1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND INDIVIDUAL-DIRECTED

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR:

THE MODERATING EFFECT OF LEADER-MEMBER-EXCHANGE

By

Yeung Quenson

10018026

Human Resources Management Concentration

An Honors Degree Project Submitted to the School of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation

Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor Business Administration (Honors)

Hong Kong Baptist University

Hong Kong

April 2013

2

Acknowledgement

I would like to show my deepest gratitude to Dr. Alicia Leung for her kind support and invaluable guidance

provided in the past 1 year. As a student without any previous experience in conducting research, it would

not be possible to complete a research in such a short period of time without her support and advice. I am

also thankful to all those corporations and their respective employees for showing their willingness and

spending their time to complete the surveys.

3

Abstract

This study attempts to explore how ethical leadership may affect subordinates’ performance of

Individual-Directed Organization Citizenship Behaviour (OCBI) and the moderating role played by

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). 118 valid data were used to analyze and interpret the result. A positive

relationship between ethical leadership and OCBI was found. LMX was also found to be a significant

moderator: ethical leadership was a stronger predictor of OCBI when the quality of relationship between

direct supervisor and subordinates are higher.

4

INTRODUCTION

In today’s business world, apart from task performance, contextual performance, is also gaining increasing

importance in organizations. Contextual performance refers to performance not formally required but

performed by employees voluntarily. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour is one of the contextual

performances. Both scholars and management are interested in how to induce the performance of OCBs. As

leaders “provide cues for what behavior is appropriate and make salient the situational needs for prosocial

gestures.”(Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. 1983), leadership, as described as the “process of social

influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common

task.”( Chemers M. ,1997) , is known to have much influence on employees’ behavior which could be

explained through social exchange(Blau, P. 1964) and social learning theory (Bandura, A, 1977). Among all

the leadership styles being recognized and studied, ethical leadership has been the most popular studied in

recent years due to the limited research done on it and the increasing concern and emphasis of the public

have put on business ethics especially after the financial crisis in 2008, people are becoming increasingly

concern about the ethical standards of the leaders in the organizations. It would not be surprised that ethical

leadership could also influence the employees’ behaviour especially of ethical conducts. However, much of

the research done on ethical leadership has been on its descriptive aspect rather than on its effects. Hence,

this study attempted to explore how ethical leadership of which I refer to the top management of the

organization may affect Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) especially Individual-Directed

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCBI) performed by their employees. Also, seldom do leaders treat

their subordinates as the same and the quality of their relationship would affect the trust the followers have

on their leaders which would indeed affect the way they model and learn from their leaders. As a result,

Leader Member Exchange (LMX) has been included in the model so as to explore under what conditions

OCB would be more prominent under the influence of ethical leadership. The purpose of the study is to

examine the relationship between ethical leadership and OCBIs performed by their employees and how

LMX would moderate their relationship.

5

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

To examine whether ethical leadership would have an impact on employee’s performance of OCBI

To examine how may LMX, the quality of relationship formed between leaders and subordinates,

moderate their relationship.

To provide practical implications on the importance of ethical leadership training as it would

contribute to prosocial organizational behaviors.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Ethical leadership

Ethical Leadership is defined 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” (Brown, Trevin˜o, and Harrison, 2005). It captures

how the employees perceive the ethical behaviours inferred from the leaders’ acts. Ethical leaders are

characterized in several ways. Firstly, according to the definition proposed by Brown, Trevin~o and Harrison,

ethical leaders influence their subordinate behaviour in mainly two ways. First of all, they would act as the

role-model by making the ethical standards explicit and act in alignment with them. Also, they would make

ethical standards (required) explicit to the subordinates and would reinforce their subordinates’ behaviour

meeting the predetermined ethical standard by rewarding them and to punish those who failed to do so.

Research has showed that reinforcement plays a critical role in role modeling effectiveness as the followers

usually play special attention to those controlling key resources, making rewards and punishment decisions.

Power sharing is another dimension of ethical leaders. De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) claimed that

ethical leaders involve subordinates in decision making process and listen to their ideas and concerns. They

have also found a high correlation between employees’ sense of autonomy and ethical leadership using the

Brown et al. (2005) measurement scale.

Some scholars have once regarded ethical leadership as indifferent with other leadership styles like

transformational leadership and charismatic leadership. Michael E. Brown a, Linda K. Treviño b, David .

Harrison (2006) argued that it’s not untrue that some aspects of ethical leadership are related to other

6

leadership styles and characteristics, but none of those leaderships is broad enough to cover all aspects of

ethical leadership. Their differences mainly lie on three areas. Firstly, ethical standard and moral

management are the primary concerns for ethical leaders. Though transformational and spiritual leaders still

consider about ethics, creating shared vision and values are still their primary concerns and emphasis.

Secondly, ethical leaders are themselves ethical while for transformational and charismatic leaders, whether

they are ethical are not depend on themselves (Bass, 1998). Not every transformational and charismatic

leader is ethical in nature and it is not guaranteed that they would use their personal influence to foster an

ethical working environment. Thirdly, ethical leaders are distinct from other leaders through their

transactional styles when reinforcing follower’s ethical behavior ( M.E. Brown, L.K. Treviño ,2006).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)

Decades before Organ gave a formal definition to Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Katz (1964) had

already identified the spontaneous activity that goes beyond role definitions as one of the indispensable

elements for a functional body. He further pointed out that any organizations rely solely on prescribed or

predetermined roles would simply be a fragile social system. Organizational Citizenship behavior is defined

as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward

system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ 1988).

There are 7 dimensions of OCB which are altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, sportsmanship

(Organ 1988), peacekeeping and cheerleading (Organ 1990). In short, OCB refers to some spontaneous

behavior performed by employees which are not formally required. Research on OCB further divides it into

OCBO and OCBI. OCBO refers to OCB targeted at organization which includes conscientiousness, civic

virtue, and sportsmanship. OCBI refer to OCB targeted at individuals which include altruism, courtesy,

peacekeeping and cheerleading. A study done by Larry J. Williams and Stella E. Anderson in 1991 has

showed that OCBI and OCBO are two distinct types of performance. Williams and Anderson’s (1991)

categorization of OCB has incorporated most of the OCB constructs available. For OCBI, apart from the 4

dimensions proposed by Organ, it also covers Graham’s(1989) interpersonal helping, Van Scotter and

Motowidlo’s(1996) interpersonal facilitation, and Farh, Earley, and Lin’s (1997) helping coworkers and

7

interpersonal harmony construct. According to Organ, altruism refers to voluntary behavior aimed at helping

colleagues in dealing with tasks which are germane to organizations. Courtesy refers to voluntary behaviours

aiming at preventing work-conflict behaviours with colleagues. Peacekeeping refers to acts devoted at

mediating or preventing conflicts with coworkers. Cheerleading refers to verbal encouragements given to

colleagues. Interpersonal helping focuses on helping co-workers. Interpersonal facilitation refers to

interpersonal behaviors aiming at maintaining the organization’s interpersonal environment. Farh, Earley,

and Lin’s constructs are basically similar to those defined above.

When deciding which construct to adopt, we should bear in mind the ‘target similarity effect’ (Lavelle, Rupp,

& Brockner, 2007) and the claims made by Organ in 1994 about the predictor tend to “predict aggregations

of thematically related behaviours.” For this study, I would focus on investigating the effect of ethical

leadership on OCBI and Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCBI scale would be used to evaluate OCBI.

Ethical leadership and OCBI

Ethical leaders, as they would perform and demonstrate some normatively appropriate conduct, they would

serve as the role model to the employees and “provide cues for what behavior is appropriate and make

salient the situational needs for prosocial gestures.”(Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. 1983). From the

social learning perspective, modeling would influence the followers’ behavior as they are seen as credible

which may induce them to perform more OCBs. Berkowitz (1970) also strongly suggest that many forms of

prosocial behavior are influenced by models. The reinforcement nature of ethical leaders would also induce

the employees to perform OCBs more frequently and ethical leaders would promote certain ethical

behaviours by using rewards and punishment to reinforce them and according to research, reinforcement

plays critical role in determining modeling effectiveness. This is somewhat similar to the Kelman's (1958)

typology of social influence processes of which the employees would internalize their leader’s conduct and

belief and behave consistently with them. I believe that ethical leaders, as a role model perceived by

employees through demonstrating appropriate and ethical conducts, could exert certain influence on their

employees acts and their reinforcement nature would simply strengthen their influence which could affect

them to perform more OCBs.

8

I propose ethical leadership will have a positive association with OCBI but not OCBO mainly due to two

reasons. Firstly according the target similarity effect as proposed by Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner (2007),

constructs’ will have a stronger association when they refer to the same target. Since leaders and followers’

relationship is more interpersonal in nature, Ethical leadership and OCBI’s association would be stronger

than that with OCBO. Also, Organ (1994) also claimed that predictors tend to predict aggregations of

thematically related behaviours, as leader’s influence process on followers and the Leader Member

Exchange of which is included in our study as a moderator are interpersonal in nature, measuring OCBI

would be more appropriate.

Hypothesis 1: Ethical leadership has a positive relationship with Individual- Directed Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour

Role of leader-member exchange (LMX)

Leader Member Exchange (LMX) (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) describes the dynamic relationship

between leaders and followers. It recognizes that leaders do not always view or treat their followers in the

same way. The high quality exchange relationship between leaders and followers is characterized as social

exchange which extends beyond the economic exchange which is specified in contractual agreement.

Followers enjoying this kind of relationship with leaders are regarded as in-group members and they often

has more personal obligation, higher trust in leaders and more interaction with leaders. They would also

receive more promotion opportunities. For low quality exchange relationship, it is characterized as economic

exchange of which their relationship remains only in those specified in the contractual agreements.

Followers enjoying this kind of relationship with leaders are regarded as out-group members of which

fulfilling self-interest is their primary goal and there is little reciprocity with leaders. Blau (1964) also

claimed that only social exchange tends to elicit feelings of personal obligation, gratitude, and trust; while

purely economic exchange does not. Based on social learning theory, followers tend to learn from and model

the leaders who are perceived as credible. As high quality LMX relationship is social exchange in nature

which tends to elicit trust between followers and leaders ( Blau, 1964), the followers would learn from their

9

leaders and model their behaviours according to social learning theory. Hence, I believe that followers

enjoying high quality LMX relationship with ethical leaders would tend to learn and model their leaders to

perform OCBI more frequently. Also, according to Kelman's (1958) typology of social influence processes,

followers would internalize their leaders’ belief and act consistently with them. As followers enjoying high

quality LMX relationships have more trust on their leaders, they would tend to be more willing to internalize

the ethical leaders’ believe and act consistently with them which may perform OCBI more frequently. On the

contrary, as low quality LMX relationship is economic exchange in nature, followers may have less

communication and trust on their leaders, they would internalize their leader’s value and model their leaders’

behavior less. Hence, I propose that the association between ethical leadership and OCBI will be stronger

when the leaders and followers are enjoying high quality LMX relationship and vice versa.

I believe that even for ethical leaders, they would still form different kind of relationship with different

followers and hence, the quality of relationship formed would affect their influence on followers’

behaviours.

Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between ethical leadership and OCBI would be stronger when the quality of

leader-member relationship is higher.

Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between ethical leadership and OCBI would be weaker when the quality of

leader-member relationship is lower.

10

METHODOLOGY

Sample

151 questionnaires were distributed to various organizations located in Hong Kong. Response rate is 78% of

which 125 questionnaires were collected back while only 118 of them are valid. Some of the questionnaires

are distributed by the supervisors of the respective companies while some are distributed through some

colleagues. Among those valid responses, 67 (57%) of them are male while 51 (43%) of them are female.

94% of the valid respondents are full time workers. The age of the respondents ranges from 19 to 56 years

old with a mean of 31 years old. The respondents’ working experience ranges from 1 to 360 months with a

mean of 41 months.

Procedures

Some of the questionnaires are distributed by the supervisors of the respective companies while some are

distributed through some colleagues. For both group of respondents, a cover letter explaining about the

purpose of the research was attached in order to let them have a thorough understanding of the study as well

as to minimize or eliminate their suspicions towards the survey to obtain the most honest response. Verbal

explanation regarding the purpose of the study was also delivered by the supervisors or colleagues

representatives to the respondents.

Survey Measures

As required by the respondents’’ organizations, all the survey measures were administered in Chinese.

Ethical Leadership (ELS)

.The Brown et al.’s (2005) 10-item ethical leadership scale was employed to ask the respondents to rate their

leaders. The scale contains questions like “The leader listens to what employees have to say” and the

respondents were asked to rate from scale 1(Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree). The reliability of ELS

scale of the present study was 0.94.

Individual-Directed Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCBI)

Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCBI scale was used to ask the respondents to evaluate their own

11

performance of OCBI from 1(Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree). It contains questions like “I take time

to listen to co-workers’ problems and worries”. The reliability of the OCBI scale in the present study was

0.83.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

To measure the quality of relationship between the respondents and their leaders, the Liden, R. C., & Maslyn,

J. M. (1998) Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange scale was used and it contains questions like

“My supervisor understands my problems and needs well enough.” Respondents then rated the quality of

their relationships with their leadership from 1(Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree). The reliability of the

LMX scale in the present study was 0.81.

12

Analysis

SPSS was used to run and analyze the data. A hierarchical regression analyses was carried out to test the

hypotheses as specified of this study. To test the moderating effect of LMX on the effects of ethical

leadership on employees’ performance of OCBIs, the independent variable ( ELS) and moderator (LMX)

were standardized to reduce the problem of collinearity. Continuous controlled variables are standardized as

well. The standardized ethical leadership and standardized LMX were then multiplied to obtain the

interaction term so as to show the synergy between them. A two way interaction model was also plotted by

using the procedures of Aiken and West (1991) and Dawson and Richter (2006) to show the two way

moderating effect.

Results

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age 30.90 8.39

2. Working Status .94 .24 .14

3.Working Experience 41.01 53.32 0.065** .081

4. Gender .43 .50 -.075 .002 -.032

5. ELS 3.68 .76 -.057 .084 -.048 .084 (0.936)

6. LMX 3.63 .58 -.091 .034 -.148 .094 .666**

(0.814)

7. OCBI 3.97 .54 .081 -.033 .129 .086 .313**

.233* (0.832)

Note:N=118 *p

13

higher than 0.7 which implies that all of them are fully accepted

14

Table 2

Results for Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Hypotheses Testing:

The Moderation Model

DV: Organizational Citizenship Behaviour-Individual Directed

M1 M2 M3

Control Variables:

Gender 0.09 0.06 0.06

Age 0.02 0.03 0.09

Working Status -0.05 -0.08 -0.09

Working Experience (in months) 0.12 0.14 0.11

IV

Ethical Leadership

0.28** 0.30**

Moderator

LMX

0.07 0.19

IV x Moderator

Ethical Leadership x Moderator

0.37***

R²

0.13** 0.25***

d.f. 4,113 6,111 7,110

ΔR² 0.11** 0.11***

Note: N=118(standardized coefficients are reported) *p

15

Gender:(Male=1, Female=0)

Table 2 shows the results for hierarchical regression analyses of which our hypotheses were

tested. In step 1, I firstly controlled those control variables. TheΔR² was 0.027 but not

significant. In step 2, I entered the standardized independent variable (ELS) and

standardized moderator (LMX). The ΔR² was 0.105 with p

16

LMX As A Moderator Between Ethical Leadership and Individual-Directed

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Meanwhile, a two way interaction model was also plotted by using the procedures of Aiken and West (1991)

and Dawson and Richter (2006) to show the two way moderating effect. The values plotted represent high

(Plus 1 SD above mean) and low (Minus 1 SD from the mean) levels of LMX in terms of Ethical Leadership

and OCBI. As shown in Figure 1, the positive association between Ethical Leadership and OCBI was

stronger when LMX was higher. The positive association between Ethical Leadership and OCBI was weaker

when LMX was weaker. All in all, LMX is a significant moderator for the relationship between Ethical

Leadership and OCBI.

DISCUSSION

The study has made several contributions. Firstly, it demonstrates the effects of ethical leadership. Howell

and Hall Merenda in 1999 claimed that in the leadership research field, there is a kind of association

between leaders and followers behaviour. Our study shows how ethical leaders affect their followers’

behavior. A β= 0.28 was reported between ethical leadership and the followers’ performance of OCBI in our

study which shows that ethical leadership is positively related to their followers’ performance of OCBI. This

phenomenon could be attributed to Kelman’s (1958) typology of social influence process. Due to ethical

leaders’ ability to form and perform a high ethical standard and to articulate a vision of which are admired

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low Ethical Leadership High Ethical Leadership

OC

BI

Low LMX

High LMX

17

by their followers, the followers may have a personal identification formed. Then, the followers internalize

the beliefs and values of the ethical leaders and behave consistently with them. This kind of association

could also be explained by the social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) which suggests that people learn by

observing others’ behaviour. Since ethical leaders set ethical standard explicitly and act according with them

(Brown, Trevin~o and Harrison, 2005), their followers would simply learn by observing the ethical conducts

performed by their leaders.

Apart from that, this study also highlights the role played by LMX in the association between leadership and

their followers’ behaviour. LMX has been found to be positively related to OCBs. Podsakoff et al. (2000)

also found that LMX was positively associated with altruism and an overall composite measure of OCB.

This study shows that LMX is a significant moderator between ethical leadership and their followers’

performance of OCBI (β =0.37) of which it strengthens the relationship between ethical leadership and

followers’ OCBI when LMX score is high and vice versa. This could be explained by the fact that those

followers enjoying higher quality relationship with their leaders have more trust on their leaders (Blau, 1964)

and they model from their leaders based so social learning theory.

18

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

Our study offers several implications for practical managers. Firstly, it demonstrates the importance of

leadership behavior. As shown by our present study, there is a positive association between ethical

leadership and subordinates’ performance of OCBI. The ethical leaders induce the performance of

subordinates’ OCBI in two ways which are setting up the role-model and to use transactional styles to

reinforce those desirable and ethical behaviors. Previous research has also shown the effects of OCBs to

organizations. Research done by Mossholder,Settoon, & Henagan in 2005 have shown that the actual and

intended turnover rate are lower when the performance of OCBs are higher or demonstrated more

frequently. OCBs were also positively associated with customer satisfaction (Nathan P. Podsakoff, Steven W.

Whiting, & Philip M. Podsakoff, 2009). Hence, having ethical leaders would indirectly improve the

organization’s effectiveness and performance by inducing the performance of OCBs. As corporate social

responsibility (CSR) has become an indispensable part of any businesses or organizations, having ethical

leaders could help building an ethical culture within the company and capture the CSR opportunities.

Besides, this study also highlights the quality of relationship between leaders and subordinates. Leaders who

want to elicit more OCBs performed by their subordinates should try to build relationship with better quality

which goes beyond the economic exchange. Enjoying a high quality relationship which is characterized as

social exchange elicit trust between followers and leaders (Blau, 1964) and the followers would learn from

their leaders and model their behaviours according to social learning theory. Hence, once the leaders are

ethical themselves who perform ethical conducts and probably OCBs, their subordinates would model their

behaviour and perform more OCBs as well.

LIMITATIONS

There are some limitations regarding this study. Firstly, due to time constraint, only 150 surveys were

distributed and 125 were collected. The sample size may not be large or representative enough to show the

actual situation in the companies. Meanwhile, the whole questionnaires are for employees self-reported.

Leniency effect may occur in the self-evaluated OCBI part. Nevertheless, some of the surveys are distributed

to the employees through their direct supervisors, the employees may intend to produce some social

desirable responses which may inflate the ratings in the ethical leadership part. Some of them may also tend

19

to inflate their supervisors’ rating in the ethical leadership part being afraid that the survey may be used in

their performance evaluation. A better to do this is to distribute the surveys to employees by myself after

gaining permission from the company and to set up a survey collection box in the companies to minimize

employees’ suspicion. Also, employees should be responsible for responding to ethical leadership and LMX

scale part while their supervisors would be responsible for rating the followers’ performance of OCBI so as

to obtain more honest responses.

Besides, this study attempts to explore how the direct supervisors may affect subordinates’ behaviour,

specifically OCBI. However, the organizations’ leaders like the CEO may also play a part in affecting or

influencing the employees’ behaviour. The influence of the organizations’ leaders has not been addressed in

this study.

In addition, we may have neglected other factors like organizational culture and justice which are proved to

affect the performance of OCBs. It is possible that factors like organizational culture, instead of ethical

leadership accounts for the occurrence of OCBI. If the culture of the companies where we distribute

questionnaires is extremely caring, even with the absence of ethical leaders, respondents’ ratings of OCBI

will still be very high, Spurious correlation may be resulted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In addition to the points addressed above, there are several avenues that future research could address.

Firstly, the effects of ethical leadership on Organization-Directed Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

(OCBO) could be studied as well since supervisor may sometimes serve as a proxy of the organization (Joy

H. Karriker and Margaret L. Williams, 2009) so that the employees may perform more OCBO in return if

the leaders are ethical.

Besides, in this study, LMX is studied as a moderator between ethical leadership and OCBI. For future

research, LMX could be studied as a mediator between ethical leadership and OCBI. Previous research has

already shown a positive relation between LMX and OCBI. This could contribute more to ethical leadership

of whether being ethical leaders could enjoy or build a relationship with subordinates of better quality.

20

Also, future study could examine whether other senior figures like the CEOs but not the direct supervisors of

the employees may have an influence on the employees’ behaviour or OCBs.

21

CONCLUSION

This study attempts to examine the relationship between ethical leadership and the performance of their

direct subordinates’ performance of OCBI. It also examines the moderating effect of LMX on the

relationship specified above. This study has shown the positive association between ethical leadership and

subordinates’ performance of OCBI. Nevertheless, LMX has also been found to be a significant moderator

of their relationship. It gives some clues to leaders and organizations on how to induce their employees to

perform more OCBs to ultimately improve the organization performance and effectiveness.

22

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press.

Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Berkowitz, L 1970. The self, selfishness, and altruism In J Macauley & L Berkowitz (Eds), Altruism and

helping behavior New York Academic Press.

Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for

construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117−134.

Brown, M. E., & Trevin˜o, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 595–616.

Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc..

Chemers M. 1997. An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal

organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.

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.

The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297–311.

23

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, 42, 421–444.

Graham, J. W. 1989. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and

validation. Unpublished working paper, Loyola University of Chicago.

Joy H. Karriker and Margaret L. Williams 2009. Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: A Mediated Multifoci Model? Journal of Management, 35:112.

Katz, D 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science 9, 131-133.

Kelman, H. C. 1958. Compliance, identification, and in ternalization: Three processes of attitude change.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 51-56.

Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. 2007. Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social

exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 3,

841–866.

Nathan P. Podsakoff, Steven W. Whiting, & Philip M. Podsakoff 2005. Individual- and Organizational-Level

Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,

94, 122-141.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The "good soldier" syndrome. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

24

Cummings (Eds.), motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 12: 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Organ, D. W. 1994. Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20,

465–478.

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and

antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of

organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617.

Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation

140 PODSAKOFF, WHITING, PODSAKOFF, AND BLUME and job dedication as separate facets of

contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.

25

Appendix A

Questionnaire for ethical

leadership, LMX and

OCBI

26

敬啟者:

您好，本人是香港浸會大學工商管理學院人力資源管理學系三年級學生，現正進行一項學術

研究，完成這項研究報告是我獲取工商管理學士(榮譽)學位資格的其中一項重要的要求。非常感謝您

能撥冗幫忙填寫本問卷，不勝感激。

此研究報告本問卷有關您對自己以及直屬上司的看法。填寫這問卷大約需要 10-15 分鐘。您的回答沒

有對錯之分，請依據實際情況回答。您填寫的資訊是完全保密的，並僅用於學術研究。所有資料只做

總體分析，不會披露和彙報個人資料，請您放心填答。完成問卷後，請於 2013年 3月 1日前電郵至

10018026@life.hkbu.edu.hk。如有任何問題，可致電 9759-0306 或以電郵與我聯絡。

最後，我在此致上最誠摯的謝意，並祝您身體健康，事業成功！

楊觀笙 謹啟

香港浸會大學人力資源管理學系三年級學生

27

第一部份: 評估直屬上司

(一) 請判斷您是否同意以下對您現職工作的直屬上司的

描述，並在右欄中(1 至 5)圈選出代表您意見的數

字。

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

不

確

定

同

意

非

常

同

意

1. 聆聽我們的意見。………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

2. 經常顧及我們利益。……………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

3. 作出公平決定。…………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

4. 是可信的。………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

5. 與我們討論商業道德。…………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

6. 示範如何以道德方式完成事情。………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

7. 懲罰違反道德標準的員工。……………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

8. 以道德方式生活。………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

9. 以工作成果及其達到的方法去決定工作是否成功。………… 1 2 3 4 5

10. 在作出決定時會問/考慮什麼才是正確要做的事。………….. 1 2 3 4 5

28

第二部份: 自我評估

(一) 請判斷您是否同意以下對您的描述，並在右欄中(1

至 5)圈選出代表您意見的數字。

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

不

確

定

同

意

非

常

同

意

1. 一般來說，我很清楚我的上司是否滿意我的工作表現。……….. 1 2 3 4 5

2. 上司對我工作上的問題和需要有足夠的了解。……………….. 1 2 3 4 5

3. 上司非常清楚我的潛力。………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

4. 上司會運用個人的權力來幫我解決我工作上的問題。…….….. 1 2 3 4 5

5. 我知道當我有需要時，即使對上司不利，他/她都會保我周

全。………………………………………………………………......

1 2 3 4 5

6. 我深信任我不在場時，上司會維護和支持我的決

定。…………………………………….…………………………….

1 2 3 4 5

7. 我和上司的工作關係非常有效。………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

(二) 請判斷您是否同意以下對您的描述，並在右欄中(1

至 5)圈選出代表您意見的數字。

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

不

確

定

同

意

非

常

同

意

1. 我會協助缺席的同事。……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5

2. 我會協助工作量龐大的同事。……………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5

3. 我會自發地協助上司完成工作。………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

4. 我會抽出時間聆聽同事所遇到的問題及擔憂。…….…………. 1 2 3 4 5

5. 我會竭盡所能地幫助新入職同事。……………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

29

6. 我會高度關心其他同事。………………………………….………. 1 2 3 4 5

7. 我會傳遞資訊予同事。…………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5

個人背景資料

性別 □ 男性 □ 女性

年齡 歲

現任工作狀況 □ 全職

□ 兼職

現任工作年資 ________________ 年 ______________ 個月

- 謝謝您熱心的參與 -

30

Appendix B

SPSS Output

31

1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Age 30.8983 8.39046 118

WorkingStatusF1 .9407 .23723 118

WorkingExp 41.0169 53.31586 118

GenderM1 .4322 .49749 118

TotalELS 3.6805 .75992 118

TotalLMX 3.6295 .58209 118

TotalOCBI 3.9697 .53708 118

32

Correlations

Age WorkingStatusF1 WorkingExp GenderM1 TotalELS TotalLMX TotalOCBI

Age Pearson Correlation 1 .139 .605** -.075 -.057 -.091 .081

Sig. (2-tailed) .134 .000 .417 .540 .326 .386

WorkingStatusF1 Pearson Correlation .139 1 .081 .002 .084 .034 -.033

Sig. (2-tailed) .134 .382 .984 .368 .715 .720

WorkingExp Pearson Correlation .605** .081 1 -.032 -.048 -.148 .129

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .382 .735 .604 .109 .165

GenderM1 Pearson Correlation -.075 .002 -.032 1 .084 .094 .086

Sig. (2-tailed) .417 .984 .735 .369 .312 .355

TotalELS Pearson Correlation -.057 .084 -.048 .084 1 .666** .313

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .540 .368 .604 .369 .000 .001

TotalLMX Pearson Correlation -.091 .034 -.148 .094 .666** 1 .233

*

Sig. (2-tailed) .326 .715 .109 .312 .000 .011

TotalOCBI Pearson Correlation .081 -.033 .129 .086 .313** .233

* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .386 .720 .165 .355 .001 .011

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

33

2. Cronbach alpha coefficient table

Case Processing Summary (Ethical Leadership)

N %

Cases Valid 118 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 118 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.931 10

Case Processing Summary (LMX)

N %

Cases Valid 118 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 118 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.815 7

34

Case Processing Summary (OCBI)

N %

Cases Valid 118 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 118 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.836 7

35

3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Model Summary

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change

1 .164a .027 -.008 .53911 .027 .780 4 113 .540

2 .363b .132 .085 .51385 .105 6.690 2 111 .002

3 .495c .245 .197 .48125 .114 16.552 1 110 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age), Zscore: TotalELS, Zscore: TotalLMX

c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age), Zscore: TotalELS, Zscore: TotalLMX,

interaction

36

ANOVAd

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .907 4 .227 .780 .540a

Residual 32.842 113 .291

Total 33.749 117

2 Regression 4.440 6 .740 2.802 .014b

Residual 29.309 111 .264

Total 33.749 117

3 Regression 8.273 7 1.182 5.103 .000c

Residual 25.476 110 .232

Total 33.749 117

a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age), Zscore: TotalELS, Zscore: TotalLMX

c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age), Zscore: TotalELS, Zscore: TotalLMX,

interaction

d. Dependent Variable: TotalOCBI

37

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 4.026 .210 19.200 .000

GenderM1 .099 .100 .091 .981 .328

Zscore(Age) .010 .063 .019 .161 .872

WorkingStatusF1 -.105 .212 -.046 -.493 .623

Zscore(WorkingExp) .067 .063 .124 1.063 .290

2 (Constant) 4.099 .201 20.401 .000

GenderM1 .068 .096 .063 .711 .479

Zscore(Age) .018 .060 .033 .293 .770

WorkingStatusF1 -.170 .203 -.075 -.835 .405

Zscore(WorkingExp) .076 .060 .141 1.253 .213

Zscore: TotalELS .154 .066 .277 2.315 .022

Zscore: TotalLMX .038 .066 .069 .577 .565

3 (Constant) 4.050 .189 21.476 .000

GenderM1 .067 .090 .062 .745 .458

Zscore(Age) .050 .057 .093 .876 .383

WorkingStatusF1 -.200 .190 -.088 -1.050 .296

Zscore(WorkingExp) .058 .057 .108 1.023 .309

Zscore: TotalELS .166 .062 .299 2.668 .009

Zscore: TotalLMX .104 .064 .190 1.634 .105

interaction .124 .031 .366 4.068 .000

a. Dependent Variable: TotalOCBI