Inhibiting unethical pro-organizational behavior: harnessing the effects of responsible leadership and leader–member exchange

Abstract

PurposeLeadership styles appear to influence unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB), but there has been little empirical research on employees' ethical behavior as an outcome of responsible leadership. This study examines the positive effect of responsible leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) via the mediator, leader–member exchange (LMX).Design/methodology/approachResponses from 200 full-time working employees in Pakistan were collected in two waves, and structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses.FindingsThe results indicated that LMX mediated the relationship between responsible leadership and UPB. Our research also yielded a negative relationship between responsible leadership and employees' willingness to engage in UPB and between LMX and UPB. In addition, the mediation and direct relationship results were stronger for employees who spent more than seven years in the organization as compared to those with less than seven years.Research limitations/implicationsThe leader's responsible behavior trickles down to the subordinates and encourages their employees to behave responsibly too. We also showed that responsible leadership influenced employees’ UPB engagement through LMX.Practical implicationsBy adopting a responsible leadership style through training practices and appraisal tools, organizations may increase quality exchange relationship between leader and subordinates, which will reduce UPB.Originality/valueThis paper is one of the few empirical studies which have examined the relationship between responsible leadership, LMX and UPB. The results from our study help to enhance findings from earlier studies on the antecedents of UPB. Contrary to previous studies, our study also shows that LMX can lead to ethical behavior i.e. reduce UPB.

Employee-Oriented CSR and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: The Role of Perceived Insider Status and Ethical Climate Rules

“…Therefore, researchers have paid increasing attention to determining how to suppress the occurrence of UPB. Existing studies have showed that organizational punishment [25], responsible leadership [26], and organizational climate [27] can prevent and suppress UPB. The confirmation of the negative moderating role of ethical climate rules adds weight to organizational attempts to prevent and suppress UPB.…”

“…Therefore, the purpose of research focused on the antecedents of UPB is not to promote UPB, but rather to inhibit UPB and promote the sustainable development of the organization. Although some studies show that organizational punishment [25], responsible leadership [26], and organizational climate can effectively reduce the occurrence of UPB [27], UPB research is still in its infancy, and more inhibitory factors need to be discovered to help organizations suppress and prevent UPB. Some studies show that an organizational ethical climate can have an inhibitory effect on employees' unethical behavior [28].…”

Standing in customers’ shoes: How responsible leadership inhibits unethical pro-organizational behavior

“…The other is to identify the inhibitors (e.g., moral identity; Matherne et al, 2018 ), thus advising managers to strengthen those inhibitors. In the latter research stream, given that leaders usually have great influences on employees, more and more scholars have shifted their attention to the leader-related inhibitors ( Cheng et al, 2019 ; Cheng and Lin, 2020 ; Inam et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Extant research has mainly used social learning theory to explain the direct effect of responsible leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior ( Cheng et al, 2019 ; Inam et al, 2021 ). Bandura (1977) noted that his social learning theory had drawn much nourishment from the academic thought regarding information processing.…”

Responsible Leadership Effect on Career Success: The Role of Work Engagement and Self-Enhancement Motives in the Education Sector

“…Also, it is important because of protection, acquisition, connection, and understanding ( Lawrence and Pirson, 2015 ). Several studies have recently been published in the leadership literature to explain and comprehend the practice of RL and to investigate its impact on employee outcomes in various sectors ( Inam et al, 2021 ; Javed et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ), but very scant in the education sector.…”