to bring about improved procedures for a work unit or department) (e.g., attempting to bring about improved procedures for a work unit or department; McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007), similar to OCBI and OCBO, respectively.
Generally, OCBs may be motivated not only through employees’ perceptions of OCBs valued outcomes, but also through employees’ perceptions of their leaders’ behaviors. Thus, we propose that ethical leaders motivate employee OCBs directed towards individuals and organizations through their moral behaviors and effective managerial skills. Figure 1 summarizes the relationships tested in this study.

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships.
Note. OCBO=organizational-targeted citizenship behavior; OCBI=individual-targeted citizenship behavior; LMX=leader–member exchange.

Ethical Leadership and Multidimensional OCBs

Ethical leadership is normatively associated with the attributes of OCB. Brown et al. (2005) defined ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision making”(p.120). This definition conceptualizes the dimension of ethical leadership as consisting of two types of characteristics: (a) personal moral characteristics (e.g., trustworthiness, fairness, self-control, caring about others’ interests) and (b) moral managerial skills (e.g., listening, combined use of rewards and punishments, valuing collective ethics; Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012). Ethical leaders may intend to be role models and make use of normative management to guide their followers in the right direction based on moral and ethical motivations even without formal requirements or enforcements from an organization.
According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), a group helps its members to define who they are and to evaluate their status. This process includes two parts: (a) social categorization, which involves the creation of categories to define their own group and construction of their self-image; and (b) the linkage of self-esteem and self-worth into group memberships (Tyler & Blader, 2002, 2003). In line with social identity theory, the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) argues that discretionary cooperative behaviors originating from the individual, such as OCBs, are motivated by members’ desires to maintain and enhance their social identities from the feedback they receive from their own group. The underlying motivational mechanisms include identification with the group (the degree of merger of self and group) and status judgments (the degree to which the group builds positive identity implications for the self). From the group engagement perspective, a leader plays a critical role in facilitating his/her members’ OCBs because the quality of interpersonal treatment and the decision-making process are among the central antecedents of their perceptions of social identities. Thus, an ethical leader, who has the best interests of employees in mind, makes fair and balanced decisions and emphasizes the question “what is the right thing to do?” (Brown et al., 2005). This leadership style encourages the transfer of messages to his/her members to show that they are fairly treated as valued members. In turn, such messages are likely to have a positive impact on the members’ sense of merging his/herself with the group and of status judgment within the group, thereby motivating them to perform cooperative behaviors targeted to their group and to their coworkers.
The group engagement model assumes that identification with the group and status evaluation are connected to members’ sense of self-esteem (Tyler & Blader, 2003), which is described as self-evaluation based on a sense of one’s moral worth and a positive self-concept that most people have the motivation to create and maintain (Gecas, 1982). Thus, employees may perform virtuous works, such as OCBO and OCBI, to build their self-esteem, and in turn identify with their group. In addition, because of his/her role being generally viewed as a representative of the organization (Schein, 1992) and normatively related attributes of OCB, an ethical leader tends to effectively induce the desire of members to pursue a morally collective cause (e.g., promoting an organization, contributing more, or keeping up with developments in an organization). Thus, when employees perceive increased citizenship behavior from their authorities, which is an attractive identification that can maintain their self-concept, they may tend to engage in OCBO and OCBI (Evans & Davis, 2014). We therefore hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 1. Ethical leadership is positively related to OCBO (H1a) and OCBI (H1b).

 

Ethical Leadership, Self-Efficacy, and Multidimensional OCBs

Self-efficacy, defined as one’s belief in his/her capability to succeed in specific situations (e.g., a goal, task, or challenge; Bandura, 1986), is a kind of self-esteem based on a sense of competence (Gecas, 1982). Self-esteem and identity, two aspects of the self-concept, are closely interrelated based on experiences. Identity deals with evaluation of the self to social systems, while self-esteem focuses on the evaluation dimension of the self-concept (Gecas, 1982). Evidence provides support for the group engagement model by showing that social identity is connected to the senses of self-esteem (e.g., Tyler & Blader, 2000). Thus, from the group engagement perspective, an ethical leader may be inclined to use high-quality interpersonal treatment and fair decision-making processes to put the best interests of employees in mind (Brown et al., 2005). This may enhance his/her members’ evaluation of self-concept, increase their sense of competence, and help build their perceptions of identity and status judgment within the group.
Additionally, social learning theory suggests that learning can occur in different ways, such as through vicarious experience (e.g., learning from the behaviors of some model persons) and verbal persuasion by others (e.g., being encouraged to achieve a certain behavior), and then enhance the extent of one’s belief in one’s own ability to accomplish goals, thereby improving self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1986). An ethical leader may not only become a target of emulation in terms of how to do things by proactively creating a fair work environment (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Eisenbeiss, 2012), but may also use two-way communication, such as verbal persuasion, to clarify the focal points of task requirements and to effectively motivate through individualized consideration (Brown et al., 2005; Campbell-Sills, Barlow, Brown, & Hofmann, 2006). Thus, an ethical leader’s guiding behaviors are supposed to improve the ability of followers to finish their required tasks, thereby enhancing their perceptions of self-efficacy.
Empirical evidence also provides support for the above-mentioned arguments. For example, an ethical leader may demonstrate empowerment behaviors to his/her members (e.g., listening to their problems and concerns, looking out for their personal welfare, and involving them in decisions) and then provide techniques of efficacy information (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), while decreasing the perceived cost of leaving the organization (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009), thereby enhancing their self-efficacy to face difficulties. Moreover, ethical leaders are likely to enhance autonomy, which motivates employees to try different approaches and to learn from their outcomes (Piccolo et al., 2010). This extends employees’ knowledge of their skills and tasks, thus, enhancing their confidence in their own capability to perform well on the job (Sousa, Coelho, & Guillamon-Saorin, 2012). As a result, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 2. Ethical leadership is positively related to employee perceptions of self-efficacy.
Bandura (1997) demonstrated that when a member has high levels of self-efficacy in the group in which he/she has invested much self-worth, there may be a positive correlation between self-esteem and self-efficacy. However, when there is little investment in self-worth, it is unlikely to have such associations (Bandura, 1997). Thus, based on the group engagement model, we propose that employees with high self-efficacy may invest in more self-worth, which builds a high level of self-esteem, in turn enhancing social identity and then performing OCBO and OCBI. Empirical research supports our argument in terms of the relationship between self-efficacy and OCBs. For example, Morrison and Phelps (1999) found that compared with employees with lower levels of self-efficacy, employees with higher levels of self-efficacy tend to have higher likelihoods of taking charge, and thus, may be more likely to attempt OCBO, such as bringing about improved procedures for an organization, developing new methods that are effective for a company, and making constructive suggestions for a work unit.
van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, and Hogg (2004) proposed that a leader who can build his/her members’ self-efficacy may engender their collective identification, thus motivating them to achieve collective goals. The argument suggests that an ethical leader, who tends to enhance follower beliefs of self-efficacy (Walumbwa et al., 2011), is likely to promote his/her followers’ willingness to volunteer towards the organization’s collective goal, thus enhancing their OCBI and OCBO. Moreover, based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) , it is argued that employees may improve their beliefs of self-efficacy through learning from an ethical leader’s behavior and through encouragement from a leader. For example, an ethical leader tends to guide his/her followers not only with fairness and morality (such as engaging in virtuous behaviors that benefit other individuals rather than him/herself), but also by power sharing (e.g., communicating with his/her followers from organizational strategic perspectives; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). This in turn is likely to promote follower behaviors that contribute to other individuals (OCBI) and the organization (OCBO) through intrinsic motivational processes in which followers strengthen both self-efficacy and further work engagement (Salanova, Lorente, Chambel, & Martínez, 2011). Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3. Employee perceptions of self-efficacy mediate the ethical leadership-OCBO relationship (H3a) and the ethical leadership-OCBI relationship (H3b).
 

Ethical Leadership, Respect, and Multidimensional OCBs

Although respect is one of the important constructs related to people’s attitudes and behaviors (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Lind, 1992), no research has studied its connection with ethical leadership. Following the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the present research defines respect as reflecting a member’s judgment of his/her status within the group. The theoretical perspective was developed to explain the effects of fair treatment, referring to the way members are influenced by the interpersonal quality of social interaction with particular authorities (e.g., managers, supervisors, and leaders). To explain these effects, the group engagement model assumes that members value membership in social groups. When authorities treat members in a procedurally fair way, such as through a fair and balanced process of decision making, members will engender a merging sense of self with a group that may induce positive feelings of self-worth and high self-esteem (Tyler & Blader, 2003), thereby generating a positive judgment of individual statuses within a group.
Extending the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), we argue that ethical leaders may use moral managerial skills that involve treating their followers fairly, thus inducing follower perceptions of respect received from their leader. Ethical leaders intend to perform consistently in terms of decision making and nonbiased treatment of others, which express their fairness orientation (Eisenbeiss, 2012). Employees may perceive this type of behavior of an ethical leader (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009), which is positively related to employees’ feelings of security and engagement in interpersonal risk taking within the group (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Moreover, despite the fact that employee evaluations of their status within the group are influenced by different sources (e.g., coworkers, outside customers, group authorities, and organizational norms), their perceptions of status within a group are mainly influenced by group authorities, such as their direct supervisors and managerial leaders (Levinson, 1965; Tyler, 1999). Actions taken by a leader are normally viewed as the behavior of the organization (Levinson, 1965) and as highly salient indicators of organizational opinions (Tyler & Lind, 1992). As a result, an ethical leader, whose actions are intended to engage in fair and balanced decision making as a symbol of the organization (Brown et al., 2005), may encourage his/her followers to participate in decision making and to provide opportunities for growth, which enhance the followers’ perceptions of respect (Fuller et al., 2006). Therefore, we propose this hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4. Ethical leadership is positively related to employee perceptions of respect.
Recent theoretical research has demonstrated that an individual’s intragroup self-evaluation may affect his/her cognition regarding his/her group and then may induce behaviors that benefit his/her own organization. According to the group engagement model, one’s judgment of his/her intragroup status has a significant effect on the extent to which members are willing to act cooperatively within a group and invest more time and energy on the group (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Based on this model, the more members perceive respect from their leader, the more inherent concern they have about their group’s welfare. As a result, they are intrinsically motivated to make efforts on behalf of their group’s interests and help their group by expressing organization-supportive behaviors, such as volunteering to help group members without being required to do so (OCBI) and doing things that help the organization without having to be asked (OCBO; Blader & Tyler, 2009). Empirical evidence has also shown that perceived respect affects the degree to which members perform in ways that enhance the benefits of an organization and the members in a group (e.g.,Tyler & Blader, 2002).
The group engagement model has also been developed to explain the relationship between the degree of fair treatment and members’ organization-supportive behaviors, in part due to whether members feel respected by their leaders within the group (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2003). As noted earlier, due to the fair orientation of ethical leaders, employees may perceive fair treatments of such leaders who make consistent decisions and treat them without bias (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009; Eisenbeiss, 2012). Employees may then integrate their self-concept with the group to generate positive judgments of their status within the group, thus arousing perceptions of respect (Tyler & Blader, 2003). When employees feel respected by an ethical leader, they tend to engage in greater behavioral effort on behalf of their own group. One example of this includes volunteering to do things to help the organization and guiding new employees (Blader & Tyler, 2009), thereby exhibiting OCBO and OCBI. Empirical research has confirmed the mediating role of perceived respect between authority treatment and employee organization-supportive behaviors (e.g., Blader & Tyler, 2009; Huo, Binning, & Molina, 2010; Tyler & Blader, 2002) and OCB intentions towards members within a group (Sommer & Kulkarni, 2012). Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 5. Employee perceptions of respect mediate the ethical leadership-OCBO relationship (H5a) and the ethical leadership-OCBI relationship (H5b).
 

Ethical Leadership, LMX, and Multidimensional OCBs

Graen and Scandura (1987) defined LMX as the quality of the leader-member exchange relationship. Leaders who have developed high-quality LMX with their members are characterized by high levels of mutual trust, respect, loyalty, and obligation among their relationship partners (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As the group engagement model assumed that both the group and its authorities serve an important fuction to create and maintain members’ positive identity (Tyler & Blader, 2003), members may interact more frequently with their leader and recognize their leader’s fair treatment and fair reward. This may cause them to be more willing to form and maintain a high LMX quality with their leader (Burton, Sablynski, & Sekiguchi, 2008a). Accordingly, high-quality LMX may develop increasingly through the interaction between an ethical leader and his/her group members.
Based on the role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), Graen and colleagues assumed that work roles, which are defined by successive exchanges wherein a leader assigns tasks and then followers execute them, develop through informal negotiations between the leader and his/her followers. High-quality relationships increasingly develop as the role expectations of the two parties converge and assigned tasks are completed (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Thus, the behavior of a leader is likely to affect the degree of a follower’s role clarifications, thereby determining the development of LMX (Sears & Hackett, 2011). In addition, the power sharing behaviors of ethical leaders, including involving subordinates in decision making, allowing them a voice, and providing them individualized support (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009), may be of benefit to the development of LMX quality (Bauer & Green, 1996). Hence, we propose:
Hypothesis 6. Ethical leadership is positively related to employee perceptions of LMX.
According to the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), discretionary helping behavior is related to members’ desire to maintain and enhance their social identities through their status within a group. Employees treated fairly by their supervisor may form a sense of their own worth within the group and then intend to maintain a high-quality LMX with their leader (Burton et al., 2008a), thus, feeling obliged to reciprocate by performing citizenship behaviors targeted either towards the supervisor or towards coworkers within the organization (Blau, 1964). Once high-quality LMX develops, OCBI represents feedback through which a subordinate delivers outcomes that benefit his/her supervisor (Wayne & Green, 1993). Subordinates with high LMX may intend to offer indirect benefits to a supervisor, thereby enhancing OCBO because a leader is generally viewed as a representative of an organization (Schein, 1992).
Based on emergent norms of reciprocity, social exchange theory suggests that exchange can be viewed dyadically or systematically, and it can also support individualistic or collectivist goals (Cole, Schaninger, & Harris, 2002). Once employees are treated in a fair, interpersonal way, they will generate high-quality LMX, thereby intending to present OCBs (Burton, Sablynski, & Sekiguchi, 2008b). Accordingly, employees who perceive themselves to be in such reciprocal relationships due to fair, caring, and trustworthy treatment from their ethical leaders (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006) intend to present citizenship behaviors either towards an organization or toward interpersonal networks, including their supervisor. Therefore, we assert that LMX has a mediating effect whereby ethical leadership affects OCBO and OCBI.
Hypothesis 7. Employee perceptions of LMX mediate the ethical leadership OCBO relationship (H7a) and the ethical leadership OCBI relationship (H7b).

 

 

 

Methods

Participants and Procedure

We collected data from 171 units in 90 organizations in Taiwan, including technology, insurance, construction, journalism, education, retailing, manufacturing, tourism, and food service industries. A contact person was identified by the researchers within each organization. The contact person was asked to hand-deliver survey packets to a supervisor in each department. Within each survey packet, there were six envelopes of two colors: one brown envelope and five white ones. The brown envelope contained a supervisor version of the questionnaire, and each white envelope contained an employee version of the questionnaire.
Each brown envelope was coded with a researcher-assigned identification number from 1 to 300, and each white envelope was coded with a number from 1 to 5 and with the corresponding identification number on the top. The supervisor questionnaire and the employee questionnaire could be matched dyadically according to the specific ID number. In addition, a cover letter explained the importance and procedure of the research, stressed the confidential and voluntary nature of participation, and informed participants that only group data would be reported to the organization. Finally, supervisor participants were asked to volunteer one to five subordinates, to give each of them a white envelope, and to remember the number on the envelope to match it with the specific subordinate. As each envelope was postpaid, each participant sealed and returned their envelope directly to the researchers when he/she finished answering the questionnaire. We provided our contact information in case there were any questions from the participants.
Subordinate participants completed measures of ethical leadership, LMX, respect, self-efficacy, procedural fairness, and personal information including gender, age, education, job tenure, and working tenure with their supervisors. Supervisor participants completed both OCBO and OCBI measures for their subordinate participants as well as personal information, such as organization name, age, education, job tenure, and working tenure in their present position.
We received 742 employee responses out of 1500 questionnaires (employee response rate = 49.5 percent) and 161 supervisor responses out of 300 questionnaires (supervisor response rate = 53.7 percent). A total of 171 units (out of 300) were responded to, for a total response rate of 57 percent, but 11 units were excluded due to incomplete supervisor data. Finally, the remaining 160 units included 94 units that returned the questionnaires of five subordinates and of one supervisor who rated these five subordinates; 33 that returned questionnaires of four subordinates and of one supervisor who rated these four subordinates; 18 that returned questionnaires of three subordinates and of one supervisor who rated these three subordinates; 11 that returned questionnaires of two subordinates and of one supervisor who rated these two subordinates; and four that returned questionnaires of only one subordinate and of one supervisor who rated this subordinate. As three responses are sufficient to aggregate measures to the group level (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005; Tracey & Tews, 2005), we reserved the data of three to five dyadic respondents. The final data set comprised 656 complete dyadic questionnaires in 145 units.
The average employee age was 31.6 years old (SD = 4.9) with an average organizational tenure of 3.3 years (SD = 3.4), average department tenure of 2.5 years (SD = 2.6), and average tenure of working with the supervisor of 2.1 years (SD = 2.3). Of all the employees, 47 percent were women and at least 62 percent had the equivalent of a US community college degree. In addition, the average supervisor age was 38.6 years old (SD = 5.7), with an average organizational tenure of 7.8 years (SD = 4.1) and average department tenure of 4.0 years (SD = 3.8). Of all the supervisors, 33 percent were women and at least 72 percent had the equivalent of a US community college degree.
 

Measures

The English questionnaires were translated to Chinese, following the conventional back translation method (Brislin, 1980). A bilingual researcher translated the original scales into Chinese. Without access to the original scales, a separate bilingual researcher translated the scales of the Chinese version back to English and commented on whether any item was ambiguous. Finally, two native Chinese speakers were asked to pretest the Chinese version of the scales and found no major problems in understanding the items. All scales were anchored on a five-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
Ethical leadership was measured using the 10-item Ethical Leadership Scale developed by Brown et al. (2005). Self-efficacy was measured with a three-item scale from Spreitzer (1995). Respect was measured with the six-item Autonomous Respect Scale from Tyler and Blader (2002). LMX was measured with the LMX-7 scale developed by Scandura and Graen (1984). OCBO and OCBI were measured with the 16-item OCB scale of Lee and Allen (2002), consisting of two eight-item subscales for both OCBO and OCBI. Finally, because previous research has shown that procedural fairness and gender have significant relationships with OCBs (Kacmar et al., 2011; Kidder, 2002; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008), we controlled for these two variables to partial out their effects on OCBs. Procedural fairness was measured with the seven-item scale developed by Colquitt (2001). A preliminary assessment with a sample size of 30 revealed acceptable reliabilities (the coefficient alphas for ethical leadership, self-efficacy, respect, LMX, OCBO, OCBI, and procedural fairness were .715, .796, .866, .914, .853, .762, and .832, respectively). The items of all scales used are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Factor Loadings Resulting from the Seven-Factor CFA Model.

Constructs/Items	Standardized loading	t-value	α/CR
Ethical leadership			.91/.91
1. My manager listens to what employees have to say	.68***	30.52
2. My manager disciplines employees who violate ethical standards	.43***	12.72
3. My manager conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner	.63***	25.47
4. My manager has the best interests of employees in mind	.78***	45.35
5. My manager makes fair and balanced decisions	.79***	47.36
6. My manager can be trusted	.82***	57.20
7. My manager discusses business ethics or values with employees	.68***	29.95
8. My manager sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics	.77***	43.13
9. My manager defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained	.65***	26.55
10.When making decisions, my manager asks “what is the right thing to do?”	.73***	36.85
Self–efficacy			.84/.84
1. I am confident about my ability to do my job	.81***	42.62
2. I am self–assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities	.83***	44.85
3. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job	.78***	38.65
Respect			.92/.92
1. My manager respects the work I do,	.77***	44.48
2. My manager respects my work–related ideas,	.80***	50.29
3. My manager values what I contribute at work	.83***	61.48
4. My manager approves of how I do my job	.75***	40.03
5. My manager appreciates my unique contributions on the job	.83***	59.60
6. My manager values me as a member of my work group.	.83***	60.24
Leader–member exchange			.91/.91
1. I usually know where I stand with my manager.	.68***	30.81
2. My manager has enough confidence in me that he/she would defend and justify my decisions if I was not present to do so.	.80***	51.33
3. My working relationship with my manager is effective.	.82***	56.87
4. My manager understands my problems and needs.	.82***	58.57
5. I can count on my manager to "bail me out," even at his or her own expense, when I really need it.	.81***	54.92
6. My manager recognizes my potential.	.77***	44.52
7. Regardless of how much power my manager has built into his or her position, my manager would be personally inclined to use his/her power to help me solve problems in my work.	.72***	35.72
Procedural fairness			.93/.93
1. I have been able to express my views and feelings during those procedures	.73***	36.77
2. I had influence over the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures	.76***	42.27
3. Those procedures have been applied consistently.	.84***	65.45
4. Those procedures have been free of bias	.80***	50.53
5. Those procedures have been based on accurate information	.85***	67.99
6. I have been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures	.82***	56.57
7. Those procedures have upheld ethical and moral standards	.82***	56.04
Organizational–targeted citizenship behavior (OCBO)			.90/.90
1. The subordinate helps others who have been absent.	.73***	35.08
2. The subordinate willingly gives his/her time to help others who have work–related problems.	.76***	39.73
3. The subordinate adjusts his/her work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for time off.	.73***	35.79
4. The subordinate goes out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group.	.70***	31.75
5. The subordinate shows genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business or personal situations.	.73***	35.07
6. The subordinate gives up time to help others who have work or non–work problems.	.75***	37.85
7. The subordinate assists others with their duties.	.72***	34.21
8. The subordinate shares personal property with others to help their work.	.65***	26.50
Individual–targeted citizenship behavior (OCBI)			.90/.90
1. The subordinate attends functions that are not required but that help the organizational image.	.63***	24.58
2. The subordinate keeps up with developments in the organization.	.68***	29.09
3. The subordinate defends the organization when other employees criticize it.	.73***	36.25
4. The subordinate shows pride when representing the organization in public.	.72***	34.68
5. The subordinate offers ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.	.69***	30.09
6. The subordinate expresses loyalty toward the organization.	.75***	39.20
7. The subordinate takes action to protect the organization from potential problems.	.79***	46.37
8. The subordinate demonstrates concern about the image of the organization.	.77***	42.19

Note. N = 656. α=Coefficient alpha; CR=Composite reliability.
^*** p < .001 (two–tailed tests).
 
Common Method Variance (CMV)
Several procedural steps were adopted to mitigate the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). First, all scales used in the study were successfully pretested. We provided examples when we thought that the concepts in our items were vague, and we attempted to keep the questions as specific, simple, and concise as possible. Second, to enhance the motivation of respondents to answer the questionnaires accurately, we provided an explanation in the cover letter about the importance and usefulness of the questions for the respondents and the organization. Finally, we assured respondents of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses.
To examine the CMV problem, we first compared two models to detect the existence of CMV. The first is the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model for the seven constructs without a latent method factor. The second is the CFA model for the seven constructs with a latent method factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results indicated that the fit for the first model (χ² = 2733.23; df = 1106; CFI = .9224; NFI = .8765; NNFI = .9175; RMSEA = .0475; SRMSR = .0371) was worse than the fit for the latter (χ² = 2397.26; df = 1057; CFI = .9361; NFI = .8917; NNFI = .9289; RMSEA = .0440; SRMSR = .0327) as the chi-square difference test was significant (Δχ²(Δdf) = 335.97(49), p < .0001). As CMV is significant, whether it will bias the estimates of trait loadings and construct correlations needs to be investigated. We conducted the restricted CFA to test for common method bias in parameter estimates (Williams, Gavin, & Williams, 1996). We fitted the third CFA model, with a latent method factor by placing the restriction that trait loadings and trait correlations were fixed as the values resulting from those obtained from the CFA without a latent method factor. The third model, referred to as the restricted CFA model (χ² = 2410.85; df = 1127), was then compared with the second model, referred to as the unrestricted CFA model. As the difference of the chi-square fit statistics between the restricted and the unrestricted models was non-significant (Δχ²(Δdf) = 13.593(70), p > .9), CMV does not cause a significant bias. Therefore, the risk of CMV does not appear to be a considerable threat.

 

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Before testing the hypotheses, we performed a CFA to assess convergent validity, discriminant validity, and the comparison of seven-factor model with alternative models. Convergent validity was first evaluated by reviewing the t-tests for factor loadings in a measurement model with CFA (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). As reported in Table 1, because the t-tests were significant (t-values > 10), then convergent validity was supported. Coefficient alphas (α) and composite reliabilities for the constructs are at least .84, and they demonstrate satisfactory reliability. In addition, to evaluate discriminant validity, we used two approaches. First, whether the squared correlations among constructs were relatively smaller than the average variances extracted was examined (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 2, the squared correlation for any pair of constructs was smaller than the corresponding average variances extracted. Second, whether the confidence interval for a pairwise construct correlation includes 1.0 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) was examined. The results (Table 2) showed that none of the 95% confidence intervals for pairwise correlations included 1.0. Therefore, these results show that discriminant validity was supported.
Finally, the seven-factor model (ethical leadership, self-efficacy, LMX, respect, OCBO, OCBI, and procedural fairness) was examined and was compared with a series of alternative nested models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), in which the constructs with high correlations were combined. As shown in Table 3, the CFA results indicate that the seven-factor model exhibited the best fit (χ² = 2733; df = 1106; CFI = .92; NFI = .88; NNFI = .92; RMSEA = .047; SRMR = .037), and the chi-square difference tests compared with other alternative models are all significant. The results have provided evidence of the distinctiveness of the seven-factor model.
 
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Constructs.

Constructs	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Ethical leadership	3.94	.57	.91
2. Self-efficacy	4.03	.57	.44(.037)	.85
3. Respect	4.05	.55	.80(.018)	.50(.034)	.92
4. LMX	3.92	.59	.85(.015)	.51(.034)	.88(.013)	.91
5. Procedural Fairness	3.68	.63	.71(.023)	.46(.036)	.69(.024)	.77(.020)	.93
6. OCBO	3.78	.53	.34(.039)	.24(.043)	.37(.038)	.37(.038)	.28(.040)	.90
7. OCBI	3.97	.52	.34(.038)	.27(.042)	.40(.037)	.40(.037)	.36(.038)	.73(.023)	.90

Note. N = 656. LMX=leader-member exchange; OCBO=organizational-targeted citizenship behavior; OCBI=individual- targeted citizenship behavior. Constructs 1-5 were measured by subordinates and constructs 6 and 7 were measured by supervisors. Values on the diagonal are the variance extracted estimates. Values in the parentheses are standard errors.

Table 3. Measurement Model Comparisons.

Models	χ2(df)	Δχ2(Δdf)	CFI	NFI	NNFI	RMSEA	SRMR
7-factor model (EL, SE, RESP, LMX, PF, OCBO and OCBI)	2733(1106)	-	.92	.88	.92	.047	.037
6-factor model (combining OCBO and OCBI)	3343(1112)	610(6) ***	.89	.85	.89	.055	.042
6-factor model (combining EL and SE)	3420(1112)	687(6) ***	.89	.85	.88	.056	.047
6-factor model (combining EL and RESP)	3300(1112)	567(6) ***	.89	.85	.89	.055	.042
6-factor model (combining EL and LMX)	3167(1112)	434(6) ***	.90	.86	.90	.053	.041
5-factor model (combining OCBO and OCBI, and combining RESP and LMX)	3631(1117)	898(11) ***	.88	.84	.87	.059	.043
4-factor model (combining OCBO and OCBI, and combining SE, RESP, and LMX)	4241(1121)	1508(15) ***	.85	.81	.84	.065	.049
3-factor model (combining OCBO and OCBI, and combining EL, SE, RESP, and LMX)	4787(1124)	2054(18) ***	.83	.78	.82	.071	.053
2-factor model (combining OCBO and OCBI, and combining EL, SE, RESP, LMX, and PF)	5916(1126)	3183(20) ***	.77	.73	.76	.081	.058
1-factor model (combining all variables)	9471(1127)	6738(21) ***	.60	.57	.58	.106	.120

Note. EL=Ethical leadership; SE=self-efficacy; RESP=respect; LMX=leader-member exchange; PF=procedural fairness; OCBO=organizational-targeted citizenship behavior; OCBI=individual-targeted citizenship behavior; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; NNFI= non-normed fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error approximation; SRMS= standardized root mean square residual.
^***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
 
 
 
 
 

Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) and Aggregation of Ethical Leadership

The data for the present study are hierarchical in nature because employees were nested within supervisors (each supervisor rated about three to five of his/her direct report OCBs). Therefore, hierarchical linear modeling was used to test the hypotheses. In addition, because of “shared unit properties” that describe the “collective, consensual aspect[s] of the unit as a whole” (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 30), ethical leadership is a group-level construct and aggregation is needed (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Before proceeding with aggregation, we needed to examine the within-group agreement of ethical leadership according to the within-group inter-rater agreement index (r_wg (j)) (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993) and intraclass correlation coefficients: ICC (1) and ICC (2) (Bliese, 2000; Bliese & Halverson, 1998). First, the value of r_wg (j) was .96, which is above the critical value that is .70 as suggested by George (1990). Second, the results of the aggregation of ethical leadership indicate that the value of ICC (1) was .17, which is above the threshold value of .12 (Bliese & Halverson, 1998; James et al., 1993) and thus, sufficient for group-aggregated measures. Finally, the value of ICC (2) was .49, lower than the cut-off range that is between .60 and .70 (Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002). Overall, such value of ICC (2) can be considered acceptable given that only three to five subordinates rated their managers because the ICC (2) index is dependent on the number of raters per group (Bliese, 2000), and because it is not unusual to have lower ICC (2) values in studies with small team sizes (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Taken together, these results provide support for aggregation at the group level of ethical leadership. Thus, average scores were used in further analyses.
 

Results of Hierarchical Linear Model

Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 6 predicted that ethical leadership would be positively related to OCBO, OCBI, self-efficacy, respect, and LMX, respectively. HLM results in Table 4 show that ethical leadership is significantly related to both OCBO (= .511, p < .001, Model 1) and OCBI (= .381, p < .001, Model 2), controlling for procedural fairness and gender. These results provide support for H1a and H1b. Similarly, as shown in Table 4, HLM results also revealed that ethical leadership is significantly related to employee perception of self-efficacy (= .240, p < .01, Model 3), respect (= .382, p < .001, Model 4), and LMX (= .393, p < .001, Model 5), controlling for procedural fairness and gender. These results provide support for Hypotheses 2, 4, and 6, respectively.
Hypotheses 3, 5, and 7 suggested that self-efficacy, respect, or LMX have mediating effects on ethical leadership OCBO and OCBI relationships. We followed the four-step mediated procedure proposed by Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998). In step 1, ethical leadership needs to be significantly related to OCBO and OCBI. As reported in Table 4, this requirement was supported by the HLM results of Hypothesis 1a (see Model 1) and Hypothesis 1b above (see Model 2). Step 2 requires ethical leadership to be related with employee perceptions of self-efficacy, respect, and LMX. The results of Table 4 show that this requirement was supported by the HLM results of Hypothesis 2 (see Model 3), Hypothesis 4 (see Model 4), and Hypothesis 6 above (see Model 5). The second requirement was therefore met. In step 3, ethical leadership, self-efficacy, respect, and LMX need to be positively related to OCBO and OCBI. The results in Table 4 show that respect (= .141, p < .01, Model 6) and LMX (= .115, p < .05, Model 6) are significantly and positively related to OCBO, whereas respect (= .121, p < .05, Model 7) and LMX (= .166, p < .01, Model 7) are significantly and positively related to OCBI. This requirement was supported by the HLM results above. Finally, step 4 examined whether the significant ethical leadership-OCBO or ethical leadership-OCBI relationships in Step 1 is reduced (partial mediation) or eliminated (complete mediation) when self-efficacy, respect, and LMX are controlled simultaneously. As reported in Table 4, respect and LMX have partial mediation when the effects of ethical leadership on OCBO and OCBI are not zero.
In addition, bootstrapping (e.g., Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008) was used to test for the indirect effects of ethical leadership on OCBs through self-efficacy, respect, and LMX. By using sampling with replacement, a sample size of 656 was taken from the dataset, and the path coefficients were then obtained with HLM. We repeated the procedure 2000 times. Under a desired nominal type I error rate a, the lower and upper 100(a/2) percentage points of the distribution based on the 2000 estimates for each indirect effect (the product of two path coefficients) are used to form a 100(1-a)% bootstrap confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effect. If the test for the indirect effect is one-sided, as in this study claiming that the effect is in the predicted direction, then a 100(1-2a)% CI for the effect at level a (see the website provided by Hayes: http://www.afhayes.com/macrofaq.html) must be built. The mediating effect is significant if the associated percentile CI does not include zero. As shown in Table 5, only respect and LMX are the mediators of the relationships between ethical leadership and OCBO/OCBI because the corresponding 90% CI (with a = .05 for the one-sided test) does not include zero. As the direct effects of ethical leadership on OCBO and OCBI are significant (.396 and .268, p < .001), the mediation through respect and LMX is partial. The results provide support for Hypotheses 5 and 7.
 
Table 4. HLM Results: Effects of Ethical Leadership on OCBO, OCBI, Self-Efficacy, Respect, and LMX

	OCBO (Model 1)	OCBI (Model 2)	Self-efficacy (Model 3)	Respect (Model 4)	LMX (Model 5)	OCBO (Model 6)	OCBI (Model 7)
Intercept	1.309(.34)***	2.054(.32)***	1.898(.26)***	.800(.21)***	.315(.19)
Procedural Fairness (Level 1 control)	.121(.025)***	.109(.030)***	.311(.035)***	.479(.028)***	.565(.028)***
Gender (Level 1 control)	.005(.038)	.032(.039)	.075(.041)	–.022(.033)	–.038(.031)
Ethical leadership (Level 2)	.511(.090)***	.381(.086)***	.240(.072)**	.382(.058)***	.393(.053)***
R2	.18***	.12***	.20***	.46***	.55***
Intercept						1.242(.33)***	1.805(.33)***
Procedural Fairness (Level 1 control)						–.024(.037)	–.057(.037)
Gender (Level 1 control)						.012(.036)	.041(.037)
Self-efficacy (Level 1)						.005(.033)	.038(.034)
Respect (Level 1)						.141(.054)**	.121(.055)*
LMX (Level 1)						.115(.050)*	.166(.057)**
Ethical leadership (Level 2)						.396(.088)***	.268(.085)**
R2						.21***	.15***

Note. OCBO=organizational-targeted citizenship behavior; OCBI=individual-targeted citizenship behavior; LMX=leader–member exchange. With the exception of ethical leadership (Level 2; N=145), all other variables are Level 1 (N=656) and raw-metric. Values in parentheses are standard errors.
^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
 
Table 5. Mediation of Self-Efficacy, Respect, and LMX on the Effect of Ethical Leadership on OCBO and OCBI.

	OCBO		OCBI
Mediators	Indirect effect	90% Percentile CI		Indirect effect	90% Percentile CI
Lower	Upper		Lower	Upper
Self-Efficacy	–.002	–.0197	.0133		–.004	–.0231	.0129
Respect	.044	.0072	.0852		.051	.0096	.0940
LMX	.045	.0092	.0854		.057	.0142	.1013

Note. OCBO=organizational-targeted citizenship behavior; OCBI=individual-targeted citizenship behavior; LMX=leader–member exchange. Results were obtained based on 2000 bootstrap samples.
 
 

Discussion

We have attempted to offer an extension of ethical leadership literature into OCB research, particularly for multidimensional OCBs. The results of the positive ethical leadership OCBO and OCBI relationships provide empirical support for the existence of the relationship. In addition to the connection between ethical leadership and performance (Walumbwa et al., 2011), the results suggest that ethical leaders may signal their subordinates to pursue a value cause (not limited to self-interest), thereby promoting OCBI. They may also induce the desire to reach a morally collective principle, thereby enhancing OCBO even without formal requirements or enforcements from an organization. Thus, ethical leadership, which is closely related to the nature of OCBs, may be linked to overall organizational effectiveness.
In addition, we employed a multiple mediation method to delineate how the effects of ethical leadership are translated into OCBI and OCBO. Our findings show that the positive relationship between ethical leadership and both OCBO and OCBI is partially mediated by employee perceptions of respect and LMX. The results suggest that both employee evaluation of intragroup status and employee perception of the interpersonal relationship between leader and members may significantly affect managerial effectiveness. The result of the positive ethical leadership-respect relationship suggests that ethical leaders are fairness oriented (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009; Eisenbeiss, 2012), thereby strengthening employee evaluation of intragroup status. The result of a positive ethical leadership-LMX relationship also provides support for the idea that an ethical leader intends to treat and reward his/her members fairly (Burton et al., 2008a), thereby promoting and maintaining their perceptions of LMX quality with him/her.
Finally, the partial mediating effect suggests that other mediators exist in addition to respect and LMX. Future research may consider other potential mediating mechanisms. For example, an ethical leader may motivate employees to engage in voluntarily helping by judging the types of behaviors that are ethically appropriate in the organization (Resick, Hargis, Shao, & Dust, 2013), through promoting the quality of their positive experience at work (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012) , and through reducing their self-serving activities within the group (Kacmar et al., 2011; Zhang, Walumbwa, Aryee, & Chen, 2013). After all, an ethical workplace is among the implicit expectations of employees (Kacmar et al., 2013).

Practical Implications

This study has several important implications for leaders. First, through the mediating effects of respect and LMX, our results suggest that before encouraging subordinate citizenship behaviors, leaders should not only express sufficient respect, but also develop good relationships with their subordinates. Once higher respect and better LMX are achieved, subordinates are likely to exert more effort, thereby enhancing their citizenship behaviors towards an organization and towards coworkers. The findings also suggest that the nature of ethical leadership is normatively appropriate and instrumental to an organization’s effectiveness. Thus, it is useful for organizations to encourage ethical behavior in all employees through performance evaluations or education mechanisms. Specifically, it is also useful for supervisors to improve subordinates’ self-efficacy, respect, and LMX when they lead and guide ethically. Finally, the research suggests that ethical leaders can evoke employee citizenship behaviors that benefit the organization and thus, coworkers. Through moral managerial skills and the representation of moral characteristics, the effectiveness of an organization will eventually be improved due to employee behaviors that are beneficial to the organization and to individuals within the group.
 

Limitations and Future Research

The present study should also be viewed in light of its limitations. First, some data were collected from the same source such that CMV may be an issue. However, we have demonstrated that it is not a serious problem in the current study. Potential rating biases may be lessened by collecting data with different methods. For example, future research should strive to measure all constructs from different resources or in different time lags. Second, supervisors in this study may be biased in selecting subordinates with whom they have closer relationships, thereby resulting in the positive evaluation for LMX and respect. Such potential bias may be avoided through a random selection process. For example, future research should request participating companies to reach a contact person from their human resource department to randomly select three to five subordinates of each of the participating supervisors in the survey (e.g., Aryee, Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012). Third, based on cross-sectional designs, we cannot make definitive inferences about causality. Future research may consider utilizing experimental designs in which data are collected at different points in time to examine causality between ethical leadership and OCBs. Finally, although we collected data from various industries in Taiwan, the study may be confined to what is considered a collectivist culture. To further establish generalizability, future researchers should investigate the relationships tested in this study on a broader sample drawn from multiple countries and cultures.

Conclusion

The present study clarifies the importance of ethical leadership to organizational effectiveness by offering significant support for the hypothesized models. Important contributions ensure the positive effect of ethical leadership on multidimensional OCB. Our findings also suggest that the mechanisms of intragroup status evaluation and the leader-member relationship are significantly related to the complicated ethical leadership of -OCBO and -OCBI relationships. We expect these findings to inspire further research into the underlying mechanisms of ethical leadership and extend our understanding of the effects of ethical leadership on multidimensional OCBs.
 

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25(1), 1-25.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of a leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538-1567.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445-464.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. K. S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group Size and Measures of Group-Level Properties: An Examination of Eta-Squared and ICC Values. Journal of Management, 24(2), 157-172.
Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel methods in leadership: The articles, the model, and the data set. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(1), 3-14.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N.Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 389-111). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
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(2), 117-134.
Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., & Sekiguchi, T. (2008a). Linking Justice, Performance, and Citizenship via Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1), 51-61.
Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., & Sekiguchi, T. (2008b). Linking justice, performance, and citizenship via leader–member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1-2), 51-61.
Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D. H., Brown, T. A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2006). Effects of suppression and acceptance on emotional responses of individuals with anxiety and mood disorders. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 44(9), 1251-1263.
Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Cole, M. S., Schaninger, W. S., & Harris, S. G. (2002). The workplace social exchange network a multilevel, conceptual examination. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 142-167.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
De Hoogh, A. H., & 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(3), 297-311.
Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2009). Empowering behaviour and leader fairness and integrity: Studying perceptions of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 199-230.
Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 791-808.
Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. (2014). Corporate Citizenship and the Employee: An Organizational Identification Perspective. Human Performance, 27(2), 129-146.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59(6), 815-846.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual review of sociology, 1-33.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107-116.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford, B. B. (2013). Ethical leadership: Assessing the value of a multifoci social exchange perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 435-449.
Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R., & Molina, L. E. (2010). Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 200-212.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r_wg : An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306-309.
Jiao, C., Richards, D. A., & Zhang, K. (2011). Leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: OCB-specific meanings as mediators. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1), 11-25.
Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Harris, K. J., & Tepper, B. J. (2013). Ethical leadership and subordinate outcomes: The mediating role of organizational politics and the moderating role of political skill. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(1), 33-44.
Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011). Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 633-642.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kalshoven, K., & Boon, C. T. (2012). Ethical leadership, employee well-being, and helping. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 60-68.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vols. 1 and 2 (4th ed.) (pp. 233-265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 28(5), 629-648.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. K. S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4), 370-390.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151-171.
Mayer, D. M., 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), 1-13.
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1200-1211.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. N. d., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 259-278.
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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63, 539-569.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace behavior. Human Relations, 0018726713481633.
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 561-589.
Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M. J., & Martínez, I. M. (2011). Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(10), 2256-2266.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428-436.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sears, G. J., & Hackett, R. D. (2011). The influence of role definition and affect in LMX: A process perspective on the personality–LMX relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(3), 544-564.
Smith, C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653.
Sommer, K. L., & Kulkarni, M. (2012). Does constructive performance feedback improve citizenship intentions and job satisfaction? The roles of perceived opportunities for advancement, respect, and mood. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(2), 177-201.
Sousa, C. M. P., Coelho, F., & Guillamon-Saorin, E. (2012). Personal values, autonomy, and self-efficacy: Evidence from frontline service employees. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(2), 159-170.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological, empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 789.
Tracey, J. B., & Tews, M. J. (2005). Construct validity of a general training climate scale. Organizational Research Methods, 8(4), 353-374.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 201-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 813-838.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York, NY: Academic Press.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, 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(2), 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(5), 1275-1286.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 251-265.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46(12), 1431-1440.
Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 41-57.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601.
Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 88.
Zhang, X., Walumbwa, F. O., Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. G. (2013). Ethical leadership, employee citizenship and work withdrawal behaviors: Examining mediating and moderating processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 284-297.