Multi‐source research designs on ethical leadership: A literature review

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12179
• Date: 01 September 2019
• Author: Leonor Pais,Nuno Rebelo Santos,Anabela Magalhães
• Published date: 01 September 2019

Bus Soc Rev. 2019;124:345–364.

|

345

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/basr

1

|

INTRODUCTION

At the turn of the millennium, the world was impacted by major accounting scandals such as Enron

(2001), WorldCom (2002), and AIG (2005) followed by the financial crisis in 2008/2009. These

events have been considered the expression of an ethical crisis (Otken & Cenkci, 2012) and some

DOI: 10.1111/basr.12179

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Multi‐source research designs on ethical leadership:

A literature review

AnabelaMagalhães1

|

Nuno Rebelodos Santos2

|

LeonorPais1

© 2019 W. Michael Hoffman Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden,

MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.

1Faculty of Psychology and Educational

Sciences,University of Coimbra, Coimbra,

Portugal

2Departamento de Psicologia, Escola de

Ciências Sociais,Universidade de Évora,

Évora, Portugal

Correspondence

Anabela Magalhães, Faculty of Psychology

and Educational Sciences, University of

Coimbra, FPCE, Rua do Colégio Novo,

S/N, Coimbra 3000‐115, Portugal.

Email: uc2016270961@student.uc.pt,

ammagalhaes02@gmail.com

Abstract

The aim of this article is to undertake a systematic literature

review (SLR) of empirical research that uses multi‐source

methods for collecting data about Ethical Leadership (EL).

Research on this sensitive subject benefits from the inclu-

sion of data from more than one source, in order to be bet-

ter supported, and thus contribute to a deeper understanding

of leadership and business ethics issues. The search strat-

egy retrieved a total of 50 multi‐source empirical studies

on the topic of EL, published until December 2017. This

SLR shows that (a) research on EL has focused mostly on

the perceptions of followers, possibly because they are the

most accessible target of its outcomes, thus restricting the

scope of this body of research; (b) EL is studied mainly

through consideration of its consequences, a restriction that

hinders explanation of the causal processes involved in ethi-

cal leadership, which remains a research arena in need of

development. The systematic inclusion of other stakehold-

ers in multi‐source methods is advanced as a way to further

develop the field.

346

|

MAGALHÃES Et AL.

authors have pointed out that “the growing complexity of the businesses, escalating amount and speed

of information flow, and greater pressure for performance have increased the probability” of these

events (Toor & Ofori, 2009, p. 533). Concerns about ethical issues in leadership brought about by this

ethical crisis are frequently expressed by the scientific community in academic research and publica-

tions (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006; McClaren, 2013; Suhonen, Stolt, Virtanen, & Leino‐Kilpi, 2011).

What are these ethical concerns and how are they defined? Can this body of research contribute to

minimizing the occurrence or the effects of these ethical crises?

The ethical concern in leadership studies has become prominent since the late twentieth century

and encompasses both virtuous and counter‐virtuous leadership models. In the scientific literature,

various examples can be found, for example, Authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Cervo,

Mónico, dos Santos, Hutz, & Pais, 2016; Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011); Servant leader-

ship (Anderson & Sun, 2017; Jaramillo, Bande, & Varela, 2015; Parris & Peachey, 2013) and Ethical

leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005). The underlying definitions

of these models embrace various ethical issues. For example, Authentic Leadership implies concepts

such as the moral character, ethical values, and ethical choices of leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999;

Kanungo, 2001; Keeley, 1995); Servant leadership theory considers that “Servant leaders act in the

best interest of the employee and prioritize their individual growth and development” (Jaramillo et

al., 2015, p. 108) and, EL emphasizes the role of leaders as a source of ethical guidance (Brown &

Treviño, 2006; Brown et al., 2005).

Other models, focusing on the negative side of leadership, complement the general movement

that highlights the virtuousness of leadership while considering the negative side of the phenomenon.

Concepts such as Abusive supervision (Pundt, 2014; Tepper, 2000), Toxic (Lipman‐Blumen, 2005) or

Destructive Leadership (Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2010) express the “dark

side of leadership” (Conger, 1990) and its influence on others. These approaches to wicked leader-

ship highlight its counter‐virtuousness, trying to show it has undermining effects which organizations

should avoid and prevent.

The EL conceptualization defined in 2005 by Brown and colleagues is of recognized importance in

this research field. EL is defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through per-

sonal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through

two‐way communication, reinforcement, and decision‐making” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). This con-

ceptualization, widely adopted among researchers (e.g., Bhal & Dadhich, 2011; Bouckenooghe, Zafar,

& Raja, 2015; Hansen, Alge, Brown, Jackson, & Dunford, 2013; Kalshoven & Boon, 2012) encom-

passes two dimensions of an ethical leader, suggested by Treviño, Hartman, and Brown (2000): the

moral person and the moral manager. The first, relates to personal characteristics such as honesty or

trustworthiness, concern for people, and society, behaving in a normatively appropriate way and hold-

ing to values in his/her decisions; the second relates to visible and proactive actions toward employees,

communicating and using rewards and discipline in order to promote ethical conduct among them.

As an influent model in EL research, the frequent links of the current literature to deontological

and ethical perspectives is not surprising (Letwin et al., 2016; Mitchell, 2012), although the study of

effects of EL are the most prevalent aim of studies. To avoid repetitions of unethical practices we need

to understand the processes that contribute to them. Since principled leadership is relevant we need

to understand how ethical leadership can be fostered. According to Brown and Treviño (Brown &

Treviño, 2006; Brown et al., 2005; Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2003) this depends to a large extent,

on the social learning modeled by principled leaders, which suggests more generally that the ethical

principles and how they become enacted in organizations, are the critical factors to be studied.

At the operational level, the measure of EL (Brown et al., 2005) relies on the perception by fol-

lowers, of leaders' behaviors and actions. However, followers are only one of the groups influenced