1

Ethical Leadership with Both “Moral Person” and “Moral Manager” Aspects: Scale

Development and Cross-Cultural Validation

Abstract

The importance of ethical leadership in organizations has been increasingly recognized,

especially as a shield against unethical employee behaviors and corporate misconducts.

Ethical leadership has been theorized to include two aspects: “moral person” and “moral

manager.” This conceptualization resonates well with Chinese teachings of Confucius on

leadership and management—namely, xiuji (cultivating oneself) and anren (bringing the good

to others). Based on the theoretical framework of ethical leadership, we develop and validate

a new ethical leadership measure (ELM). Through qualitative studies (i.e., face-to-face

interviews, open-ended surveys, and literature review) and five quantitative studies, we

establish the reliability and convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities of the ELM in

a Chinese context. In addition, using a U.S. sample, we find that the ELM has partial

measurement invariance across Chinese and American contexts.

Keywords: Ethical Leadership, Ethical Leadership Measure, Moral Person, Moral Manager,

Xiuji Anren

Ethical leadership has been widely studied in the past few decades, with researchers

2

adopting the view that leaders play a significant role in shaping ethical business conduct.

Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005) formally 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). Based on this

conceptualization, great efforts have been devoted to empirically investigating the

connections between ethical leadership and positive employee and organizational outcomes

(e.g., Liu, Kwan, Fu, & Mao，2013；Schaubroeck et al., 2012).

Nevertheless, significant gaps persist in the ethical leadership literature. One gap is

particularly salient: the lack of formal conceptualization and measurement of ethical

leadership in Eastern culture as well as cross-culturally. Treviño, Hartman, and Brown (2000)

proposed that ethical leadership rests upon two essential pillars, “moral person” and “moral

manager,” and developed the Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS) to measure these aspects.

Kalshoven, Den Hartog, and De Hoogh (2011a) developed a scale called the Ethical

Leadership at Work (ELW) questionnaire that includes seven dimensions of ethical

leadership: fairness, integrity, ethical guidance, people orientation, power sharing, role

clarification, and concern for sustainability. The ELW scale, however, has some limitations.

First, it tends to overly broaden the conceptualization of ethical leadership. For example,

several dimensions—such as the dimension of “role clarification”—could be considered

neutral leadership behaviors and may not necessarily be related to ethicality. Second, the

3

majority of the items of the ELW measure the “moral manager” dimension (e.g., “My leader

pays attention to my personal needs (people orientation”). By comparison, only a few items

of the ELW capture the “moral person” dimension.

To further advance cross-cultural research on ethical leadership, it is essential to develop a

more refined ethical leadership scale that draws upon both the philosophical foundations

underlying ethical leadership and the overarching theoretical foundation established by

Treviño et al. (2000), while simultaneously having cross-cultural validity. Ethical leadership

appears to be particularly relevant and important for Chinese leadership, and is embedded in

both traditional Chinese management and leadership (e.g., Chen, Eberly, Chiang, Farh, &

Cheng, 2014). For example, the “Melamine Incident,” in which melamine-contaminated milk

caused kidney stones in thousands of babies, shocked the public in China and elsewhere. As a

result of this and other business scandals, many have begun to question the unethical

practices and behaviors of business leaders in Chinese firms. However, the existing moral

leadership dimension of paternalistic leadership (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004)

falls short of reflecting the full philosophical and theoretical richness of ethical leadership.

Furthermore, understanding of cross-cultural similarities and differences in ethical leadership

is invaluable to enhance effective leadership across cultures in today’s era of globalization

(e.g., Chen, Leung, & Chen, 2009; Resick et al., 2011).

The research presented in this paper has three main purposes: (1) from a theoretical

standpoint, to explore aspects of ethical leadership in contemporary Eastern cultures—

Chinese culture in particular; (2) to develop a new measure that captures the aspects of

4

ethical leadership in China; and (3) to validate a measure that has cross-cultural validity.

Following a standard scale development procedure (Hinkin, 1998), we develop an ethical

leadership measure (ELM), which captures a second-order construct consisting of four first-

order factors: moral characteristics, moral cognition, moral role modeling, and moral

atmosphere creation. The first two factors address the “moral person” aspect of ethical

leadership, whereas the latter two factors focus on the “moral manager” aspect. In this way,

the ELM captures the richness and complexity of the ethical leadership domain. We also

establish construct reliability and validity for the newly developed scale. In addition, using an

American sample, we find that the proposed ELM has configural invariance and partial

loading value invariance across Chinese and American contexts.

This research contributes to the ethical leadership literature in important ways.

Specifically, we integrate traditional Chinese philosophies (Confucius, 2006) with the

contemporary Western conceptualization of ethical leadership (Treviño et al., 2000) to

explore aspects of ethical leadership that are indigenous to the Chinese culture as well as

applicable to the Western culture. Our research represents one of the first efforts to connect

ethical leadership scholarship in different cultures. Our theory and findings suggest that

ethical leadership—in particular, its two aspects of “moral person” and “moral manager”—

has cultural universality. Thus, our work contributes to cross-cultural research on ethical

leadership. Through inductive and deductive approaches and based on six samples and 2089

individuals across two cultures, we develop and validate a new measure of ethical leadership.

In this way, we lay a strong foundation that will allow research to flourish in this area.

5

Theoretical Foundation

Ethical Leadership: “Moral Person” and “Moral Manager”

Treviño’s ethical leadership theory encompasses two aspects of such leadership: “moral

person” and “moral manager.” According to Treviño and her colleagues, as a moral person,

an ethical leader should possess personal moral characteristics and traits, such as honesty,

integrity, and trustworthiness. In addition, an ethical leader needs to demonstrate “moral

manager” behaviors to influence followers. For example, ethical leaders need to make

decisions in an objective and fair way, adhere to a solid set of ethical values and principles,

show thoughtful concern for both the local community and the larger society, and follow their

ethical decision-related rules. Meanwhile, being a “moral manager” means that ethical

leaders serve as a role model of ethical conduct and establish incentives to encourage their

followers’ moral actions. In addition, ethical leaders issue sanctions to followers who fail to

abide by ethical rules, and make ethics an explicit part of their leadership agenda by regularly

communicating with employees about ethical standards, values, and principles (Treviño et al.,

2000).

Based on this “moral person” and “moral manager” theoretical framework, Brown et al.

(2005) developed an ethical leadership scale based on factors found to influence employee

and organizational outcomes. These outcomes include organizational citizenship behaviors

(Avey, Palanski, & Walumbwa, 2011; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador,

2009), employee voice (Zhu, He, Treviño, Chao, & Wang, 2015), recruitment (Ogunfowora,

2014), team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008), unit

6

unethical behavior and relationship conflict (Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012),

and followers’ ethical cognition, judgment, and behavior (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Other

scales measuring ethical leadership, such as the ELW developed by Kalshoven et al. (2011a)

and the ethical leadership questionnaire developed by Yukl, Mahsud, Hassan, and Prussia

(2013), have been empirically tested to a limited extent (e.g., Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De

Hoogh, 2011a, 2011b; Yukl et al., 2013).

Xiuji and Anren: Corresponding Aspects of Ethical Leadership in Chinese Culture

Traditional Chinese culture emphasizes moral and ethical values. For example, Bass and

Steidlmeier (1999, p. 194) wrote: “In China, there seems to be some general agreement that

among other things, the moral life rests upon foundations of individual virtue and that the

individually virtuous person transforms others as well as the social environment.”

xiuji and anren, two Chinese expressions originating from Chinese philosophies, which

mean “cultivating oneself” and “bringing the good to others,” respectively, can be considered

to correspond to Trevino et al.’s (2000) two pillars of “moral person” and “moral manager.”

When addressing Chinese philosophy, people primarily refer to the dominant philosophical

theme, Confucianism, which was originally proposed by Confucius and then expanded by

Mencius. Confucianism considers benevolence and ethics to be the most fundamental values

for individuals and leaders in Chinese culture. Confucian teachings pertinent to ethical

leadership combine the concepts of xiuji and anren. Upon comparing the combined concept

of xiuji anren with the Western ethical leadership conceptualizations, we observe a large

overlap between Brown et al.’s (2005) conceptualizations of “moral person” and “moral

7

manager” and xiuji anren. On the one hand, xiuji focuses on a leader’s personal cultivation

and development into a good and moral person, which resonates with the “moral person”

dimension proposed by Treviño et al. (2000). On the other hand, anren focuses on a leader’s

ability to guide others’ behaviors in desirable ways, such as by developing followers’ full

potential and well-being. Although anren might not exactly correspond to the “moral

manager” aspect of Treviño et al.’s (2000) conceptualization, it does have a certain level of

resonance with the notion of positively influencing followers. In our work, we endeavor to

develop a more refined measure of ethical leadership by integrating the unique elements of an

Eastern culture (China) with the “moral person” and “moral management” aspects of Brown

et al.’s (2005) theoretical framework on ethical leadership.

Ancient Chinese philosophers such as Confucius and Mencius, like their Western

counterparts Socrates and Plato, produced seminal works on the significance and relevance of

ethics in leadership. For example, Confucius said, “The power of a moral virtue is supreme,

yet it is not commonly found among people anymore” (Analects: 6.29; Lau, 1970a),

demonstrating the importance and value of ethics. According to Confucius, de (ethics) can be

defined as both virtuous conduct (i.e., moral standards of behaviors) and virtuous character

(i.e., the quality and character behind the behavior) (Chen, 2010). In traditional Chinese

culture, de includes both meanings. To better understand the concept of ethics, Confucius’s

notion of junzi (i.e., gentleman) is also highly relevant. A junzi is a morally holistic persona

who expresses the good behaviors, ideals, values, and personality traits expected of an ethical

individual (Chen, 2010). In Analects, the way (dao) and the virtues (de) of a gentleman are

8

among the most prominent topics. Confucius, however, went beyond any particular virtue to

emphasize the integrative nature of the virtuous conducts and characters that are associated

with a junzi, thereby depicting the totality of human characteristics. In this sense, ethical

leaders ostensibly satisfy both the “moral person” and “moral manager” criteria.

In Confucianism, the Analects (14.42) records the conversations between Confucius and

one of his disciples, Zilu. Zilu asked Confucius about how to become a junzi (gentleman, or

ethical leader); Confucius replied, “Men have to cultivate selves with reverence.” Zilu again

asked: “Would doing this be enough?” Confucius answered: “Men have to cultivate selves to

bring the good to everyone else.” Confucius’s responses clearly show that “cultivating

oneself” (xiuji) and “bringing the good and peace to others” (anren) are both essential

components of being a junzi. Cultivating oneself reflects the fundamental belief in one’s need

to become a good person and demonstrate anren—bringing the good and peace to others. As

Confucius said: “Lead the people with governmental measures and regulate them with laws

and punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honor and shame.

Lead them with virtue and regulate them by the rules of propriety, and they will have a sense

of shame and, moreover, set themselves right” (Analects: 2.3).

In the same vein, in Dao De Jing, the classical seminal work of Daoism (another dominant

Chinese philosophy theme), Laozi described good leaders as those who focus on the

betterment of the collective group instead of those who just build the hierarchy and structure

to support their own positions and reward those subordinates who align with their own

interests and obey their orders. Laozi used the term “sage” to describe the best or most ethical

9

leader: “The sage has no fixed mind; he is aware of the needs of others and also treats those

needs as his” (Dao De Jing: 49) and “The sage does not accumulate (for himself). The more

that he expends for others, the more does he possess of his own; the more that he gives to

others, the more does he have himself” (Dao De Jing: 81). Together, these messages convey

the notion that a sage or ethical leader does not emphasize his or her own self-interests, but

rather the interests of others around the leader and the collective group. Thus, both of the two

prevailing Chinese philosophies—Confucianism and Daoism—emphasize the value and role

of ethics and morality in leadership.

This examination of the commonalities between the foundations of ethical leadership in

the Chinese and Western cultures suggests that it might be theoretically meaningful to

consider both Chinese philosophical teachings on leadership (i.e., xiuji anren) and Brown et

al.’s (2005) operationalization of ethical leadership to develop a new measure for ethical

leadership that would be applicable to both Chinese and Western cultures. The prior

discussion has shown that traditional Chinese philosophical teachings on leadership resonate

well with the modern Western conceptualization of ethical leadership developed by Treviño

et al. (2000). This lays a solid theoretical foundation for our adoption of the “moral

person”/“moral manager” concepts as the theoretical basis for developing a refined ethical

leadership measure that may be utilized across cultures.

Although Brown et al.’s (2005) ELS measure has the virtues of being parsimonious and

having been applied in numerous empirical studies, there remains a need to develop a more

refined measure for ethical leadership. Specifically, although the ELS includes items related

10

to both the “moral person” and “moral manager” aspects, they are often empirically found to

collapse to a single inseparable dimension (Kalshoven et al., 2011a). As an alternative,

Kalshoven et al.’s (2011a) ELW questionnaire includes seven dimensions: fairness, integrity,

ethical guidance, people orientation, power sharing, role clarification, and concern for

sustainability. However, the ELW scale adopted a different conceptualization of ethical

leadership from Treviño et al.’s (2000) original conceptualization and the Chinese

philosophical teaching of leadership. To date, no research has been conducted to develop and

validate an ethical leadership scale applicable in different cultural settings. Therefore,

drawing upon Chinese philosophical teaching (Confucius, 2006) and Treviño et al.’s (2000)

conceptualization, we develop a measure of ethical leadership and examine this scale’s

applicability across cultures. Our ethical leadership conceptualization includes the two broad

aspects of xiuji and anren.

Methods

Following the standard scale development procedure (Hinkin, 1998), we attempted to

develop an instrument that (1) spanned the full domain of “moral person” and “moral

manager,” (2) consisted of items that were understandable to working employees, and (3)

could be applied in different cultural contexts. The measure was developed in six different

studies. Studies 1‒4 were conducted primarily to develop the items, examine the internal

coherence, and test the convergent and discriminate validity of the new ethical leadership

measure. Study 5 examined the predictive validity of the measure. Study 6 explored the

cross-cultural measurement invariance of the scale across Chinese and American contexts.

11

Study 1: Item Generation and Selection

To increase the validity of the scale and to better cover the domain of ethical leadership,

we utilized both inductive (i.e., open questionnaire, in-depth interviews) and deductive (i.e.,

literature review) methods to generate items to measure ethical leadership. Combining

inductive and deductive methods can capitalize on the advantages of both methods (Hinkin,

1998).

The first method was an open questionnaire. In total, 150 part-time MBA students and 30

middle and senior managers from a training program at a leading university in China

completed the questionnaire. We provided a general working definition of ethical leadership

(Brown et al., 2005) to the interviewees and asked them to describe a supervisor whom they

considered to be an ethical leader. We then asked participants to list five or six personal traits

or leadership and management behaviors associated with ethical leadership, which ultimately

generated 810 descriptions (5.4 items, on average, per person).

The second method relied on an inductive approach, as we conducted in-depth interviews

with another 15 MBA students. We asked these participants to describe which traits or

behaviors are important to effectively demonstrate ethical leadership. The interviewees

mentioned several aspects of ethical leadership behaviors, including considering employee

interests, listening to employees, setting a moral example, discussing business ethics or

values with employees, and living one’s personal life in an ethical manner. Through these

interviews, we collected 80 additional items.

We then conducted content analysis on the 890 items collected from the open

12

questionnaires and interviews. Specifically, we carried out a systematic category analysis by

taking the following steps: (1) assuring every description or item had a clear meaning; (2)

assuring that it was a leader behavior or characteristic; (3) combining similar items into one

single item; and (4) deleting items that were mentioned twice or less frequently (e.g.,

Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). To ensure face validity, we then consulted with five human

resources professionals to evaluate each item and eliminate items beyond the domain of our

ethical leadership conceptualization (xiuji anren) as well as those items that could be

potentially confusing or redundant. After many rounds of identification, induction, and

elimination (Hinkin, 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), we retained 27 items in total.

Finally, we reviewed the ethics-related literatures, including literatures dealing with

ethical leadership scales and description of ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005; Treviño et

al., 2000), authentic transformational leadership (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Zhu, Avolio,

Riggio, & Sosik, 2011), moral identity traits (Aquino & Reed, 2002), justice (Alexander &

Ruderman, 1987), and moral attentiveness (Reynolds, 2008). This exercise supplemented our

item pool with an additional 60 items (Hinkin, 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Thus, the

initial item pool included 87 (27 + 60) items.

Study 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis

We administered the 87-item survey to 250 business managers who attended Executive

Developmental Program (EDP) training sessions at a leading university in China. These

managers rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements regarding

their immediate supervisors’ ethical leadership on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 =

13

disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither disagree nor agree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 =

agree, 7 = strongly agree). Out of 250 questionnaires administered, we received 199 valid

responses, for a response rate of 79.6%. A sample size of about 200 is generally considered

sufficient for exploratory factor analysis (EFA; MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong,

1999). Our sample also exceeded the minimum requirement of a 2:1 subjects-to-items ratio

necessary to conduct EFA (Kline, 1979). We conducted an EFA (principal axis factoring) with

an oblique rotation (direct oblimin), allowing for correlations to be discerned among factors

(Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Evaluation of the eigenvalues and scree

plot were the principles of factor extraction.

Four factors having eigenvalues greater than 1 accounted for 79.71% of the total variance,

above the recommended level of 60% (Hinkin, 1998). After deleting items based on this

criterion, 16 items were retained; their factor loadings were between .67 and .94. Table 1

shows the EFA results.

--------------------------------------

Insert Tables 1 to 10 about here

----------------------------------------

The first factor, termed “moral characteristics,” refers to whether a leader possesses traits

and characteristics relevant to ethics and morality. This factor includes four items, such as “is

willing to help others.” This subdimension also somewhat overlaps with the people-

orientation dimension of the ELW (Kalshoven et al., 2011a). The percentage of variance

explained by the eigenvalues of this factor was 50.40%.

The second factor, “moral cognition,” refers to a leader’s awareness and willingness to pay

14

attention to a moral issue, and his or her capacity to make relevant judgments. This dimension

includes four items, such as “often considers issues from an ethical perspective.”

Interestingly, these four items were adapted from the moral attentiveness scale developed by

Reynolds (2008). We call this dimension “moral cognition” because this term better reflects

the broad cognition-related moral aspects of ethical leadership, including moral

realization/attentiveness and moral judgment. The percentage of variance explained by the

eigenvalues of this factor was 12.77%.

The third factor, “moral role modeling,” refers to leaders’ adoption of a higher ethical

standard for their own behaviors, such as practicing ethical teaching and setting a visible

ethical example for followers. This subscale includes four items, such as “sets an example of

how to do things in the ethically correct way.” The percentage of variance explained by the

eigenvalues of this factor was 9.79%.

The last factor, “moral atmosphere creation,” describes the important roles that ethical

leaders play in building up a moral context through communication and by establishing

standards and codes for their ethical behaviors. This factor has four items, such as “explains

the values that guide his/her moral decisions to subordinates.” The percentage of variance

explained by the eigenvalues of this factor was 6.76%.

The first two factors (i.e., moral characteristics and moral cognition) are categorized under

the “moral person” (i.e., xiuji) aspect of ethical leadership, because moral characteristics

represent the nature of a person (i.e., being) and moral cognition represents the person’s

moral thoughts (i.e., thinking). The latter two factors (i.e., moral role modeling and moral

15

atmosphere creation) are categorized under the “moral manager” (i.e., anren) aspect of ethical

leadership, because they show how managers can become moral role models for their

followers and develop a moral atmosphere within which both leaders and followers operate.

The four first-order factors are loaded on a higher-order general factor termed the ethical

leadership measure (ELM), which has both “moral person” and “moral manager” aspects.

Table 2 presents more detailed explanations of the four dimensions of the ELM.

Higher-Order Nature and Multidimensionality of ELM

In a reflective (superordinate) measurement model (as compared to a formative

measurement model: Coltman, Devinney, Midgley, & Venaik, 2008; Jarvis, MacKenzie, &

Podsakoff, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Jarvis, 2005), changes in the underlying

construct are hypothesized to cause changes in the indicators (Bollen & Lennox, 1991;

Fornell & Bookstein, 1982); the latent variable influences the indicators and accounts for

their inter-correlations. The indicator items of a reflective measure are internally consistent

because all of them are assumed to be equally valid for measuring the underlying construct.

We approached the ELM as a superordinate/reflective multidimensional construct,

indicated by four distinct dimensions that capture managers’ ethics-related behaviors. The

ELM construct cannot be conceived separately from its specific dimensions (Johnson, Rosen,

& Chang, 2011). The ELM construct, as a reflective and multidimensional construct, captures

the intersections among its four subdimensions covering different aspects of ethical

leadership, and represents a core underlying shared variance across those subdimensions.

16

The reflective, higher-order, and multidimensional nature of the ELM can facilitate theory

development in at least two ways. First, the higher-order ELM can better match the

predictions of broadly defined outcomes that span various domains. Second, the higher-order

ELM is more parsimonious than its individual dimensions for examining ethical leadership

phenomena (El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck, & Igalens, 2015; Johnson et al., 2011).

Study 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The data set for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was an independent sample of 900

business managers. We obtained 762 valid surveys, for a response rate of 84.67%. We

employed Mplus 6.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010) to conduct a series of CFAs to examine

the factor structure of the scale. To examine the distinctiveness of the four dimensions of the

ELM construct, we compared the baseline model against a series of alternative nested

models, which merged two or more of the four ELM dimensions. In addition, we tested for

overall discriminability by contrasting the four-factor baseline model with a single-factor

model (El Akremi et al., 2015; Kinicki, Jacobson, Peterson, & Prussia, 2013).

Following the path laid out in earlier works (e.g., Hannah, Jennings, Bluhm, Peng, &

Schaubroeck, 2014), we provided empirical justification for including first-order dimensions

based on three criteria: (1) the first-order dimensions have significant and substantive

loadings on the second-order factor (cutoff of .70), (2) the second-order factor model exhibits

a good fit, and (3) the second-order model has a high score of composite latent variable

reliability (CLVR). The CFA results are presented in Table 3.

We found support for the hypothesized four-factor baseline model. This model exhibits a

17

good fit with the data: χ2 (df = 98) = 370.28, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .060,

and SRMR = .023 (see Table 3). All first-order factor-loading values were statistically

significant at the .01 level and reasonably large, ranging from .65 to .93. In alignment with

the earlier studies (e.g., El Akremi et al., 2015), we found the average variance extracted

(AVE) values for four first-order factors were .81, .70, .76, and .75, respectively; thus, they

all exceeded the .50 criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

The results also demonstrated support for the distinctiveness of the ELM dimensions. The

single-factor model fit the data poorly: χ² (df = 104) = 1944.42, CFI = .86, TLI = .83,

RMSEA = .15, and SRMR = .06. The four-factor model outperformed a series of more

parsimonious models that merged different factors, thereby supporting the distinctiveness of

the factors. For example, it compared favorably with the fit of three-factor models, including

the model that merged moral role modeling and moral atmosphere creation: χ² (df = 101) =

883.64, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .04, with Δχ2 (df = 3) = 513.36, p

< .01. The difference between the three-factor model and the four-factor model met three

criteria: significant chi-square difference tests, ΔCFI values greater than .01, and significant

decreases in fit compared with the baseline model (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Finally, the proposed four-factor, second-order ELM model fit the data essentially as well

as the first-order model: χ² (df =100) = 487.06, p < .01, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .071,

and SRMR = .034. According to Bollen (1989) and based on empirical testing (El Akremi et

al., 2015; see also Linderbaum & Levy, 2010), a second-order model is preferable to a first-

order model if it fits the data because it allows for covariation among first-order factors and

18

accounts for the corrected errors that are common in first-order models. Therefore, we believe

it is more appropriate to adopt a second-order model for the ELM. All the loading values of

the second-order factor were statistically significant, ranging from .85 to .94, with the AVE

for the second-order factor being 75.36%, which is well above the 0.50 criterion (Fornell &

Larcker, 1981).

Therefore, consistent with earlier work (e.g., Edwards, 2001, 2011; El Akremi et al.,

2015), we conclude that ELM is a multidimensional, superordinate/reflective construct. The

CFA results confirmed that the second-order ELM factor exists and significantly explains the

relationships among the four first-order factors. Furthermore, these four first-order

dimensions can be mapped into two aspects, such that “moral characteristics” and “moral

cognition” belong to the “moral person” aspect, and “moral role modeling” and “moral

atmosphere creation” belong to the “moral manager” aspect.

The ELM demonstrated a high level of internal consistency, with an alpha score of .97.

The alpha scores for the subdimensions (moral characteristics, moral cognition, moral role

modeling, establishing moral context) were .94, .88, .93, and .92, respectively.

Study 4: Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To demonstrate the ELM’s convergent validity, we hypothesized that the construct of

ethical leadership used in the ELM is positively related to, but empirically distinguishable

from, transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006), authentic leadership (Avolio &

Gardner, 2005; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008), servant leadership

(Greenleaf, 1977; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008), and the entity measured in the

19

Leader Virtues Questionnaire (LVQ; Riggio, Zhu, Reina, & Maroosis, 2010).

We investigated this hypothesis by surveying 500 full-time business executives.

Ultimately, 393 (78.6%) valid responses were retained for analysis. Table 4 reports ethical

leadership (ELM) was positively correlated with the idealized influence dimension of

transformational leadership (r = .73, p < .01), the ELS (r = .85, p < .01), the “internalized

moral perspective” dimension of authentic leadership (r = .63, p < .01), the “behaving

ethically” dimension of servant leadership (r = .67, p < .01), and the LVQ (r = .73, p < .01).

Conversely, it was negatively correlated with abusive supervision (r = –.26, p < .01) and

leader narcissism (r = –.35, p < .01). Although the relationship between the ELM and the

ELS was relatively strong, this outcome is not surprising because these two scales adopt the

same theoretical framework of “moral person”/“moral manager” proposed by Treviño et al.

(2000).

We conducted a separate CFA to confirm the discriminant validity of the two measures.

Discriminant validity means that a focal construct should be unrelated to dissimilar or non-

overlapping constructs (Hinkin, 1998; Schwab, 1980). Specifically, the proposed two-factor

model (i.e., ELM, as a second-order factor with four first-level factors, and ELS as a separate

factor) fit the data [χ2 (df = 147) = 588.35, p < .01, CFI = .948, TLI = .940, RMSEA = .088,

and SRMR = .053] better than [Δ χ2 (df = 2) = 99.85, p < .01] the one-factor model [i.e., ELM

and ELS as one factor: χ2 (df = 149) = 688.15, p < .01, CFI = .937, TLI = .928, RMSEA

= .096, and SRMR = .097]. Again, the results support that these two scales are distinct from

each other.

20

We found that the ELM was unrelated to the irrelevant constructs, such as the rater’s

gender (r = –.09, ns), age (r = .03, ns), position (r = –.05, ns), education (r = –.05, ns), firm

size (r = .07, ns), and number of years under the supervisor (r = .08, ns). Taken together,

these results suggest that the ELM has good initial discriminant and divergent validity.

To further establish the distinctiveness of the ELM from seven other relevant scales, we

also conducted CFAs involving ELM and these scales. Due to the relatively small sample

size, we followed the procedures adopted by previous research (e.g., Kovjanic, Schuh, Jonas,

Van Quaquebeke, & Van Dick, 2012; Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002;

Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010) and created indicators from dimensional

scores or item parcels based on the item-to-construct-balance method. We created four-item

parcels for leader virtue, three-item parcels for ELS, two-item parcels for idealized influence

of MLQ, four items for the “internalized moral perspective” of authentic leadership, four

items for the “ethics” of servant leadership, four items for leader narcissism, and five items

for abusive supervision. We found the eight-factor model exhibited a good fit: χ² (df = 828) =

2220.21, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .065, and SRMR = .054. Again, this result shows

that the ELM is distinct from the other relevant scales. The AVEs for the four dimensions and

the ELM were 78.36%, 81.75%, 71.21%, 85.27%, and 85.34%, respectively. The AVE score

of the ELM (i.e., 85.34%) was also larger than the squared correlation estimates (i.e., shared

variance of 82.86%) between the ELM and the other seven relevant scales, which supported

our contention that the ELM is a distinct measure (Hannah et al., 2014).

Study 5: Predictive Validity

21

Generally speaking, a good scale should have predictive validity. To determine whether

the ELM satisfied this criterion, we designed a study to examine the predictive validity of the

ELM above and beyond that of ELS (Brown et al., 2005) for a series of follower work-related

outcomes, including follower organizational commitment, organizational citizenship

behaviors (OCBs), job performance, and follower ethics-related outcomes (i.e., moral

attentiveness).

Ethical leaders instill higher trust, respect felt, and self-esteem in their followers, which

collectively enhance followers’ work-related and ethics-related outcomes because ethical

leaders set high ethical standards and act as ethical role models for their followers (Brown et

al., 2005). When employees observe ethical leaders who stand up for doing what is right and

righteous and who think ethically, those employees will be inclined to become more

committed to their organization. Thus, ethical leadership encourages higher organizational

commitment, OCBs, and job performance.

Brown et al. (2005) argue that ethical leaders influence followers primarily through role

modeling processes. Moral behavioral modeling is an important and effective means for

leaders to transmit their moral values, attitudes, and behaviors to their followers. That is,

followers learn about desirable moral traits and behaviors by observing their leaders, and then

emulate those behaviors they find to be legitimate and credible. In this way, ethical leadership

is positively related to followers’ moral attentiveness.

Ethical leaders are also likely to take an interest in and engage with their followers’ moral

growth and development (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). For example, they are more likely to

22

provide ethical mentoring and feedback, with followers reciprocating by paying greater

attention to moral issues, thereby increasing their moral attentiveness.

To summarize these ideas, we propose four hypotheses:

Hypotheses 1/2/3/4: Ethical leadership is positively related to higher levels of follower

affective commitment/OCB/job performance/moral attentiveness.

Data Collection and Sample Characteristics. We collected data from companies in the

communication industry by administering a survey. We received 302 total responses

(response rate of 75.5%) from the 400 participants. Of these surveys, 294 responses were

found to be valid and were retained for analysis. Initially, employees reported their own

affective organizational commitment and ethical leadership behaviors about their immediate

supervisor using both the ELM and the ELS (Brown et al., 2005). One month later,

supervisors rated their employees’ OCBs, job performance, and moral attentiveness.

Measures. Affective organizational commitment was assessed using nine items from the

measure developed by Mowday et al. (1979). Sample items included “I talk up this

organization to my friends as a great organization to work for” and “I am proud to tell others

that I am part of this organization.” OCBs were assessed by “organizational identification”

and “altruism,” seen in the measure developed by Farh et al. (1997). Sample items included

“willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company” and “willingly gives his/her

time to help others who have work-related problems.” Job performance was measured by a

two-item scale developed for this study after consulting with the human resources manager of

each firm being sampled. These two items were “the extent to which this employee is

23

generally qualified to accomplish his or her job” and “the overall effectiveness of this

employee in getting his or her job done.” Follower moral attentiveness was measured by the

12-item scale developed by Reynolds (2008). Sample items included “This employee

frequently thinks about the moral implications of his/her actions” and “This employee often

considers issues from an ethical perspective.”

Results. As shown in Table 5—and not surprisingly—the correlation between the ELS and

the ELM was relatively high (r = .80, p < .01), for the reasons noted earlier. However, the

CFAs showed that the proposed two-factor model (i.e., ELM as a second-order factor with

four first-order factors, and ELS as a separate/independent factor) fit the data [χ2 (df =147) =

456.32, p < .01, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .085, and SRMR = .052] better than [Δ χ2

(df = 2) = 95.61, p < .01) the one-factor model [i.e., ELM and ELS as one factor, or the

restrictive model: χ2 (df = 149) = 551.93, p < .01, CFI = .935, TLI = .925, RMSEA = .096,

and SRMR = .093]. These CFA results support that these two scales are distinctive.

We conducted hierarchical regression analysis to test the ELM’s predictive validity. Tables

6 to 9 present these results. After controlling for length of time working with the leader and

the organizational/position level, which are important confounding variables for leadership

effectiveness (Brown et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2011), we found that (see Step 2a in the tables)

the ELM had a positive effect on follower affective commitment (β = .36, p < .001), OCBs (β

=.25, p < .001), job performance (β = .14, p < .05), and moral attentiveness (β = .16, p < .01).

Thus, Hypotheses 1 to 4 were supported.

To further assess the incremental validity (Kinicki et al., 2013) of the ELM as above and

24

beyond that of the existing ELS measure, we conducted a usefulness analysis (Darlington,

1990; Johnson et al., 2011). We first entered the background variables, then the one-

dimensional 10-item ELS scale (rated on a 5-point Likert scale) into the equation, followed

by the ELM (see Step 2b and Step 3 in Tables 6 to 9). As expected, after controlling for the

ELS, the ELM was still significantly related to these work-related and ethics-related

outcomes: β = .25, p < .01 for affective organizational commitment; β = .17, p < .10 for

OCBs; and β = .21, p < .05 for follower moral attentiveness. Meanwhile, the effects of the

ELS were no longer significant. For follower job performance, after controlling for ELS, the

ELM still marginally significantly predicted follower job performance (β = .14, p < .10, one-

tailed test, Table 8, Step 3), but the effect of the ELS was negligible (β = .01, ns). More

importantly, when judging these three models based on the adjusted R2 value, the model (Step

3, when ELS is added on top of ELM, adjusted R2 = 5.10%) became worse than the pure ELM

model (Step 2a, adjusted R2 = 5.50%), yet was still better than the pure ELS model (Step 2b,

adjusted R2 = 4.80%). These results offer support for the stronger predictive power of the

ELM compared to the ELS.

In addition, we performed another set of hierarchical regression analyses (see Step 2a and

Step 3 in Tables 6 through 9) in which we added the new ELM first and then the ELS in the

next step. The result showed that the ELS was no longer significantly related to the dependent

variables when the ELM was controlled for. The ELM could still predict more variance after

controlling for the effect of the ELS because the ELM captures more nuances and the broader

complexity of the ethical leadership domain. For example, the ELM measures the “moral

25

cognition” and “moral atmosphere creation” dimensions of ethical leadership, which are not

captured by the ELS. Thus, the ELM can better capture the rich domain, including the depth

and breadth, of ethical leadership in the Chinese context compared to the ELS.

Study 6: Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance of the ELM

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the measurement equivalence of ELM

across Chinese and American contexts. In doing so, we attempted to confirm the similarity of

the ELM across these two contexts. When testing for measurement invariance across groups,

three primary levels of potential invariance must be examined: (1) configural, (2) metric, and

(3) scalar (Meredith, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).

Method and Samples. For the Chinese sample, we used the same sample on which the

CFA (study 2) was conducted. To obtain the U.S. sample, we entrusted a research company

(http://www.usamp.com) to solicit 1094 U.S. employees from a broad variety of industries.

The research company sent the survey link to these potential participants on our behalf. We

randomly selected 276 out of 1094 cases for the study.

Analysis and Results. We conducted a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis using

Mplus 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010) and followed the instructions for the

measurement invariance test (Billiet & McClendon, 2000; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Following the recommended steps (e.g., Byrne, 2012; van de Schoot, Lugtig, & Hox,

2012), we conducted an analysis of configural equivalence across two samples. In doing so,

we specified the second-order hierarchical factor structure for the ELM for the Chinese and

U.S. samples independently (Byrne, 2008, 2012). The fitness indexes for the Chinese context

26

[χ2 (df = 100) = 487.06, p < .01, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .071, and SRMR = .034, as

shown in Table 3] and the U.S. context [χ² (df = 100) = 232.31, p < .01, CFI = .975, TLI

= .970, RMSEA = .069, and SRMR = .028] were higher than the acceptable level of model fit

(Chen, Sousa, & West, 2005; Hu & Bentler, 1999), as shown in Table 10, confirming that the

form of the latent construct of the ELM held in each of the two cultures. Figure 1 graphically

depicts the CFA results for these two samples.

---------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

---------------------------------

We also conducted a multi-group CFA to examine the measurement invariance. The

results for the two-group configural baseline model are shown as Model 1 in Table 11 and

were confirmed to be an acceptable fit: χ² (df = 200) = 719.37, CFI = .971, TLI = .965,

RMSEA = .070, and SRMR = .034). This outcome highlighted the configural invariance

across the Chinese and U.S. samples. Thus the second-order factor structure of the ELM held

in both the Chinese and U.S. contexts.

We continued testing the metric invariance of the ELM, which constrains factor loadings

—including the item to four first-order factor loadings, and the first-order factor to second-

order factor loadings—to be equivalent across these two samples. As shown in Model 2 in

Table 11, constraining the item factor loadings to be invariant across these two countries did

reduce the model fit (∆χ² = 94.87**, df = 12), which means that some of the loading values

for the items were not invariant across two samples.

27

We subsequently used the Modification Indexes (critical value = 3.59, p < .05) to check

those loading values that needed to be freed rather than constrained to be invariant. We found

four items of the subdimension of “moral cognition” to be invariant across these two samples.

In addition, among the loading values of nine items on three first-level factors that needed to

be freed, three items (Q2, Q3, and Q4, in Table 1) were for the “moral characteristics” factor,

three items (Q10, Q11, and Q12, in Table 1) were for “moral role modeling,” and three items

(Q13, Q14, and Q15, in Table 1) were for the “moral atmosphere creation” factor. When we

freed these nine loading values from the invariant condition, the fitness indexes of this partial

loading value invariance [χ² (df = 203) = 720.22, CFI = .971, TLI = .966, RMSEA = .070,

SRMR = .034] were not worse (∆χ² = .85, df = 3) than the fitness indexes for the two-group

configural baseline model (Model 1), indicating that the partial loading values invariance (or

partial metric invariance) of the ELM was achieved. A full metric invariance is a

precondition to testing the scalar equivalence (Byrne, 2012; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000), so

we stopped the analysis and concluded that the ELM has configural invariance and partial

loading values invariance, and the second-order factor ELM holds across the Chinese and

U.S. cultures.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

This research makes a number of theoretical contributions to the literature. First, we

have advanced the field of ethical leadership research by examining a widely accepted

theoretical model in terms of its cultural universality. Although the number of empirical

28

studies in this area is increasing (e.g., Avey et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2005; Kacmar, Daniel,

Kenneth, & Zivnuska, 2011; Mayer et al., 2012; Piccolo et al., 2010; Walumbwa &

Schaubroeck, 2009), ethical leadership remains an under-researched leadership style from a

cross-cultural perspective. The present study contributes to the ethical leadership field by

examining the universality of ethical leadership structure in a cross-cultural context. This

perspective is based on the alignment between the original conceptualization of ethical

leadership proposed by Treviño et al. (2000) in a Western culture and the Chinese

philosophical interpretation of ethical leadership (Confucius, 2006). In Eastern cultures such

as China, ethical leadership structures consist of two aspects: “moral person” and “moral

manager.” This conceptualization resonates with traditional Chinese culture, which proposes

that xiuji and anren are two essential pillars of ethical leadership (Confucius, 2006). The ELS

(Brown et al., 2005) was developed in a Western culture; in contrast, our scale was developed

in an Eastern culture and tested in both an Eastern culture and a Western culture. Thus, the

ELM’s development makes a significant contribution to cross-cultural management and

leadership research.

We found that the ELM has measurement invariance (configural invariance and partial

loading value invariance) across the Chinese and U.S. contexts. In other words, the general

second-order construct of the ELM holds across two cultures. The subdimension of “moral

cognition” also achieved the full loading value invariance, indicating that both Chinese and

American subjects attributed the same meaning to the latent construct of “moral cognition”

(via similar relative relationships between each item and its latent construct). Nine out of 12

29

items for the three other subdimensions (moral characteristics, moral role modeling, and

moral atmosphere creation) were not invariant across these two samples, however. Thus,

Chinese and American employees appear to have rather different views and understanding of

these items, the relative relationships among these items, and the latent construct of each

subdimension. Interestingly, the loading values of the “moral characteristics” factor—in

particular, the two items “My leader is benevolent” and “My leader often treats others

mercifully”—differed markedly across the Chinese and U.S. samples. Chinese managers

appear to need to exhibit a more “benevolent orientation,” which is an implicit model of

Chinese (Eastern) culture (Confucius, 2006). This also aligns with the work of Resick and his

colleagues (2006, 2011), who showed that in China, consideration and respect for others are

highly important characteristics of ethical leaders.

The ELM has several unique strengths. First, it successfully captures the more

comprehensive and refined contents of the two broader aspects of leadership (“moral person”

and “moral manager”). Second, the scale incorporates moral cognition as a subdimension of

the “moral person” aspect. The inclusion of moral cognition into the model has the advantage

of capturing the cognitive element of ethical leaders being moral persons. The new scale

encompasses moral self-conception (i.e., moral characteristics: what type of person is the

leader), moral cognition (i.e., how does the leader think ethically), and moral managerial

behaviors (i.e., “moral role modeling” and “moral atmosphere creation”: what should the

leader do ethically as a manager). Finally, the ELM explicitly stresses and measures ethical

leaders’ role in developing a moral atmosphere among groups and followers, which is aligned

30

with the original conceptualization that developing a moral atmosphere is an important role

of ethical leaders (Treviño et al., 2000).

As to the criteria-related validity, we found positive relationships between ethical

leadership and follower work-related outcomes, including affective organizational

commitment, OCBs, job performance, and follower moral attentiveness. We also established

incremental predictive validity by showing that ELM-identified behaviors contributed to the

explanation of variance in the dependent variables after controlling for the ELS.

Practical Implications

Our research has several practical implications. First, we found that in different cultures

(specifically China and the United States), ethical leaders need to be both a “moral person”

and a “moral manager.” Therefore, to be ethical leaders who can influence employee

outcomes, leaders must be viewed as credible and legitimate moral role models. In particular,

they need to fully exhibit their “moral person” traits, such as kind-heartedness, compassion,

and an altruistic orientation. In addition, leaders need to demonstrate “moral manager”

behaviors such as creating a fair work environment for employees while treating followers

with respect and dignity. This has implications not only for leaders who aspire to be ethical in

terms of how they lead, but also for leadership training and development programs in

organizations, and for the managers who work now or will work in the future in cross-cultural

contexts.

Second, this research indicates that leaders should adhere to their inner moral values and

make fair and ethical decisions in morally challenging situations to motivate their followers

31

and to achieve sustainable development. Today’s society is full of unethical temptations and

challenges in business contexts around the world. When leaders act morally and make ethical

decisions with their subordinates’ best interests in mind, they help encourage and develop

ethical behaviors within the organization, thereby combating those temptations and mitigating

the challenges. It is important that ethical leaders exhibit “moral manager” behaviors such as

shaping the ethical context of the organization.

Given the important and positive impacts of ethical leadership, organizations would be

well advised to promote ethical leadership across different levels of their organizations. First,

ethical leadership may be used as a criterion for the recruitment and promotion of employees

to managerial positions. Specifically, organizations can assess managerial candidates’

propensity to exhibit ethical leadership behaviors. During recruitment interviews,

interviewers should clearly emphasize ethics and seriously take ethics into account when

selecting candidates for managerial positions.

Second, organizations can provide leaders with ethics-based training. Treviño (1992),

for example, suggests that moral reasoning skills can be developed through appropriate

training programs. Organizations might design training programs that include practice in

moral role-taking or situational behaviors, group discussion, and case studies to improve

managers’ ability to deal with complex ethical issues. Additionally, during the training

process, managers might be encouraged to fully appreciate the importance of their behaviors

and ability to affect followers’ moral outcomes.

32

Finally, Chinese leaders and managers in Chinese organizations should adopt these

Chinese philosophies in their work as leaders. For example, leaders should properly

understand the Confucian teaching of xiuji anren and apply the teaching into their leadership

practices through cultivating their moral character (i.e., xiuji), and then lead their followers to

a more positive state of well-being (i.e., anren) in organizations. In the same vein, Chinese

organizations should provide relevant training to their managers to help them better and more

accurately understand the Confucian philosophy of xiuji anren. For their part, American

organizations should provide relevant ethical leadership training based on the theoretical

framework of “moral person” and “moral manager.”

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study has several limitations. First, when testing the predictive validity of the ELM,

although we collected measures of independent variables and dependent variables at two

points in time within a month to eliminate cross-sectional bias, it was still difficult to

ascertain the true direction of causality between the independent (i.e., ethical leadership) and

dependent (i.e., follower job-related and ethically related outcomes) variables. To resolve this

issue, future studies might adopt experimental or longitudinal approaches. For example,

researchers might randomly assign subjects to different ethical leadership intervention groups

and examine the outcome variables to confirm the causal relationship.

Second, this new scale was developed and tested in the contexts of China and the United

States. Future research might be conducted in other cultural contexts as well. Although we

demonstrated the configural invariance and partial metric invariance for the ELM across

33

Chinese and American samples, we suggest that future research should further explore cross-

cultural similarities and differences of ethical leadership in other cultures. It would also be

interesting to examine (1) to what extent ethical leadership affects follower outcomes across

different cultures, (2) whether cultural values influence ethical leadership and ethical values

(Jackson, 2001), and (3) whether moral traits and integrity differ across different generations

(e.g., Audi & Murphy, 2006; Bandsuch, 2009) and cultures. In addition, future research might

compare the ELM with other relevant scales, including paternalistic leadership (Cheng et al.,

2004) and the ELW questionnaire (Kalshoven et al., 2011a) to further establish the

convergent and discriminant validity of the ELM, and to shed light on the complex cross-

cultural dynamics in ethical leadership.

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer’s insightful comment, we acknowledge that one

limitation of our new scale is the inclusion of the word “ethical” in some of the items. One

potential issue with the use of this word is that followers may have different notions about

what is “ethical.” One way to help respondents interpret the meaning of “ethical” in similar

ways is to share with them the definition of “ethical” before they respond to the survey items.

As an example, when the ELM is used in a Chinese context, respondents could be informed

that “being ethical” means xiuji anren in Confucian teaching. Future researchers might also

ask both followers and leaders to rate leader moral characteristics on the ELM to better

capture the construct of ethical leadership.

In conclusion, we integrate traditional Chinese philosophies (Confucius, 2006) with the

Western conceptualization of ethical leadership (Treviño et al., 2000) to explore aspects of

34

ethical leadership that are indigenous to the Chinese culture and can be adapted and utilized

in the Western culture. Through developing a reliable and valid scale, we contribute to cross-

cultural research on ethical leadership and lay a solid foundation for the research to grow and

flourish in the field.

35

REFERENCES

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in

organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 177–198.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1939–1315.

Audi, R., & Murphy, P. E. (2006). The many faces of integrity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16,

3–21.

Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When leadership goes unnoticed:

The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical

leadership and follower behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 573–582.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root

of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

Bandsuch, M. R. (2009). Understanding integrity across generations in China: Implications

for personnel choices in Chinese corporations. Journal of International Business Ethics,

2 (2), 21–38.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

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

leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181−217.

Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for

two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 608–628.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Bollen, K. A., & Lennox. R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural

36

equation perspective, Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305‒314.

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.

Byrne, B. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk

through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872–882.

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Chen, F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-

order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 471–492.

Chen, L. (2010). Virtue ethics and Confucian ethics. Dao, 9, 275–287.

Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in

Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of

Management, 40(3), 796–819.

Chen, Y. R., Leung, K., & Chen, C. C. (2009). Bringing national culture to the table: Making

a difference with cross-cultural differences and perspectives. Academy of Management

Annals, 3, 217‒249.

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic

leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese

organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89–117.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness of fit indexes for testing

measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.

Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus

reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of

37

Business Research, 61(12), 1250‒1262.

Confucius. (2006). Original Chinese title [Confucian analects] (Y. Zhang, Ed.). [Original

work published during the Warring States period).] Beijing, China: Zhonghua Book.

Darlington, R. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

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

relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and

subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19 (3), 297–311.

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An

integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144‒192.

Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research

Methods, 14, 370‒388.

El Akremi, A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2015). How do employees

perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional

corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the

use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods,

4(3), 272–299.

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice

and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 44(3), 421–444.

Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS

applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.

Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable

38

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39-50.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power

and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Hannah, S., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Peng, A. C., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2014). Duty

orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct testing. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 598‒621.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey

questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Jackson, T. (2001). Cultural values and management ethics: A 10-nation study. Human

Relations, 54, 1267–1302.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct

indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research.

Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199‒218.

Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Chang, C. H. (2011). To aggregate or not to aggregate: Steps

for developing and validating higher-order multidimensional constructs. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 26, 241‒248.

Kacmar, M. K., Daniel, G. B., Kenneth, J. H., & 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.

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

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

39

Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51–60.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2011b). Ethical leader behavior and

big five factors of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 349-366.

Kinicki, A., Jacobson, K. J., Peterson, S. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Development and

validation of the performance management behavior questionnaire. Personnel

Psychology, 66, 1‒45.

Kline, P. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. London, UK: Academic Press.

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Van Dick, R. (2012). How do

transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination‒based

analysis of employees’ needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

33, 1031‒1052.

Lau, D. C. (1970a). The analects. Harmondsworth, NY: Penguin Books.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:

Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership

Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.

Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the Feedback

Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372‒1405.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to

parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,

151–173.

Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Fu, P. P., & Mao. Y. (2013). Ethical leadership and job performance in

China: The roles of workplace friendships and traditionality. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 564-584.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor

40

analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement

model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some

recommended solutions. Journal Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710‒730.

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical

leadership and why does it matter? An examination of the 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. B. (2009). How low

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

Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.

Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance.

Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles,

CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Ogunfowora, B. (2014). The impact of ethical leadership within the recruitment context: The

roles of organizational reputation, applicant personality, and value congruence.

Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 528‒543.

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

between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 31(2–3), 259–278.

41

Resick, C., Hanges, P., Dickson, M., & Mitchelson, J. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of

the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345‒359.

Resick, C., Martin, G. S., Keating, M., Dickson, M. W., Kwan, H. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011).

What ethical leadership means to me: Asian, American, and European perspectives.

Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 435–457.

Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027–1041.

Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement of

ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology

Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L.

K., & Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization

levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1053–1078.

Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B.

M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 3‒43). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Treviño, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 647–676.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How

executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review,

42(4), 128–142.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement

invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational

research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4‒70.

42

van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement

invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).

Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of

Management, 34(1), 89–126.

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.

Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of ethical

leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 38‒48.

Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R., & Sosik, J. (2011). The effect of authentic transformational

leadership on follower and group ethics. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 801–817.

Zhu, W., He, H., Treviño, L., Chao, M., & Wang, W. (2015). Ethical leadership and follower

voice and performance: The role of follower identifications and entity morality beliefs.

Leadership Quarterly, 26, 702–718.

43

Table 1Exploratory Factor Analysis (Study 2)My immediate supervisor Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Sources1. is willing to help .71 ‒.01 ‒.07 .16 Interview/open questions2. is kind-hearted .82 ‒.06 .09 .01 Interview/open questions3. is benevolent .77 .03 .17 ‒.01 Interview/open questions4. often treats others mercifully .79 .12 .04 ‒.07 Interview/open questions5. thinks about the moral implications of

his/her actions frequently .17 .80 ‒.04 ‒.04 Adapted from Reynolds

6. often considers issues from an ethical perspective

.03 .92 ‒.07 .04 Adapted from Reynolds

7. reflects on the moral appropriateness of his/her decisions

‒.08 .91 .11 .01 Adapted from Reynolds

8. frequently thinks about ethical issues ‒.09 .74 .11 .16 Adapted from Reynolds9. sets an example of how to do things

in the ethically correct way .03 .04 .94 .01 Adapted from Brown et

al. (2005)10. often makes decisions consistent with

his/her moral principles .05 .13 .77 .01 Interview/open questions

11. sets examples of ethical behaviors to subordinates

.07 .00 .87 ‒.01 Interview/open questions

12. practices moral behaviors and serves as role models to subordinates in terms of behaving ethically

.04 .03 .72 .16 Interview/open questions

13. requires subordinates to learn and understand the codes of ethics

.02 ‒.02 ‒.03 .82 Interview/open questions

14. provides constructive feedback to subordinates regarding ethical conduct and standards

.11 .00 ‒.00 .83 Interview/open questions

44

15. explains the values that guide his/her moral decisions to subordinates

‒.04 ‒.01 .25 .67 Interview/open questions

16. ensures that proper procedures are available for subordinates to consult on moral issues

.02 .11 ‒.02 .68 Interview/open questions

Factor name Moral characteristics

Moral cognition

Moral role modeling

Establish moralcontext

Cronbach’s alpha (subscales) .94 .88 .93 .92Cronbach’s alpha (ELM) .97Average variance extracted (AVE) 59.84% 71.55% 68.80% 56.84%

45

Table 2Definition and Description of Ethical Leadership DimensionsItems Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4Factor name Moral characteristics Moral cognition Moral role modeling Creating moral

atmosphereDefinition Whether an individual

possesses traits and characteristics that are relevant to ethics and morality, and demonstrates willingness and tendency to behave ethically

An individual’s awareness of and attention to a moral issue that has moral implications, and his or her capacity to make relevant judgments

The leader’s ability to adopt a higher ethical standard in his or her own behaviors, practice the ethical teaching he or she preaches, and set a visible ethical example for followers

The important roles a leader plays in building up a moral context through communications, setting standards, and developing codes/rules for enhancing subordinates’ ethical behaviors

What it intends to measure

What a manager ethically is

What a manager thinks ethically

What a manager does to act as a moral role model to his or her subordinates

What a manager does to develop a moral context for the team

Xiuji anren aspects Xiuji Xiuji Anren Anren

“Moral person”/“moral Manager” categories

Moral person Moral person Moral manager Moral manager

46

Table 3Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Study 3)Model χ²(df) ∆χ²(df) CFI TLI RMSEA SRMRProposed four-factor, first-order model 370.28(98) .98 .97 .06 .02

Proposed four-factor, second-order model 487.06(100) 116.78**(2) .97 .96 .07 .03

Alternative four-factor (merging moral role modeling and establishing moral contexts), first-order model

883.64(101) 513.36**(3) .94 .93 .10 .04

Alternative three-factor (merging moral role modeling and establishing moral contexts), first-order model

1370.06(101) 999.78**(3) .90 .88 .13 .05

Alternative one-factor model 1944.42(104) 1574.14**(6) .86 .83 .15 .06

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

47

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Leadership Styles (Convergent and Divergent Validity, Study 4)Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Moral characteristics 6.50 .80 .93

2. Moral cognition 5.65 1.22 .51** .963. Moral role modeling 6.49 .77 .86** .56** .95

4. Moral atmosphere creation

6.15 .89 .65** .67** .78** .90

5. ELM 6.20 .79 .84** .84** .89** .89** .966. ELS 4.45 .60 .74** .64** .82** .78** .85** .937. Idealized influence 4.36 .59 .64** .59** .69** .64** .73** .79** .85

8. Authentic leadership 4.34 .57 .52** .50** .57** .59** .63** .65** .62** .70

9. Servant leadership 6.44 .84 .62** .47** .67** .61** .67** .72** .64** .51** .90

10. Leader virtues 4.49 .63 .70** .51** .73** .66** .73** .76** .71** .58** .63** .8411. Leader narcissism 2.57 .71 –.39** –.20** –.42** –.27** –.35** –.38** –.36** –.23** –.37** –.39** .93

12. Abusive supervision 1.16 .45 –.31** –.11* –.32** –.22** –.26** –.30** –.25** –.21** –.29** –.22** .58** .95

13. Age 2.60 .72 .02 .04 ‒.01 .02 .03 ‒.00 ‒.04 .03 .01 ‒.05 .01 ‒.09 X14. Education 2.82 .50 ‒.01 ‒.07 ‒.05 ‒.03 ‒.05 ‒.01 ‒.07 ‒.00 ‒.08 ‒.02 .02 .01 ‒.11* X

15. Firm size 1.97 1.36 .07 .07 .06 .05 .07 .04 .05 .07 .08 .07 ‒.02 .02 ‒.02 ‒.08Note: Numbers in the orthogonal are the Cronbach’s alpha values. The answer anchor of ELM and servant leadership ranges from 1 to 7; the answer anchor for the other scales ranges from 1 to 5. *p < .05; ** p < .01.

48

Table 5Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Variables (Predictive Validity, Study 5)

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 121. Tenure under supervisor 2.66 2.43 NA2. ELS 3.96 .75 –.10 .923. Moral characteristics 5.92 1.14 –.01 .63** .944. Moral cognition 5.18 1.37 –.08 .70** .56** .955. Moral role modeling 5.80 1.19 .02 .75** .81** .62** .946. Moral atmosphere creation 5.53 1.14 –.03 .73** .68** .74** .75** .927. ELM 5.61 1.06 –.03 .80** .86** .85** .90** .90** .978. Organizational commitment 4.61 .94 –.02 .35** .31** .31** .29** .35** .36** .909. OCB 6.30 .68 –.03 .24** .23** .23** .24** .19** .25** .05 .9110. Job performance 3.81 .75 –.11 .12* .15** .13* .10 .13* .15* .07 .57** .9311. Follower moral attentiveness 4.47 1.17 .03 .11 .08 .18** .07 .23** .16** .10 .31** .30** .9112. Organizational level 3.95 .25 .00 ‒.06 .01 ‒.00 .01 ‒.02 ‒.00 ‒.17** ‒.03 .18** ‒.04 NANote: Numbers in the orthogonal are the Cronbach’s alpha values. The answer anchor of ELM ranges from 1 to 7; the answer anchor for the other scales ranges from 1 to 5.*p < .05; ** p < .01.

49

Table 6Incremental Regression Analysis of Ethical Leadership Measurement versus Ethical Leadership Scale on Follower Affective Organizational Commitment (Predictive Validity, Study 5)

Step 1 Step 2a(Pure ELM)

Step 2b(Pure ELS)

Step 3

β β β β

Tenure under supervisor ‒.02 ‒.01 .02 .00

Organizational level ‒.17** ‒.17** ‒.15** ‒.17**

ELS — — .34*** .14

ELM — .36*** — .25**

R2 3.10% 15.80% 14.30% 16.50%

Adjusted R2 2.40% 15.00% 13.40% 15.30%

Step 2 △R2 — 12.80%** 11.20%** —

Step 3 △R2 compared to Step 2a — — — .60%

Step 3 △R2 compared to Step 2b — — — 2.20%**

F 4.60* 18.18*** 16.10*** 14.24***

% increase in R2 compared to Step 2b 14.30%Note: Step 2a added ELM to Step 1; Step 2b added ELS to Step 1.*p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.

50

Table 7Incremental Regression Analysis of Ethical Leadership Measurement versus Ethical Leadership Scale on Follower OCBs (Predictive Validity, Study 5)

Step 1 Step 2a(Pure ELM)

Step 2b(Pure ELS)

Step 3

β β Β βTenure under supervisor ‒.03 ‒.02 ‒.00 ‒.01

Organizational level ‒.03 ‒.03 ‒.02 ‒.02

ELS — — .24*** .11

ELM — .25*** — .17†

R2 .20% 6.50% 6.00% 6.90%

Adjusted R2 ‒.50% 5.60% 5.00% 5.60%

Step 2 △R2 — 6.30%** 5.80%*** —

Step 3 △R2 compared to Step 2a — — — .40%

Step 3 △R2 compared to Step 2b — — — 1.00%†

F .25 6.74*** 6.13*** 5.37***

% increase in R2 compared to Step 2b 16.67%Note: Step 2a added ELM to Step 1; Step 2b added ELS to Step 1.† p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.

51

Table 8

Incremental Regression Analysis of Ethical Leadership Measurement versus Ethical Leadership Scale on Follower Job Performance (Predictive Validity, Study 5)

Step 1 Step 2a(Pure ELM)

Step 2b(Pure ELS)

Step 3

β β Β βTenure under supervisor ‒.11† ‒.10† ‒.10 ‒.10†

Organizational level .18** .18** .19*** .18**

ELS — — .12* .01

ELM — .14* — .14†a

R2 4.40% 6.40% 5.80% 6.40%

Adjusted R2 3.70% 5.50% 4.80% 5.10%

Step 2 △R2 2.10%* 1.40%* —

Step 3 △R2 compared to Step 2a — — — .00%

Step 3 △R2 compared to Step 2b — — — .70%

F 6.63** 6.63** 5.91** 4.96***

% increase in R2 compared to Step 2b 12.07%Note: Step 2a added ELM to Step 1; Step 2b added ELS to Step 1.† p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.a: Based on one-tailed test.

52

Table 9Incremental Regression Analysis of Ethical Leadership Measurement versus Ethical Leadership Scale on Follower Moral Attentiveness (Predictive Validity, Study 5)

Step 1 Step 2a(Pure ELM)

Step 2b(Pure ELS)

Step 3

β β Β βTenure under supervisor .03 .03 .04 .03

Organizational level ‒.04 ‒.04 ‒.03 ‒.04

ELS — — .11† ‒.06

ELM — .16** — .21*

R2 .20% 2.80% 1.40% 3.00%

Adjusted R2 ‒.50% 1.80% .40% 1.60%

Step 2 △R2 — 2.60%** 1.20%† —

Step 3 △R2 compared to Step 2a — — — .10%

Step 3 △R2 compared to Step 2b — — — 1.60%*

F .30 2.81* 1.36 2.20†

% increase in R2 compared to Step 2b 114.29%Note: Step 2a added ELM to Step 1; Step 2b added ELS to Step 1.† p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.

53

Table 10Summary of Fit Statistics for Testing Measurement Invariance of Second-Order Factor Model of Ethical Leadership Measure (Measurement Invariance, Study 6)

Model χ² df CFI TLI RMSEA

SRMR

Model Compariso

n∆χ² ∆df

Model 1: Two-groupconfigural invariance

719.37 200 .97 .97 .07 .03

Model 2:First- and second-order factor loadings invariant

814.24 212 .97 .96 .07 .07 2 vs. 1 94.87** 12

Model 3: Partial first- and second-order factor loadings invariant

720.22 203 .97 .97 .07 .03 3 vs. 1 .85 3

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

54

Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA, Study 6)Notes: The values in the parentheses are for the U.S. sample. The average variance explained (AVE) indexes for moral characteristics, moral cognition, moral role modeling, establishing moral context, and ELM are .82 (.60), .70 (.81), .73 (.88), .73 (.88), and .74 (.78), respectively, for these two samples.

.88 (.58)

.93 (.65).90 (.92)

.89 (.88)

.65 (.90).90 (.90).88 (.89)

.88 (.92)

.85 (.93).91 (.95).80 (.94)

.86 (.93)

.86 (.94).86 (.89)

.89 (.90).84 (.80)

.94 (.94)

.94 (.98)

.85 (.98)

.93 (.87)

Ethical

leadership

measure (ELM)

Moral

atmosphere

creation

Moral role

modeling

Moral

cognition

Moral

characteristics

Q16

Q15

Q14

Q13

Q12

Q11

Q10

Q9

Q8

Q7

Q6

Q5

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

55

Appendix 1: English Version of Ethical Leadership Measure

My leader

1. is willing to help

2. is kind-hearted

3. is benevolent

4. often treats others mercifully

5. thinks about the moral implications of his/her actions frequently

6. often considers issues from an ethical perspective

7. reflects on the moral appropriateness of his/her decisions

8. frequently thinks about ethical issues

9. sets an example of how to do things in the ethically correct way

10. often makes decisions consistent with his/her moral principles

11. sets examples of ethical behaviors to subordinates

12. practices moral behaviors and serves as role models to subordinates in terms of

behaving ethically

13. requires subordinates to learn and understand the codes of ethics

14. provides constructive feedback to subordinates regarding ethical conduct and

standards

15. explains the values that guide his/her moral decisions to subordinates

16. ensures that proper procedures are available for subordinates to consult on moral

issues

56

Appendix 2: Chinese Version of Ethical Leadership Measure

我的领导：1. 乐于助人2. 心地善良3. 是一个充满仁爱的人4. 常常以慈悲之心待人5. 每天都会想着自己行为是否合乎道德标准6. 经常深刻思考道德问题7. 会经常反思所做决定是否符合道德标准8. 喜欢思考道德方面的事情9. 在道德准则下如何行事方面为下属树立了榜样10.经常做出符合道德规则的决策11.在道德行为方面能为下属产生示范作用12.在行动中恪守道德价值观方面，给下属做出了表率13.要求员工确认已经阅读并理解了道德准则14.经常给员工提供有关道德行为和标准的建设性反馈15.会向员工阐明指导他/她道德决策和行为的价值观16.确信组织中已建立了相应程序，以使得员工能够询问道德准则的要求

Note: The item order in the Chinese version is the same as that in the English version.