Supervisor expediency to employee expediency: The moderating role of leader–member exchange and the mediating role of employee unethical tolerance

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2258
• Published date: 01 May 2018
• Date: 01 May 2018

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Supervisor expediency to employee expediency: The

moderating role of leader–member exchange and the mediating

role of employee unethical tolerance

Rebecca L. Greenbaum

1

|Mary B. Mawritz

2

|Julena M. Bonner

3

|

Brian D. Webster

4

|Joseph Kim

5

1

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,

Oklahoma, U.S.A.

2

Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

U.S.A.

3

Utah State University, Logan, Utah, U.S.A.

4

Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, U.S.A.

5

Temple University, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Rebecca L. Greenbaum, Oklahoma State

University, Spears School of Business,

Department of Management, 318 Business

Building, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, U.S.A.

Email: rebecca.greenbaum@okstate.edu

Summary

We utilize social learning theory to test the role‐modeling effect of supervisor expediency (i.e., a

supervisor's use of unethical practices to expedite work for self‐serving purposes). In particular,

we examine the relationship between supervisor expediency and employee expediency, as mod-

erated by leader–member exchange (LMX) and mediated by employee unethical tolerance. We

predict that employees are more likely to model their supervisors' expedient behaviors when their

relationship is characterized by high‐LMX (a high‐quality exchange relationship that is rich in

socioemotional support). Furthermore, we argue that supervisor expediency, especially when

LMX is high, influences employees' attitudes of unethical tolerance, which then affects

employees' expedient behaviors. Across 2 multisource field studies and a third time‐lagged field

study, we found general support for our theoretical predictions. Theoreticaland practical implica-

tions are discussed.

KEYWORDS

behavioral ethics, expediency, leadership, LMX, unethical behavior

1|INTRODUCTION

In an NBC News article, Eve Tahmincioglu (2008) chronicles stories of

employees who put themselves in legal jeopardy by following their

bosses' orders and/or example. She warns employees not to “… wear

blinders when dealing with the boss,”especially because the argument

that “my boss made me do it”is not defensible in court. Indeed, even

some of the most historic ethical scandals (e.g., Enron Corporation)

provide evidence that employees' ethical lapses are at least partly

due to their supervisors' influence (McLean & Elkind, 2003). Given that

employees naturally look to their supervisors for guidance on how to

behave (Bandura, 1986; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005), it makes

sense that employees may follow their supervisors' lead when it comes

to engaging in unethical practices (Treviño & Nelson, 2011). Employees

may find it quite difficult to disregard their supervisors' examples of

unethical conduct (Treviño & Brown, 2004). Yet the conditions that

make the modeling of supervisors' unethical behaviors more likely, as

well as the processes by which these behaviors are adopted, remain

under investigated.

Thus, we set out to understand “when”and “why”employees

model their supervisors' unethical behaviors in the form of “supervisor

expediency,”a new construct that we define as a supervisor's “use of

unethical practices to expedite work for self‐serving purposes.”

Although supervisor expediency is unethical to the extent that it vio-

lates moral expectations that are typically endorsed by society (Treviño,

Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006), supervisors may regularly engage in expe-

diency as a way of efficiently taking care of business (Parks, Ma, &

Gallagher, 2010). Supervisors engage in expediency when they cut cor-

ners to complete work tasks more quickly or alter performance num-

bers to appear more successful. By examining supervisor expediency,

in particular, we study a form of unethical supervision that may come

across as less morally intense and more commonplace than other forms

of unethical behavior (e.g., theft; see Jones, 1991) and, therefore, may

be highly likely to be role modeled by employees. Importantly, we argue

that although it may be viewed as innocuous, supervisor expediency, as

a specific form of unethical leadership, can spawn employees to adopt

attitudes of unethical tolerance, which could result in a proliferation

of unethical conduct (Cialdini, Petrova, & Goldstein, 2004).

Received: 26 October 2015 Revised: 19 September 2017 Accepted: 26 November 2017

DOI: 10.1002/job.2258

J Organ Behav. 2018;39:525–541. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 525

We utilize social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) to explain

our theoretical model. We suggest that when the supervisor–

employee relationship is characterized by high levels of mutual respect,

trust, liking, and support (i.e., high leader–member exchange [LMX];

Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Graen & Uhl‐Bien, 1995), employees are more

likely to look to their supervisors for guidance on how to behave and

thus are more likely to adopt their supervisors' expediency. Addition-

ally, because a supervisor's expediency undermines the importance

of adhering to ethical standards, employees in high‐LMX relationships

will respond by adopting attitudes of unethical tolerance (i.e., the

extent to which employees view unethical business practices as

acceptable; Froelich & Kottke, 1991) and subsequently engage in

similar expedient behaviors.

We intend to make a number of theoretical and practical contribu-

tions to the literature. First, we contribute to research on unethical lead-

ership. To date, most unethical supervision research has examined

rather broad forms of unethical leadership (e.g., Craig & Gustafson,

1998) or has focused on supervisors' mistreatment of employees (e.g.,

abusive supervision and supervisor undermining; Brown & Mitchell,

2010). We argue that there is value in studying supervisor expediency,

as a form of unethical leadership, because cutting corners and breaking

rules to improve one's performance may come across as working smart

and efficiently (Parks et al., 2010). Yet supervisor expediency could be

problematic to the extent that it influences employees' attitudes of

unethical tolerance, which may pave the way for employees' own expe-

diency and the propagation of unethical conduct more generally. By

examining supervisor expediency, as a specific form of unethical leader-

ship, we seek to demonstrate that less morally intense unethical leader-

ship practices can still be destructive due to role‐modeling effects.

Second, we contribute to the burgeoning literature that has begun

to examine the drawbacks of high LMX (e.g., Kamdar & Van Dyne,

2007; Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012) and the benefits of low LMX (e.g.,

Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden, & Rousseau, 2010). We offer a different

perspective than prior studies by examining the role of LMX in propa-

gating unethical conduct. We suggest that because employees are

more likely to view their high‐LMX leaders as attractive role models,

they will be more likely to mimic their leaders' expediency. Thus, the

positive qualities inherent in high‐LMX relationships can be problem-

atic due to the possibility of dysfunctional role‐modeling effects.

Although high‐LMX relationships are generally desirable and should

be encouraged, practitioners need to be aware that these high‐quality

relationships could encourage a “monkey see, monkey do”effect

(Robinson & O'Leary‐Kelly, 1998) of modeling negative behaviors.

Finally, we utilize social learning arguments (Bandura, 1977, 1986)

to identify the formation of employee attitudes as an important, yet

understudied, explanation for why unethical supervisory behaviors

may be role modeled by subordinates. Although studies of unethical

supervision have proposed social learning effects (e.g., Mawritz, Mayer,

Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012), an examination of specific,

role‐modeling mediators remains understudied. We argue that supervi-

sory behaviors shape employee attitudes (e.g., Bandura, 1971, 1977),

which in turn propagate attitude‐consistent behaviors (e.g., Fishbein &

Ajzen, 2011). Specific to our research model, we argue that supervisor

expediency fosters employees' attitudes of unethical tolerance, which

in turn stimulates employees' own expedient behaviors. Thus, our

research suggests that even less morally intense unethical supervisory

behaviors can be problematic to the extent that they drive a role‐

modeling process. Please see Figure 1 for our theoretical model.

1.1 |Theoretical rationale and hypotheses

1.1.1 |A review of leadership related to ethics

Research on leadership related to ethics has mainly fallen into two dom-

inant categories: ethical and unethical leadership (Treviño, Hartman, &

Brown, 2000; Treviño & Nelson, 2011). Ethical leaders demonstrate

“… normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and inter-

personal relationships, and …[promote] such conduct to followers

through two‐way communication, reinforcement, and decision‐making”

(Brown et al., 2005; p. 120). The concept of ethical leadership has been

extensively studied and is related to a number of desirable outcomes,

including enhanced employee performance (e.g., Piccolo, Greenbaum,

Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010) and reduced dysfunctional and political

workplace behaviors (e.g., Kacmar, Andrews, Harris, & Tepper, 2013;

Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009).

On the other hand, unethical leadership exists when leaders

engage in behaviors and/or make decisions that are “… illegal and/or

violate moral standards, and impose processes and structures that pro-

mote unethical conduct to followers”(Brown & Mitchell, 2010; p. 588).

Unethical leadership has been studied in a variety of ways. For exam-

ple, the perceived leader integrity scale (PLIS) was created to “…

describe leader behaviors which are clearly unethical, rather than pos-

itive or desirable”(Craig & Gustafson, 1998; p. 130). The PLIS is a

broad measure that assesses a wide range of unethical behaviors that

may be exhibited in a variety of organizational settings. For example,

the measure includes items related to unlawful behaviors, human

resource practices, truth telling, and maliciousness. Furthermore, the

PLIS was developed such that “… the majority of items focus on inter-

personal relations among subordinate respondents and their leaders”

(p. 129). Using the PLIS, a supervisor's unethical behaviors would

include actions such as being evil, striving to get even with employees,

using blackmail when dealing with employees, and firing employees

due to dislike rather than cause.

Additionally, a considerable amount of research has investigated

unethical leadership in the forms of abusive supervision and supervisor

Supervisor Expediency

LMX

Employee Unethical

Tolerance Employee Expediency

FIGURE 1 Hypothesized theoretical model.

LMX = leader–member exchange

526 GREENBAUM ET AL.