Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-ns2hh Total loading time: 1.756 Render date: 2022-09-25T07:42:20.107Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Voice More and Stay Longer: How Ethical Leaders Influence Employee Voice and Exit Intentions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2016

Long W. Lam
Affiliation:
University of Macau
Raymond Loi
Affiliation:
University of Macau
Ka Wai Chan
Affiliation:
University of Macau
Yan Liu
Affiliation:
Wuhan University
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Given the importance of voice in ethical leadership theory, we analyze the relationship of ethical leadership to employee voice and the relationship of voice to exit intentions. Building on the theory of work engagement, we further hypothesize that cognitive engagement mediates these proposed relationships. To test these propositions, we conduct a field study to relate ethical leadership of supervisors, measured at time 1, to employees’ cognitive job engagement, measured at time 2. The analyses show that the relationship between these variables can account for supervisory ethical leadership’s association with employee voice and exit intentions. In a supplementary study using a different sample, we find that supervisory ethical leadership is related to exit intentions through voice. We discuss how these findings contribute to the literature on ethical leadership, employee voice, and exit.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2016 

INTRODUCTION

While mass media has often focused on the ethical behaviors of corporate leaders (Huang, Reference Huang2010), a growing number of researchers are also interested in this particular leadership because of its connection with outcomes such as employees’ task performance and citizenship behavior (e.g., Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, Reference Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog and Folger2010) and reduction of unethical behaviors (Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi Reference Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum and Kuenzi2012; Taylor & Pattie, Reference Taylor and Pattie2014). Here, ethical leadership refers to “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” (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005: 120). One crucial premise of ethical leadership theory is that ethical leaders “provide followers with voice” (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005: 120), with voice defined as the “discretionary verbal communication of ideas, suggestions, or opinions with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning” (Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, Reference Morrison, Wheeler-Smith and Kamdar2011: 183). Because ethical leaders emphasize two-way communication, voice should emerge because ethical leaders are more willing to listen to employees. Ethical leaders also emphasize doing and saying the right thing, thus motivating employees to emulate their leaders by voicing opinions more frequently (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, Reference Walumbwa and Schaubroeck2009). Bashshur and Oc’s (Reference Bashshur and Oc2015) meta-analyses show that when employees voice, teams become more creative and make better decisions, and organizations are able to adapt and change more quickly. Thus, voice is an important outcome for both organizations and our understanding of ethical leadership.

Therefore, our study’s objectives are twofold. First, given the important role of voice in ethical leadership theory (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005) and implications for organizational functioning (Van Dyne & LePine, Reference Van Dyne and LePine1998), we intend to re-examine whether employee voice can be attributed to ethical leadership of supervisors in two samples of employees in China (e.g., Avey, Wernsing, & Palanski, Reference Avey, Wernsing and Palanski2012; Lam, Xu, & Lau, Reference Lam, Huang and Lau2012; Walumbwa, Morrison, & Christensen, Reference Walumbwa, Morrison and Christensen2012; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, Reference Walumbwa and Schaubroeck2009), a cultural context in which the value of power distance dominates and speaking up is discouraged (Brockner et al., Reference Brockner, Ackerman, Greenberg, Gelfand, Francesco, Chen, Leung, Bierbrauer, Gomez, Kirkman and Shapiro2001). Informed by Kahn’s (Reference Kahn1990) theory of work engagement, we also examine whether cognitive engagement accounts for the relationship between ethical leadership and voice. Second, we aim to extend understanding of the relationship between ethical leadership and voice by incorporating the role of employee exit intentions. Specifically, if ethical leadership promotes voice, does it also discourage exit intentions (i.e., employees’ voluntary intentions to leave the organization) (Lee & Mitchell, Reference Lee and Mitchell1994)?

In fulfilling these research objectives, our study makes several contributions. First, prior research has demonstrated that ethical leaders influence followers through social learning and social exchange mechanisms (e.g., Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum and Kuenzi2012; Walumbwa et al., Reference Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman and Christensen2011). However, in addition to demonstrating normatively appropriate conduct and establishment of interpersonal relationships, ethical leadership theory posits that ethical leaders promote conduct through reinforcement, two-way communication, and decision-making. As such, motivation may be another important mechanism for ethical leaders to foster desirable behaviors among followers. Shamir, House, and Arthur (Reference Shamir, House and Arthur1993) argue that value-driven leaders are able to shape followers’ self-concept and, thus, their motivation, whereas Kahn’s (Reference Kahn1990) theory of work engagement posits that a connection between one’s self and role is an important motivational state for effective work performance. By examining the mediation mechanism of cognitive engagement, an important motivational state of mind at work according to Kahn’s theory, we may gain more understanding of the processes by which the relationship between supervisors’ ethical leadership and its outcomes (i.e., voice and exit intentions) occurs.

Second, one reason organizations need to consider ethical leadership, according to Thomas, Schermerhorn, and Dienhart (Reference Thomas, Schermerhorn and Dienhart2004), is to reduce business costs associated with lost employee morale and turnover (see also Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum and Kuenzi2012). Employee turnover is particularly troubling for organizations because of the lengthy process of re-hiring and re-training employees. Brown and Treviño (Reference Brown and Treviño2006) also propose that ethical leadership, owing to leader fairness, trustworthiness, and honesty, can enhance employees’ motivation and commitment, which can be expected to lessen turnover intention. Thus, we consider the linkage between supervisory ethical leadership and employee exit intentions to be an important one in the literature. Prior research on employee dissatisfaction suggests that voice and exit are inter-related, in that employees are less likely to quit organizations if they are allowed to air their concerns through voice (e.g., Hirschman, Reference Hirschman1970; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, Reference Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers and Mainous1988; Withey & Cooper, Reference Withey and Cooper1989). By extending the relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and voice to exit intentions, we can shed better light on how ethical leaders can reduce employees’ turnover intentions.

Third, despite continuing research on the positive outcomes associated with ethical leadership (e.g., Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, Reference Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes and Salvador2009; Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts, & Chonko, Reference Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts and Chonko2009; Walumbwa et al., Reference Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman and Christensen2011), evidence of the effect of ethical leadership on negative forms of behavior is less conclusive (e.g., Detert, Treviño, Burris, & Andiappan, Reference Detert, Treviño, Burris and Andiappan2007). By examining employee voice and exit together, this study addresses how organizations can use ethical leadership of supervisors to increase positive outcomes and reduce negative reactions of employees simultaneously.

DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

What is Ethical Leadership?

Brown (Reference Brown2007) identifies ethical leaders as those who help steer an organization in the right direction by pursuing activities society considers normatively appropriate and morally correct (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005; Mendonca & Kanungo, Reference Mendonca and Kanungo2007). Others describe ethical leaders as honest, fair, and caring individuals who hold high moral standards (Brown & Treviño, Reference Brown and Treviño2006; Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005). Because ethical leaders are moral individuals, followers find them credible and legitimate role models to emulate (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005). Thus, through social learning, employees can develop positive work attitudes and normatively appropriate forms of behavior under ethical leaders (Bandura, Reference Bandura1986). For example, an Ethics Research Centre (2011) study found that employees were more likely to adhere to higher standards of performance when they witnessed leaders relying on ethics in behaving and decision-making. In addition to being moral individuals, ethical leaders conduct their daily management in a moral manner. Ethical leaders expect their followers to have high moral standards and are likely to use transactional methods, such as rewards and punishment, to ensure that followers meet their expectations (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005). Previous research has argued that, in addition to acting as role models, ethical leaders create a work climate that fosters more interpersonal relational exchanges, resulting in greater satisfaction with supervisors, more willingness to report problems, and stronger affective commitment (e.g., Brown & Treviño, Reference Brown and Treviño2006; Neubert et al., Reference Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts and Chonko2009; Walumbwa et al., Reference Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman and Christensen2011). In addition to ethical leadership’s effects on positive outcomes (e.g., task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors), Treviño and Brown’s (Reference Treviño, Brown and Day2014) review further reveals whether ethical leadership can be associated with reduction of negative outcomes such as counterproductive behavior, deviance, and unethical behavior. While Detert et al. (Reference Detert, Treviño, Burris and Andiappan2007) did not find support for a negative relationship between ethical leadership and counterproductive behavior, Mayer et al.’s (Reference Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes and Salvador2009, Reference Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum and Kuenzi2012) studies reported less deviance and unethical behavior as a result of executive and supervisory ethical leadership.

According to Brown et al. (Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005), employee voice is likely to emerge under ethical leadership because this type of leadership emphasizes two-way communication and ethical leaders are more willing to listen to employees. Treviño, Brown, and Hartman (Reference Treviño, Brown and Hartman2003: 18) further characterize ethical leaders as individuals to whom subordinates “can bring up present problems” and even “tough issues.” Because voice is a crucial part of ethical leadership theory, it is important to understand how ethical leadership can connect with employees’ decisions to voice in organizations. Shamir et al. (Reference Shamir, House and Arthur1993) argue that value-driven leaders attempt to alter the value and aspiration of followers from self- to collective interests. In referring to followers’ self-concept, the authors further argue that followers of such leaders develop strong attachments to leaders’ mission and become more motivationally aroused. Ethical leaders fit with this description of value-driven leaders because they are “fair and principled decision-makers who care about people and the broader society” and “make ethics an explicit part of their leadership agenda” (Brown & Treviño, Reference Brown and Treviño2006: 597). Thus, we consider whether motivation and engagement are important means for ethical leaders to influence employees’ outcomes such as voice (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, Reference Walumbwa and Schaubroeck2009). In the following sections, we use Kahn’s (Reference Kahn1990) theory of work engagement as a basis to hypothesize how supervisory ethical leadership is related to employee voice through cognitive engagement and how it can reduce employee exit intentions by encouraging voice.

Supervisory Ethical Leadership, Cognitive Engagement, and Voice

To understand why individuals focus their energies in the performance of work roles, Kahn (Reference Kahn1990) developed a theory of motivation known as work engagement. The work engagement literature suggests that people can be either engaged or disengaged in work. Engaged people are psychologically present (Rothbard, Reference Rothbard2001) and invest more energy into role performance (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford Reference Rich, Lepine and Crawford2010), while disengaged employees are usually more detached, apathetic, and passive and thus withhold their best efforts (Bolton et al., 2012; Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Hochschild, Reference Hochschild1983). According to Kahn (Reference Kahn1990: 700), work engagement is “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others.” When people “harness their full selves in active, work role performance,” they become “cognitively vigilant, focused and attentive” (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, Reference Rich, Lepine and Crawford2010: 619). Therefore, in addition to effective task performance, researchers have considered work engagement a particular motivational state in fulfilling a demanding job (e.g., Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, Reference Crawford, LePine and Rich2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli and Bakker2004) and performing a complex work role (Rothbard, Reference Rothbard2001). Rich et al (Reference Rich, Lepine and Crawford2010) show that work engagement is a distinct motivational construct that accounts for differences in employees’ task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., voicing ideas to improve organizational functioning), in addition to the effects of job involvement and intrinsic motivation.

Kahn (Reference Kahn1990: 700) contends that an individual’s “self and role exist in some dynamic, negotiable relation” and that given the right psychological conditions, the person becomes fully engaged and “drives personal energies into role behaviors (self-employment) and displays the self within the role (self-expression).” On the basis of his qualitative studies, Kahn proposed three psychological conditions under which work engagement is likely to take place: psychological meaningfulness, safety, and availability. According to Kahn, cognitively engaged individuals harness their minds to fulfill their role requirements by investing their cognitive or attention resources (Kanfer & Ackerman, Reference Kanfer and Ackerman1989). Unlike physical and emotional engagement, which involves investing “hand” and “heart” in fulfilling jobs (Rich et al., Reference Rich, Lepine and Crawford2010), cognitively engaged individuals put their “head” into their work (i.e., are focused, vigilant, and mindful), which is the most desirable condition for employees to identify work problems and to ponder suggestions for improvement (Weick & Roberts, Reference Weick and Roberts1993).

Kahn (Reference Kahn1990) characterizes psychological meaningfulness as the worthiness and value of work; psychological meaningfulness fosters work engagement because it represents a form of return when an individual invests his or her preferred self in role performance (Kahn Reference Kahn1990; May, Gilson, & Harter, Reference May, Gilson and Harter2004). By emphasizing moral values and normatively appropriate conduct (e.g., honesty), ethical leaders infuse their employees with ethics and a sense of value in their work (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005; Piccolo et al., Reference Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog and Folger2010). Ethical leadership theorists have suggested that when employees are asked to behave according to what society deems morally correct, they are more likely to feel a sense of fulfillment when serving others, which makes their jobs more meaningful (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005; Mendonca & Kanungo, Reference Mendonca and Kanungo2007). As such, employees may be more engaged at work because of supervisory ethical leadership. Consistent with our expectations, Piccolo et al. (Reference Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog and Folger2010) show that working students view their jobs as more significant under ethical leaders, and Lin (Reference Lin2010) finds that employees show greater engagement when working for organizations that are good corporate citizens.

Kahn (Reference Kahn1990: 708) describes psychological safety as the experience of “feeling able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career.” Compared with psychologically safe situations in which employees are more focused, in perceived unsafe work environments, employees are less able to completely focus on performing their roles if they need to spend cognitive resources on protecting their personal interests. Mayer and Gavin (Reference Mayer and Gavin2005) show that subordinates are less focused on their tasks (i.e., low cognitive engagement) when they need to monitor supervisors’ actions to reduce their own vulnerability. Conversely, ethical leaders are honest, caring, trustworthy, and fair (Brown & Treviño, Reference Brown and Treviño2006; Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, Reference Treviño, Brown and Hartman2003), and thus, employees feel less vulnerable and are able to focus on work. Subordinates working under leaders who treat them with dignity and respect are also less concerned that their supervisors will undermine their work and ideas. Therefore, we reason that employees working under ethical leaders are more likely to be cognitively engaged. Walumbwa et al.’s (Reference Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman and Christensen2011) study provides supporting evidence for the hypothesis that employees are better able to focus on their task performance under ethical leaders.

Finally, enacting one’s work role can deplete cognitive resources when it requires multiple tasks to be performed concurrently or the task itself requires considerable information processing to comprehend (May et al., Reference May, Gilson and Harter2004). Thus, another way for ethical leaders to foster greater cognitive engagement among followers is to improve their psychological availability, defined as individuals’ readiness and willingness to devote additional energies to performing a required role (Kahn, Reference Kahn1990). We expect that individuals will be more ready and willing to do so if they believe that they are capable of fulfilling the role requirement (i.e., self-efficacy) and their efforts will result in desirable outcomes (i.e., valence). Ethical leaders make themselves available to followers through two-way communication. Because followers are better able to receive help and guidance from their ethical leaders, their self-efficacy to perform their work roles may also increase. Moreover, by infusing moral purposes into work, ethical leaders enhance the intrinsic valence of followers’ efforts by increasing the perceived moral correctness of their behaviors, which, according to Shamir et al. (Reference Shamir, House and Arthur1993), can be particularly motivating. For these reasons, we expect employees to become more ready and willing to devote cognitive resources under supervisory ethical leadership (i.e., be more cognitively engaged).

When engaged employees harness their selves within their work roles, they become more authentic by displaying real feelings and abilities (i.e., self-expression) and voicing their thoughts more often (Kahn, Reference Kahn1990). Specifically, we expect that cognitive engagement is related to employee voice for three reasons. First, because cognitively engaged employees invest more fully in their work roles, their connection with work will also increase, such that they take additional pride in what they are doing. Such employees are likely to take initiative in pursuing proactive behaviors, such as voice, to benefit organizations (Den Hartog & Belschak, Reference Den Hartog and Belschak2012). Second, when employees are cognitively engaged in the performance of work roles, they are more focused, vigilant, and attentive (Rich et al., Reference Rich, Lepine and Crawford2010). As such, their active minds can aid them in spotting mistakes and coming up with thoughtful suggestions. In their study of flight operators in aircraft carriers, Weick and Roberts (Reference Weick and Roberts1993) reported that operational errors decreased when employees were more attentive and mindful, collectively. In another study of work engagement, Kahn (1992) noted that when project managers focused on the assigned work, they offered more suggestions and constructive criticisms in organizations. Third, in addition to focus and vigilance, cognitively engaged employees may become more persistent (May et al., Reference May, Gilson and Harter2004). When encountering difficulties at work, they are likely to propose suggestions to resolve the problems (i.e., more voice).

In summary, we argue that employee voice is more common under supervisors who are ethical leaders because their suggestions are likely to be taken seriously (Walumbwa et al., Reference Walumbwa, Morrison and Christensen2012). We expect cognitive engagement to be a crucial mediator, as employees are more engaged when working under ethical leaders; engagement also allows them to focus on work and develop ideas for improvement. Thus:

H1. Cognitive engagement mediates the positive relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and employee voice.

Supervisory Ethical Leadership, Voice, and Exit Intentions

We further expect that employees are less likely to exit when they have the opportunity to voice their ideas. Research suggests that when employees are able to express their opinions in organizations, they tend to view themselves as valued members, as their inputs are part of the decision-making process (Lind & Tyler, Reference Lind and Tyler1988; Morrison & Milliken, Reference Morrison and Milliken2000). When employees believe that their organizations value them, they are more likely to reciprocate by offering the organization greater commitment (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, Reference Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoades2001; Loi, Ngo, & Foley, Reference Loi, Ngo and Foley2006). Thus, employees’ voice can reduce intentions to exit. Withey and Cooper (Reference Withey and Cooper1989) show that employees are less likely to exit when they realize that their voice can bring changes to the organization.

Voice also enhances employees’ feelings of control over their immediate environment, so they believe that they can shape what will happen in their workplace (Tangirala & Ramanujam Reference Tangirala and Ramanujam2008). When employees believe that they have little input into their organizations’ future, researchers have proposed that such employees may enter a state of collective apathy and withdrawal (Morrison & Milliken, Reference Morrison and Milliken2000) so that their intentions to leave also increase (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, Reference Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin2003). We argue that the opposite effect will occur when employees are encouraged to voice their ideas. Through voice, employees believe that organizations take their opinions seriously and that they can influence the organization. When “individuals feel that they can influence … through the available voice mechanism … they are more likely to use voice and less likely to exit the firm” (Boroff & Lewin, Reference Boroff and Lewin1997: 53). Consistent with our expectations, Spencer (Reference Spencer1986) reports that voice mechanisms are negatively related to turnover among nurses, and Olson-Buchanan and Boswell (Reference Olson-Buchanan and Boswell2002) show that the proper use of voice methods reduces job search activities and intentions to quit among university employees. These arguments lead to the following hypothesis:

H2. Employee voice is negatively related to employee exit intentions.

Voice makes employees feel respected and gives them a sense of control, reducing their exit intentions. Thus, the increase in employee voice that results from cognitive engagement and derives from ethical leadership will likely contribute to the reduction of exit intentions. Specifically, we expect followers of supervisory ethical leaders to have lower exit intentions because of ethical leaders’ characteristics (e.g., fairness, trustworthiness) and values (e.g., concern about people and the broader society, achievement of common, rather than selfish, goals) (Brown & Treviño, Reference Brown and Treviño2006; Treviño, et al., Reference Treviño, Brown and Hartman2003). Because employees tend to believe that leaders and organizations share the same characteristics (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, Reference Eisenberger and Stinglhamber2011), they are likely to believe that organizations embrace the same values endorsed by ethical leaders and are likely to develop stronger organizational attachments and lower exit intentions. Studies conducted by Treviño, Butterfield, and McCabe (Reference Treviño, Butterfield and McCabe1998) and Loi, Lam, Ngo and Cheong (Reference Loi, Lam, Ngo and Cheong2015) reveal employees to be more committed to organizations of strong ethical culture, climate, and leadership, whereas Palanski, Avey, and Jiraporn (Reference Palanski, Avey and Jiraporn2014) show that employee turnover intentions are negatively related to ethical leadership. In addition, by promoting cognitive engagement, ethical leaders enable followers to use voice and to share suggestions of how to improve organizational functioning. When employees believe that they have an influence on organizations, their intentions to stay with the organization are likely to increase. Prior research has shown that employees choose to stay longer in the workplace to observe the outcomes of their ideas (Arkes & Blumer, Reference Arkes and Blumer1985; Rusbult et al., Reference Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers and Mainous1988). Thus, we posit a linkage between supervisory ethical leadership and employee exit intentions:

H3. Supervisory ethical leadership is indirectly related to employee exit intentions through the mediating influence of cognitive engagement and, in turn, employee voice.

METHODS

Sample and Procedures

To test our hypotheses, we collected two-phase survey data from two garment manufacturing companies located in Macau and Zhuhai. Both cities are located in the southern part of mainland China. The same owner manages both manufacturing companies, so there are no notable differences between them in terms of ownership and production operations, which justified the merging of our data into a single sample.

We first distributed a questionnaire survey to all employees of the two companies (i.e., 196 employees at the Macau site and 283 employees at the Zhuhai site). The respondents provided ratings on items regarding ethical leadership of their supervisors, employee silence, and intention to quit. With assistance of the human resource departments of the two companies, we obtained the lists of employees and assigned a code for each employee for matching purposes. To ensure confidentiality, we did not disclose these codes to the companies; the cover page of the questionnaire showed only the respondent’s code. The respondents were also asked to return the completed questionnaires directly to the researchers. This process ensured anonymity of the responses obtained. We collected the returned questionnaires on the same day as distribution. In total, we received 381 completed and usable surveys, 149 from Macau and 232 from Zhuhai, yielding response rates of 76% and 82%, respectively.

Five months later, we conducted the second questionnaire survey with the 381 employees who have responded to the previous survey. Due to voluntary turnover and staff absence, we distributed 140 questionnaires at the Macau site and 177 at the Zhuhai site. Respondents provided ratings on items regarding cognitive engagement, voice, and intention to quit, along with other control variables. In total, we received 306 completed and usable surveys, 137 from Macau and 169 from Zhuhai, yielding response rates of 98% and 95%, respectively.

Our final sample contains 76.1% women, and 46.6% are aged 31–40 years. Respondents’ average organizational tenure is 5.33 years. Among them, 17% received education at the primary-school level, 61% had a junior high school education, 18% had a senior high school education, and 4% received a university education or above. Approximately 26% are paid monthly, and the rest are paid either on a daily (26%) or piecework (48%) basis. There is no significant difference between the final sample (n = 306) and the target sample (n = 381) in terms of demographics.

Measures

A 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 6 = “strongly agree”) was used to rate all the items. The questionnaires were written in Chinese, so we used back translation (Brislin, Reference Brislin1970) in which the original English measurement scales were translated into Chinese and then translated back into English.

Supervisory ethical leadership (T1). We use the 10-item ethical leadership scale developed by Brown et al. (Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005). One sample question is “My supervisor conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner”. The coefficient alpha is .87.

Cognitive engagement (T2). To measure this variable, we use the cognitive dimension of the engagement scale developed by May et al. (Reference May, Gilson and Harter2004). This scale has four items, and sample questions are “I am rarely distracted when performing my job” and “Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else”. The reliability coefficient of this scale is .69.

Voice (T2). We measure this construct with six items modified from the measurement scale of Van Dyne and LePine (Reference Van Dyne and LePine1998). Sample items are “I speak up and encourage others in this department to get involved in issues that affect the group,” and “I speak up with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .82.

Exit intentions (T2). We use Rosin and Korabik’s (Reference Rosin and Korabik1991) 4-item scale to measure exit intentions. An example of this scale is “At this time, I would quit my job if it were feasible”. This scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .83.

Control variables. We control for several variables in our model. First, because we collected data in different sites, we add a dummy variable (1 = Zhuhai; 0 = Macau) in analyses involving voice and exit intentions. Second, in analyzing exit intentions (T2), we control for T1 exit intentions and employability measured at T2. By controlling for exit intentions measured at T1, we can rule out the impact of relatively stable factors (e.g., human resource policy) on exit intentions measured at T2. Cronbach’s alpha of T1 exit intentions is .87. Employability describes individuals’ proactive adaptability in identifying and realizing career opportunities; a highly employable individual may be more apt to leave an organization to gain better employment opportunities (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, Reference Fugate, Kinicki and Ashforth2004). Employment opportunities are particularly plentiful in Macau and Zhuhai, the sites of our data collection, due to the combination of a booming economy and a labor shortage. Thus, we expect that employees of high employability will actively consider and pursue career opportunities in this context (Fugate et al., Reference Fugate, Kinicki and Ashforth2004). To determine whether employee exit is due to ethical leadership, we need to account for employability in this study. We therefore adapt De Cuyper, Notelaers, and De Witte’s (Reference De Cuyper, Notelaers and De Witte2009) 4-item scale to measure employability. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .85.

In analyzing voice (T2), we also control for employee silence (measured at T1). Employee silence refers to the intentional withholding of information from others (Milliken et al., Reference Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin2003). Prior research on voice suggests that fear and retaliation explain why individuals are afraid to use voice (Premeaux & Bedeian, Reference Premeaux and Bedeian2003). When employees are concerned about the consequences of speaking out, they are likely to withhold their thoughts (i.e., be silent). By controlling for employees’ silence at T1, we can determine whether employees’ voice at T2 is due to ethical leadership or other factors inhibiting their intentions to use voice (Milliken et al., Reference Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin2003; Premeaux & Bedeian, Reference Premeaux and Bedeian2003). We measure employee silence using the modified 5-item scale developed by Tangirala and Ramanujam (Reference Tangirala and Ramanujam2008). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .74. Appendix I shows all the scale items of the measured variables.

Data Analyses

Our conceptual model and hypotheses involve tests of mediation (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, Reference Frazier, Tix and Barron2004; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, Reference Kenny, Kashy, Bolger, Gilbert, Fiske and Lindzey1998; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, Reference MacKinnon, Lockwood and Williams2004; Shrout & Bolger, Reference Shrout and Bolger2002). In analyzing these mediations, we use structural equation modeling (based on LISREL 8.8) because it allows us to analyze whether ethical leadership is negatively related to employee exit intentions through cognitive engagement and voice.

In structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis, the first step is to determine the overall fitness of the measurement and the proposed causal model. We estimate the fit of our measurement model using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in terms of comparative (CFI) and incremental (IFI) fit indices and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The model is regarded as having achieved a reasonable fit if the CFI and IFI are above 0.90 (Bentler & Bonett, Reference Bentler and Bonett1980; Bryne, Reference Bryne1989; Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1998) and the RMSEA is below 0.08 (Brown & Cudeck, Reference Brown, Cudeck, Bollen and Long1993). We then examine two alternative SEM structural models to test our mediation hypotheses (Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, & Niles-Jolly, Reference Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz and Niles-Jolly2005). First, we estimate an SEM model (Model 1) according to our hypothesized model (i.e., Figure 1), which includes paths from supervisory ethical leadership to cognitive engagement, from cognitive engagement to voice, and from voice to exit intentions. In other words, in this model, supervisory ethical leadership is related to exit intentions only indirectly through cognitive engagement and voice. Second, we estimate an alternative SEM model (Model 2) to which we add one direct path from supervisory ethical leadership to employee voice and one direct path from ethical leadership to employee exit intentions. To determine which model has the best fit, we examine the significance of the chi-square change.

Figure 1: LISREL Results for the Study 1 Causal Model.

Note. Standardized path coefficients are reported. ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

To simplify the diagram, control variables are not shown. The path coefficients are dummy (T1) → voice (T2) (β = .60 p < .1); silence (T1) → voice (T2) (β = –.05, n.s.); dummy (T1) → exit intentions (T2) (β = .71 p < .1); exit intentions (T1) → exit intentions (T2) (β = .43 p < .001); employability (T2) → exit intentions (T2) (β = .34, p < .001).

In addition to the significance of the paths, we evaluate the indirect or mediating effect of X on Y through M, by determining the statistical significance of the product term “a × b” in which “a” represents the path from X to M and “b” represents the path from M to Y. For example, in testing for H1, X is supervisory ethical leadership, M is cognitive engagement, and Y is voice. Consistent with other studies on ethical leadership and employees’ proactive activities to voice their suggestions (e.g., Gong, Cheung, Wang, & Huang, Reference Gong, Cheung, Wang and Huang2012; Walumbwa et al., Reference Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman and Christensen2011; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, Reference Walumbwa and Schaubroeck2009), we use Sobel tests to evaluate the significance of the product term a × b.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all the variables. Consistent with our hypotheses, supervisory ethical leadership is significantly correlated with cognitive engagement (r = .21, p < .01), voice (r = .26, p < .001), and exit intentions (r = –.23, p < .001), and cognitive engagement is also significantly correlated with voice (r = .45, p < .001) and exit intentions (r = –.25, p < .001).

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Inter-Correlations of Study 1 Variables

Note. N = 306. Cronbach’s alphas are reported on the diagonal in parentheses.

+ p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01.

For the SEM, we need to demonstrate the fit of the measurement model before analyzing the causal model. To do so, we compare a seven-factor model (supervisory ethical leadership, cognitive engagement, voice, exit intentions, silence, lag exit intentions, and employability) with one-factor model and two other alternative models. One alternative model includes variables measured at T1 as one factor and T2 as another factor. In the other alternative model, the first factor has independent and control variables, the second factor has the mediators, and the third factor has the outcome according to the study’s conceptual model (i.e., supervisory ethical leadership → cognitive engagement → voice → exit intentions). As Table 2 shows, the CFA results indicate that the constructs in this study are distinct. The seven-factor model offers the best fit (χ2 = 987.41, degrees of freedom [d.f.] = 609; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .05) among all the measurement models. The improvement in overall fit is also statistically significant when we compare the seven-factor model with the one-factor model (Δχ2 = 2321.18, p < .001) and the two alternative models (Δχ2 = 1810.66 and 1425.34, respectively, p < .001), suggesting that respondents can distinguish between the constructs.

Table 2: Results of CFA

Δχ2 compared with 7-factor model.

a Factor 1 (T1 variables): supervisory ethical leadership, silence, and lag exit intentions; Factor 2 (T2 variables) cognitive engagement, voice, exit intentions, and employability.

b Factor 1 (independent and control variables): supervisory ethical leadership, silence, lag exit intentions, and employability; Factor 2 (mediators): cognitive engagement, voice; Factor 3 (dependent variable): exit intentions.

Our hypothesized model (Model 1) also shows a good fit (χ2 = 1066.01, d.f. = 647; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .05). To test our hypotheses on mediation, we further estimate an alternative model (Model 2). In this model, the direct path from ethical leadership to voice is significant (β = .14, p < .05), but the direct path from ethical leadership to exit is not (β = –.02, n s.). Compared with Model 1, Model 2 shows a similar fit (χ2 = 1062.71, d.f. = 645; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .05), and the improvement is not statistically significant (Δχ2 = 3.30, Δd.f. = 2, n.s.). With these results, we run a revised Model 2 by removing the non-significant path (i.e., ethical leadership → exit intentions); the result shows that the revised Model 2 has a significant improvement in the overall fit compared with Model 1 (χ2 = 1062.77, d.f. = 646; CFI = 0.95; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .05; Δχ2 = 3.24, Δd.f. = 1; p < 0.1). Therefore, we conclude that the revised Model 2 provides a better fit for our data (see Figure 1).

As Figure 1 shows, all the paths are statistically significant and in the hypothesized direction. Specifically, supervisory ethical leadership is positively related to cognitive engagement (β = .26, p < .01). Cognitive engagement is also positively related to voice (β = .51, p < .001), after we account for the direct effect of supervisory ethical leadership on voice (β = .15, p < .05). More important, the Sobel test shows a significant indirect effect of supervisory ethical leadership on voice through cognitive engagement (indirect effect = .13, p < .01). These results provide support for H1.

H2 states that employee exit intentions are related to employee voice. After we control for exit at T1, employability at T2, and a dummy variable of plant site, the path from voice to exit remains statistically significant (β = –.29, p < .001). Thus, H2 is supported. Finally, H3 states that cognitive engagement and employee voice mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and employee exit intentions. As Figure 1 depicts, all the hypothesized paths connecting ethical leadership and exit intentions through cognitive engagement and voice are statistically significant. Based on the Sobel test approach, LISREL estimates the overall indirect effect of ethical leadership on exit intentions according to these paths. The overall indirect effect is significant (indirect effect = –.08, p < .01), in support of H3.

SUPPLEMENTARY STUDY

In the previous analyses, we collected employees’ evaluations of supervisory ethical leadership in the manufacturing context and operationalized supervisory ethical leadership as an individual-level construct. While other studies have used the same approach (e.g., Piccolo et al., Reference Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog and Folger2010), it is important to note that ethical leadership is originally conceptualized as a group-level construct (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005; Schaubroeck Hannah, Avolio, Kozlowski, Lord, Treviño, Dimotakis, & Peng, Reference Schaubroeck, Hannah, Avolio, Kozlowski, Lord, Treviño, Dimotakis and Peng2012). As such, a study context of multiple groups will be more ideal to operationalize ethical leadership so that researchers can evaluate if members of the same group share consensus regarding ethical leadership behaviors of their supervisors (Chan, Reference Chan1998). For these reasons, we conducted a supplementary study based on groups of hospital nurses and measured supervisory ethical leadership as a group-level construct. One of our study’s objectives is to use different samples to replicate established results of prior studies regarding the relationship between ethical leadership and voice. We thus chose a non-manufacturing context (i.e. hospital nurses) in conducting our supplementary study, in which we also analyze whether voice can account for the relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and exit intentions.

Sample and Procedures

We conducted this supplementary study, which involved nurses from 29 work groups, at a hospital in Wuhan, a city located in central China. During survey administration, the nurses were told that their participation was voluntary and the information they provided would be kept confidential.

At Time-1, we distributed questionnaires to 345 nurses. All the nurses provided information on their education, age, organizational tenure, and supervisors’ ethical leadership behavior. Three hundred thirty-one nurses returned usable questionnaires, representing a response rate of 95.9%. At Time-2, two months after Time-1, we asked the nurses to fill out questionnaires about voice and intention to quit. In this round of the survey, 315 of the 345 nurses returned usable questionnaires, for a response rate of 91.3%. All the respondents in the sample are women. Nurses on average are 30.75 years of age, and their average organizational tenure is 9.75 years.

Measures

Similar to what we did in the first study, we conducted back translation (Brislin, Reference Brislin1970) to ensure there were no semantic differences between the original English measurement and the translated Chinese version. The respondents rated the items on the following measures on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 5 = “strongly agree”).

Supervisory ethical leadership (T1). We used the same ethical leadership scale developed by Brown et al. (Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005). The coefficient alpha is .95. Because our focus is on supervisory ethical leadership behavior displayed in the work group as a whole, we aggregated the nurses’ individual ratings of their supervisors’ ethical leadership behavior within groups. We calculated within-group agreement (rwg), the intra-class correlations (ICC[1]), and the reliability of the means (ICC[2]) to assess whether it is appropriate to aggregate individual ratings to the work-group level. Given the satisfactory results (i.e., rwg = .94; ICC[1] = .10, p < .01; ICC[2] = .77), we aggregated the individual-level ratings of ethical leadership to the work-group level.

Voice (T2). We used the same scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (Reference Van Dyne and LePine1998) to measure voice among nurses. Cronbach’s alpha was .85.

Exit intentions (T2). We also used the same scale developed by Rosin and Korabik (Reference Rosin and Korabik1991) to measure exit intention. This scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .85.

Control variables. We controlled for nurses’ organizational tenure because they may affect employees’ voice (Tangirala & Ramanujam Reference Tangirala and Ramanujam2008). We also controlled for education because more educated employees may have more ideas to make suggestions and voice (Liang, Farh, & Farh, Reference Liang, Farh and Farh2012).

Analytical Strategy

We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, Reference Bryk and Raudenbush1992) because it can address analytical problems stemming from the potential interdependence of responses from individuals within the same group (Hofmann, Reference Hofmann1997). Given the significant between-group differences in nurses’ voice (ICC[1] = .13, p < .001) and exit (ICC[1] = .05, p < .05), we followed Hofmann’s (Reference Hofmann1997) suggestion and conducted random coefficient regression models to test the relationships among supervisory ethical leadership, voice, and exit intentions.

Results

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all the variables. Because nurses provided information about supervisory ethical leadership, voice, and exit intentions, we conducted CFA to examine whether they could distinguish the three constructs. The CFA results show that the constructs in this study are distinct. The three-factor model offers better fit (χ2 = 447.38, d.f. = 167; CFI = .97; IFI = .97; RMSEA = .043) than the one-factor model (Δχ2 =2238.53, p < .001, d.f. = 170, CFI = .83; IFI = .83; RMSEA = .17).

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Inter-Correlations of the Supplementary Study’s Variables

Note. N = 315. Cronbach’s alphas are reported on the diagonal in parentheses.

+ p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 4 shows the HLM results of hypotheses testing. Consistent with what we found in the previous study, Model 2 reveals that the group-level measure of supervisory ethical leadership is positively related to nurses’ voice (γ = .43, p < .01).

Table 4: HLM Results of Supervisory Ethical Leadership and Voice on Exit Intentions

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01.

As Model 4 shows, supervisory ethical leadership is negatively related to nurses’ exit intentions (γ = –.56, p < .001). According to Baron and Kenny (Reference Baron and Kenny1986), we thus have some evidence of mediation as supervisory ethical leadership is positively related to both the mediator (i.e., voice) and the outcome (i.e., exit intentions). To further assess whether supervisory ethical leadership has an indirect effect on exit intentions through voice, we followed Baron and Kenny’s (Reference Baron and Kenny1986) suggestion to run another model by regressing exit intentions on both supervisory ethical leadership and voice. The results of Model 5 show that the effect of supervisory ethical leadership on exit intentions becomes weaker (γ = –.46, p < .01) when voice is included in the same regression equation (γ = –.36, p < .01). This finding evidences voice as a mediator, according to Baron and Kenny (Reference Baron and Kenny1986). A Sobel test shows that the indirect effect of supervisory ethical leadership on exit intentions through voice (.43 × –.36 = –.15) is statistically significant (Z = 2.24, p < .05).

DISCUSSION

In this study, we argue that supervisory ethical leadership increases employee voice and reduces employee exit intentions. Using a sample of 306 manufacturing employees, we find that supervisory ethical leadership measured at T1 has a significant relationship to cognitive job engagement measured at T2. Our analyses also show that, after controlling for the proxies of voice and exit intention at T1, cognitive job engagement mediates the positive effect of supervisory ethical leadership on employee voice at T2 and, subsequently, the indirect effect of supervisory ethical leadership on exit intentions at T2. In a supplementary study, we replicate the association of supervisory ethical leadership (measured at the group level) with voice in a sample of 315 nurses in 29 work groups. We also find that ethical leadership is indirectly related to exit intentions through voice.

Our study contributes to research on ethical leadership (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005) and voice (Morrison et al., Reference Morrison, Wheeler-Smith and Kamdar2011) in several ways. First, although ethical leadership theory posits motivation as a possible mechanism of how ethical leaders influence followers, limited evidence exists on the motivational aspect of ethical leadership (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, Reference Den Hartog and Belschak2012). Because ethical leaders use moral values to motivate followers, their motivational influence is important for understanding ethical leadership (Shamir et al., Reference Shamir, House and Arthur1993). Using Kahn’s (Reference Kahn1990) theory of work engagement, we demonstrated why followers may be more willing to focus their energies during the performance of their work roles. Our study provides empirical evidence that the motivational state of cognitive engagement can enhance our understanding of the ethical leaders’ influence on employees.

Second, employee voice is beneficial because organizations need employees’ ideas to remain creative and employees’ feedback for continuous improvement (Burris, Reference Burris2012; Morrison & Milliken, Reference Morrison and Milliken2000; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003; Zhou & George, Reference Zhou and George2001). Thus, to understand why employees voice, Ashford, Sutcliffe, and Christianson (Reference Ashford, Sutcliffe, Christianson, Greenberg and Edwards2009: 181) have called for more studies on the influence of leadership, as the contribution “leadership might make to the psychology of voice is complex and relatively unexplored”. By demonstrating the indirect effect of supervisory ethical leadership on voice through cognitive engagement in two samples in China, our study also sheds light on the psychological processes by which ethical leadership helps develop employees’ idea generation and encourages them to speak up.

Third, Thomas et al. (Reference Thomas, Schermerhorn and Dienhart2004) argue that ethical leadership is important for organizations because it has potential to lower employees’ intentions to leave organizations. Our analyses show that by encouraging employee voice, supervisory ethical leadership can also decrease employees’ exit intentions. Although voice and exit have been conceived as two distinct outcomes of employee dissatisfaction (Rusbult et al., Reference Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers and Mainous1988; Withey & Cooper, Reference Withey and Cooper1989), our study shows that supervisory ethical leadership can account for these two employee responses simultaneously by assuring employees that they can influence organizations through voice and, subsequently, by increasing their intentions to stay with organizations.

Our study also has several practical implications. Through supervisory ethical leadership, organizations can benefit from employees who are willing to offer suggestions and exhibit little turnover intention. As such, organizations should encourage leaders to uphold their moral standards when managing subordinates in order to foster supervisory ethical leadership. As this type of leadership requires transactional means to hold employees ethically accountable for their behavior, organizations should also implement performance appraisal and reward systems that are consistent with ethical leaders’ emphasis on moral standards. Our study also reveals that cognitive engagement accounts for the effect of supervisory ethical leadership on employees’ voice, which further lowers their exit intentions. According to Kahn (Reference Kahn1990), employees are more willing to be cognitively engaged under ethical leaders because of work meaningfulness, psychological safety, and self-efficacy. As such, supervisors may consider emphasizing the importance of adhering to ethical standards among their subordinates, their willingness to listen, and their readiness to offer help and guidance to subordinates. Doing so will further enhance subordinates’ cognitive engagement in performing their work.

Although our study offers several contributions, it also has several limitations. First, we used the commonly adopted scale to measure supervisory ethical leadership (i.e., Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005) but such data capture employee perceptions rather than actual leadership behaviors. Thus, we encourage research to examine actual supervisory behaviors consistent with what executives deem ethical in assessing the impact of ethical leadership on employee voice (Treviño et al., Reference Treviño, Brown and Hartman2003). Moreover, employee voice and exit intentions are self-reported, and thus our measures capture only intentions, not actual behavior. We therefore cannot rule out the possibility that ethical leadership influences only intentions, not actual behavior. Future studies should consider soliciting peers or supervisors to report on actual employee voice behavior and turnover. Second, because employees provided data on both the independent and dependent variables, we cannot completely rule out the problem of common method variance, though the CFA results show that employees can discriminate between the constructs. Our control of the time-lagged measures of silence and exit intentions when evaluating our hypotheses should further reduce concerns about common method variance. Third, our data are from manufacturing workers in mainland China and Macau, where there is a high power distance and employee voice is discouraged. Our findings show that the current understanding of leadership and voice developed in the West remains applicable in such a cultural context (Lam et al., Reference Lam, Huang and Lau2012). However, readers should still exercise caution in generalizing our findings beyond this sample. Due to these limitations, we conducted a supplementary study by measuring ethical leadership at the group (as opposed to individual) level and collecting data in a non-manufacturing context (i.e., hospital nurses). Future studies however could consider replicating our results using more objective measures of voice and exit in other non-manufacturing and professional contexts.

Several other promising research areas could shed light on ethical leaders’ influence on employees. One area is the job context of followers under ethical leadership. Brown et al. (Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005) argue that the guidance of ethical leaders is more pronounced for ill-defined jobs, for which standard operating procedures are less available. As such, employees under these job contexts might find the support and guidance of ethical leaders more useful, such that they will be more confident in engaging their selves when performing their jobs. The authors further suggest that compared with employees working in the technical core of organizations, those who work as boundary spanners may face role conflicts more often. In this case, ethical leadership can provide the assurance for them to cognitively focus on their work and not to be distracted by such conflicts.

Another area of future study involves managerial responses to employee voice. Burris (Reference Burris2012) finds that managers view employees as loyal if their voice is supportive but as threatening if their voice is challenging. These perceptions also determine whether managers will endorse employees’ ideas. We posit that ethical leaders are more receptive to employees’ voice, so ethical leadership may also moderate the relationship between voice and managerial endorsement.

Ethical leaders have high moral standards and explicitly communicate to followers their standards and expectations of appropriate and inappropriate conduct (Treviño et al., Reference Treviño, Brown and Hartman2003). Thus, they are likely to welcome and encourage employees’ voice as a means to improve workplace conditions (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Treviño and Harrison2005; Detert & Edmonson, Reference Detert and Edmondson2011; Toor & Ofori, Reference Toor and Ofori2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, Reference Walumbwa and Schaubroeck2009). In addition to voice, Mayer et al. (Reference Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum and Kuenzi2012) find that departments report less unethical behavior when they are led by ethical leaders. As such, it will be useful to explore how ethical leaders are able to do so. We posit employees’ moral reasoning to be a possible mechanism because employees with such ability may be less likely to be morally disengaged and are able to respond to work demands more ethically (Treviño, Reference Treviño1992; Brown & Mitchell, Reference Brown and Mitchell2010). Using Kohlberg’s (Reference Kohlberg1981) approach to individual levels of moral reasoning, research could analyze whether moral reasoning accounts for the relationship between ethical leadership and employees’ ethical behavior.

In conclusion, our study shows that ethical leaders can influence employees through the motivational state of cognitive engagement. Such motivational influence can account for why employees are more willing to use voice and less likely to exit under ethical leaders. Thus, our study advances the current understanding of ethical leaders’ influence on employees.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was partially supported by a direct grant from the University of Macau (Research Grant RG010/09-10S/LCH/FBA) to the first, second and third authors. Correspondence concerning this article can be addressed to Yan Liu, Department of Business Administration, Wuhan University .

Appendix I. Scale Items

Supervisory Ethical Leadership

My supervisor

  1. 1. Listens to what employees have to say.

  2. 2. Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards.

  3. 3. Conducts personal life in an ethical manner.

  4. 4. Has the best interests of employees in mind.

  5. 5. Makes fair and balanced decisions.

  6. 6. Can be trusted.

  7. 7. Discusses business ethics or values with employees.

  8. 8. Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics.

  9. 9. Defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained.

  10. 10. When making decisions, asks what is the right thing to do.

Cognitive Engagement

  1. 1. Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else.

  2. 2. I often think about other things when performing my job. (reverse)

  3. 3. I am rarely distracted when performing my job.

  4. 4. Time passes quickly when I perform my job.

Voice

  1. 1. I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group.

  2. 2. I speak up and encourage others in this department to get involved in issues that affect the group.

  3. 3. I communicate my opinions about work issues to supervisor or others in this dept.

  4. 4. I keep well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to this work unit.

  5. 5. I get involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in this group.

  6. 6. I speak up with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.

Exit Intentions

  1. 1. At this time I would quit my job if it were feasible.

  2. 2. I am planning to leave my job within the next six months.

  3. 3. I am actively searching for another job right now.

  4. 4. I have thoughts about leaving this organization.

Silence

  1. 1. I chose to remain silent when I had concerns about my work.

  2. 2. Although I had ideas for improving my work, I did not speak up.

  3. 3. I said nothing to others about problems I noticed in my workplace.

  4. 4. I remained silent when I had information that might have helped prevent an incident in my workplace.

  5. 5. I kept quiet instead of asking questions when I wanted to get more information about my work.

Employability

  1. 1. I can easily find another job elsewhere instead of my present job.

  2. 2. I am confident that I could quickly gain another job with another employer.

  3. 3. I could easily switch to another employer, if I wanted to.

  4. 4. I have a good chance of getting a job elsewhere, if I looked for one.

References

REFERENCES

Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. 1985. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35: 124–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K., & Christianson, M. 2009. Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In Greenberg, J. & Edwards, M. S. (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations: 175202. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. 2012. Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107: 2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
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: 1173–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bashshur, M. R., & Oc, B. 2015. When voice matters: A multi-level review of the impact of voice in organizations. Journal of Management, 41: 1530–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroff, K. E., & Lewin, D. 1997. Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union firm: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51: 5063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1: 185216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. 2001. Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reaction to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37: 300315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. E. 2007. Misconceptions of ethical leadership: How to avoid potential pitfalls. Organizational Dynamics, 36: 140–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 583616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 595616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 117–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models: 136–62. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. 1992. Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Bryne, B. M. 1989. A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burris, E. R. 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 851–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. 2010. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 834848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. 2009. Job insecurity and employability in fixed-term contractors, agency workers, and permanent workers: Associations with job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14: 193205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Den Hartog, D. N. & Belschak, F. D. 2012. Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107: 3547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 461–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detert, J., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E., & Andiappan, M. 2007. Managerial models of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 9931005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 4251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberger, R. & Stinglhamber, F. 2011. Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: APA Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethics Research Centre. 2011. 2011 National Business Ethics Survey – Workplace Ethics in Transition. Arlington, VA: Ethics Research Centre.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. D., & Barron, K. E. 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51: 115–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. 2004. Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65: 1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Y. P., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. 2012. Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38: 1611–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. 1983. The managed heart: Communication of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hofmann, D. A. 1997. An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23: 723744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3: 424–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. J. 2010. Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Journal of Management and Organization, 16: 641–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. 1989. Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/ aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 657–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. 1998. Data analysis in social psychology. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.): 233–65. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. 1981. The philosophy of moral development: Essays on moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lam, L. W., Huang, X., & Lau, D. 2012. Leadership research in Asia: Taking the road less traveled? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29: 195204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 1994. An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19: 5189.Google Scholar
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. 2012. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prehibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 7192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C.-P. 2010. Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94: 517–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loi, R., Lam, L. W., Ngo, H. Y., & Cheong, S. 2015. Exchange mechanisms between ethical leadership and affective commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30: 645658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loi, R., Ngo, H. Y., & Foley, S. 2006. Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intentions to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 101–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39: 99128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 77: 1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 151–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. 2009. How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. 2005. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the Boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 874–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendonca, M., & Kanungo, R. N. 2007. Ethical leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarPubMed
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. 2003. An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1453–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25: 706–25.Google Scholar
Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 183–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. 2009. The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90: 157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. 2002. The role of employee loyalty and formality in voicing discontent. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1167–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palanski, M., Avey, J. B., & Jiraporn, N. 2014. The effects of ethical leadership and abusive supervision on job search behaviors in the turnover process. Journal of Business Ethics, 121: 135–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. 2003. Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1537–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 517635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosin, H. M., & Korabik, K. 1991. Workplace variables, affective responses, and intention to leave among women managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64: 317–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 655–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. III. 1988. Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 599627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 293315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., Dimotakis, N., & Peng, A. C. 2012. Embedding ethical leadership within and across organizational levels. Academy Of Management Journal, 55: 10531078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. 2005. Understanding organization-customer links in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1017–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4: 577–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, D. G. 1986. Employee voice and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 488502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008. Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 11891203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. G. & Pattie, M. W. 2014. When does ethical leadership affect workplace incivility? The moderating role of follower personality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24: 595616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, T., Schermerhorn, J. R. Jr., & Dienhart, J. W. 2004. Strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business. Academy of Management Executive, 18: 5666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toor, S.-ur-R., & Ofori, G. 2009. Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90: 533–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K. 1992. Moral reasoning and business ethics: Implications for research, education, and management. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 445–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K. & Brown, M., 2014. Ethical leadership. In Day, D. V. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations: 524–39. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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: 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. B., & McCabe, D. L. 1998. The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8: 447–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. 2003. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1359–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 204–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walumbwa, F. O., Morrison, E. W., & Christensen, A. L. 2012. Ethical leadership and group in-role performance: The mediating roles of group conscientiousness and group voice. Leadership Quarterly, 23: 953–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 1275–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 521–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1: LISREL Results for the Study 1 Causal Model.Note. Standardized path coefficients are reported. ** p < .01; *** p < .001.To simplify the diagram, control variables are not shown. The path coefficients are dummy (T1) → voice (T2) (β = .60 p < .1); silence (T1) → voice (T2) (β = –.05, n.s.); dummy (T1) → exit intentions (T2) (β = .71 p < .1); exit intentions (T1) → exit intentions (T2) (β = .43 p < .001); employability (T2) → exit intentions (T2) (β = .34, p < .001).

Figure 1

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Inter-Correlations of Study 1 Variables

Figure 2

Table 2: Results of CFA

Figure 3

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Inter-Correlations of the Supplementary Study’s Variables

Figure 4

Table 4: HLM Results of Supervisory Ethical Leadership and Voice on Exit Intentions

You have Access
28
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Voice More and Stay Longer: How Ethical Leaders Influence Employee Voice and Exit Intentions
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Voice More and Stay Longer: How Ethical Leaders Influence Employee Voice and Exit Intentions
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Voice More and Stay Longer: How Ethical Leaders Influence Employee Voice and Exit Intentions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *