Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 63: 345–359
Springer 2006

DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-3242-1

A Cross-Cultural Examination Christian J. Resick

Paul J. Hanges
of the Endorsement of Marcus W. Dickson
Ethical Leadership Jacqueline K. Mitchelson

ABSTRACT. The western-based leadership and ethics tional Effectiveness (GLOBE) project were then used to
literatures were reviewed to identify the key characteris- analyze the degree to which four aspects of ethical lead-
tics that conceptually define what it means to be an ethical ership – Character/Integrity, Altruism, Collective Motivation,
leader. Data from the Global Leadership and Organiza- and Encouragement – were endorsed as important for
effective leadership across cultures. First, using multi-
Christian J. Resick is Assistant Professor of Industrial and group confirmatory factor analyses measurement equiva-
Organizational Psychology at Florida International Univer- lence of the ethical leadership scales was found, which
sity. His research is aimed at understanding how people provides indication that the four dimensions have similar
interact with and influence various aspects of their work meaning across cultures. Then, using analysis of variance
environments, including cultures, climates, leaders, and (ANOVA) tests each of the four dimensions were found
teammates along with the implications for various aspects of to be universally endorsed as important for effective
organizational behavior. A particular focus of Christian’s leadership. However, cultures also varied significantly in
work examines ethical leadership and the critical linkages the degree of endorsement for each dimension. In the
between leadership and organizational ethics. He received his increasingly global business environment, these findings
Ph.D. from Wayne State University. have implications for organizations implementing ethics
Paul J. Hanges is a professor in the Department of Psychology at programs across cultures and preparing leaders for expa-
the University of Maryland and the head of the Industrial/ triate assignments.
Organizational Psychology program in the department. He is
an affiliate of the Cognitive Psychology program and the KEY WORDS: cross-culture studies, ethical leadership,
R. H. Smith School of Business. Paul’s research focuses on leadership
three topics (a) social cognition, leadership, and cross-cultural
issues; (b) personnel selection, test fairness, and racial/gender
discrimination; and (c) research methodology. He is on the ‘‘The essence of a republic is a virtuous citizenry
editorial board of the Journal of Applied Psychology and who demands virtuous leaders’’ John Adams, 1776.
The Leadership Quarterly and is a fellow of the Society of Rapid technological advances, coupled with chan-
Industrial and Organizational Psychology and the American ges in the social and political landscape in the latter part
Psychological Association. of the 20th century have helped give rise to a truly
Marcus W. Dickson is Associate Professor of I/O Psychology at global economy. Businesses face international
Wayne State University in Detroit. His research generally competition for customers and resources, and co-
focuses on issues of leadership and culture (both organizational workers, leaders, and subordinates may likely be
and societal), and the interaction of those constructs. He is a located anywhere around the world. In addition, the
former Co-Principal Investigator of the GLOBE Project, and
growth in the number of multinational corporations
his work has appeared in Journal of Applied Psychology,
and joint ventures over the past two decades has
Applied Psychology: An International Review, and
The Leadership Quarterly, among others. been tremendous. For example, data suggest that
Jacqueline K. Mitchelson is a doctoral candidate in Industrial and only 47 of the world’s 100 largest economies are
Organizational Psychology at Wayne State University. Her nation states, the remaining 53 are multinational
current research areas are leadership, organizational culture, corporations (Melloan, 2004). As a result, more and
individual differences and work-family conflict. more leaders are assuming expatriate roles and
346 Christian J. Resick et al.

interacting regularly with colleagues from a culture perspective we aim to provide useful information for
different than their own. For leaders to be successful, managers as well as developers of training content.
it has become imperative for them to be aware of the
cultural differences that influence business practices
(Miroshnik, 2002). In particular, managers need to Ethical leadership across cultures
understand the differences and similarities in the
expectations of leaders across cultures. Organiza- What is ethical leadership?
tional researchers have responded to this need, and
empirical research examining cross-cultural leader- Fundamentally, ethical leadership involves leading in
ship is on the rise (see Dickson et al., 2003; House a manner that respects the rights and dignity of
et al., 1997). However, the cross-cultural leadership others (Ciulla, 2004). As leaders are by nature in a
research and leadership research in general, has position of social power, ethical leadership focuses
typically not addressed the topic of ethical leader- on how leaders use their social power in the deci-
ship. In recent years, the ethical lapses of leaders in sions they make, actions they engage in, and ways
everywhere from business to government to church they influence others (Gini, 1997). To date, we are
organizations have made headlines around the aware of only two studies that have empirically
world, thrusting ethical leadership to the forefront of examined ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005;
the public’s attention. Treviño et al., 2003). To supplement their per-
While production and profitability goals are often spectives, we conducted a comprehensive review of
viewed as a leader’s primary objectives, there is a the literature, and identified six key attributes that
long held view that leaders also have responsibility appear to characterize ethical leadership, including
for ensuring standards of moral and ethical conduct character and integrity, ethical awareness, community/
(Barnard, 1938; Cullen et al., 1989; Mautz and people-orientation, motivating, encouraging and empower-
Sharaf, 1961). Moreover, the responsibility of leaders ing, and managing ethical accountability. These
to provide ethical or moral leadership has been dis- attributes are discussed in greater depth below.
cussed for centuries (see Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999).
The increasingly multinational nature of business Character and integrity
creates a need for research aimed at understanding Character refers to ‘‘the pattern of intentions, incli-
global business ethics (Carroll, 2004), and this is nations, and virtues’’ that provide the ethical or
particularly true regarding ethical leadership. This moral foundation for behavior (Petrick and Quinn,
paper presents a first attempt at examining the 1997, p. 51). Bass (1956) suggested that leaders’
importance attached to leading ethically from a character becomes apparent in acts of humility,
cross-cultural perspective. First, the western-based loyalty, virtue, generosity, and forgiveness. Further,
ethical philosophy and leadership literatures are Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) went on to contend that
reviewed to identify the core attributes and behav- character demands a ‘‘commitment to virtue in all
iors that have been put forth as characterizing ethical circumstances’’ (p. 196). Integrity is a fundamental
leadership. A western-based perspective is employed component of character (Fluker, 2002; Petrick and
for two reasons. First, it provides a conceptual Quinn, 1997), and entails the ability to both deter-
frame-of-reference and starting point for determin- mine, as well as engage in morally correct behavior
ing the core factors associated with leading in an regardless of external pressures (Emler and Cook,
ethical manner. Using this perspective also addresses 2001). Moreover, integrity is often considered to be
a second, more practical, business need. In response an important aspect of leadership in general (e.g.,
to the myriad ethical scandals that occurred in Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1989; Locke et al., 1999; Posner
western-based businesses (particularly in the United and Schmidt, 1984). Demonstrating integrity is
States), corporations have begun implementing important for engendering a sense of leader trust-
ethics and integrity programs to prevent these types worthiness (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002), which Bass and
of events from occurring in the future. Many of the Avolio (1993) contend is critical for followers to
larger organizations will have to address issues of accept a leader’s visions and Brown et al. (2005)
leading ethically across cultures, and by taking this suggest is a direct component of leading ethically.
 Endorsement of Ethical Leadership 347

Leader character and integrity provide a foundation 1999; Gini, 1997; Kanungo and Mendonca, 1996).
of personal characteristics that guide a leader’s Ethical leadership involves an intellectual and emo-
beliefs, decisions, and actions. tional commitment between leaders and followers
(Zaleznik, 1990) that makes both parties ‘‘reciprocally
Ethical awareness co-responsible in the pursuit of a common enter-
Ethical awareness ‘‘is the capacity to perceive and be prise’’ (Gini, 1997, p. 326). This is conceptually
sensitive to relevant moral issues that deserve con- similar to the inspirational motivation component of
sideration in making choices that will have a sig- transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass and
nificant impact on others’’ (Petrick and Quinn, Avolio, 1993), which involves inspiring followers to
1997, p. 89). Further, ethical awareness applies to work toward the leader’s vision for the group and to
both the consequences of actions or decisions, as be committed to the group. Brown et al. (2005) even
well as the processes used to achieve them. contended that ethical leadership ‘‘falls within the
According to Treviño et al. (2003) leaders demon- nexus of inspiring, stimulating, and visionary leader
strate ethical awareness by having a concern for (a) behaviors that make up transformational and charis-
the collective good of the group, (b) the impact of matic leadership’’ (p. 117). Bass and Steidlmeier
both means and ends, (c) the long-term and not just (1999) went on to suggest that authentic transfor-
the short-term, and (d) the perspectives and interests mational leaders are ethical in their influence tactics
of multiple stakeholders. Moreover, many of the when they increase followers’ awareness of ethical
questions on the Brown et al. (2005) Ethical Lead- behavior, instill confidence in their subordinates, and
ership Scale (ELS) focus on a leader’s demonstration ‘‘move followers to go beyond their self-interests for
of ethical awareness in the ways they model and the good of their group, organization, or society’’
promote ethically appropriate conduct. (Bass, 1998, p. 171).

Community/people-orientation Encouraging and empowering

Ethical leaders have a focus on ‘‘serving the greater Ethical leaders are encouraging and empowering
good’’ (Treviño et al., 2003, p. 19), which results in so that followers gain a sense of personal compe-
being people-oriented, aware of how their actions tence that allows them to be self-sufficient (Bass
impact others, and using their social power to serve and Steidlmeier, 1999; Gini, 1997). Kanungo and
the collective interests of the group over self-serving Mendonca (1996) suggested that leaders with altru-
interests (Fluker, 2002; Gini, 1998; Kanungo and istic motives have a sense of identification with and
Mendonca, 1996). Moreover, as the notion of ethics respect for their followers. As a result, leaders use
is primarily concerned with ‘‘the common good’’ empowerment strategies that build followers’ self-
(Potts, 2002, p. 44), civility, which involves inte- confidence and self-efficacy. These actions parallel
grating the rights and needs of others, (Gini, 1998) as the idealized influence and individualized consider-
well as considering how one’s actions impact others ation facets of transformational leadership (Bass,
(Bowie, 1991), is particularly important for ethical 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1993). Idealized influ-
leadership. Altruism appears to be important to ence involves motivating followers to question past
developing a community/people-orientation, and assumptions and to think independently and crea-
Kanungo and Mendonca (1996) even contend that tively, while individualized consideration involves
altruism provides the ethical foundation of leader- treating followers equitably and fairly. Kanungo and
ship. Altruism, which involves engaging in behaviors Mendonca (1996) also added that ethical empow-
intended to help others without expecting any erment strategies are important antecedents of fol-
external rewards (Macaulay and Berkowitz, 1970) or lowers’ perceptions that the leader’s intentions are in
regard for one’s personal welfare (Krebs, 1982), is the best interest of the group.
also an important characteristic of ethical leadership.
Managing ethical accountability
Motivating In their study of executive ethical leadership, Tre-
Ethical leaders motivate followers to put the interests viño et al. (2003) found that ethical leadership entails
of the group ahead of their own (Bass and Steidlmeier, a transactional component that involves setting
348 Christian J. Resick et al.

standards and expectations of ethical conduct for produce results. As such, utilitarianism needs to be
followers. Their findings suggest that ethical leaders considered in defining ethical leadership. Utilitari-
establish standards of ethical conduct and hold their anism is evident in the notion of using one’s social
subordinates accountable using the rewards and power to benefit the greater good, and in the
punishment systems that are available. community/people-orientation, motivational, and
Together, these aspects of ethical leadership align encouraging/empowering aspects of ethical
closely with several major ethical theories, includ- leadership.
ing virtue ethics, Kantian deontological ethics, and Additionally, it is important to point out that the
utilitarianism. Virtue ethics focuses on the intrinsic perspective on ethical leadership summarized above
characteristics of an individual as contained in that differs somewhat from Brown et al.’s (2005) per-
person’s character or virtues held (Lefkowitz, spective. They present a social learning view of
2003). The underlying assumption is that a person’s ethical leadership, where they contend that ethical
character predisposes a person to do right things leadership involves role modeling and promoting
and to act ethically (Petrick and Quinn, 1997). normatively ethically appropriate conduct, and is
Virtue ethics is embodied in the ethical leadership demonstrated via a leader’s actions, decisions, and
dimension of character and integrity. In a similar communications. In contrast, the perspective pre-
vein, Kantian deontological ethics also focus on the sented in this paper focuses on leader cognitions and
intrinsic nature of a person or an action. Kant actions, and suggests that ethical leadership is dem-
contended that the good of an action should be onstrated via multiple levels of psychological pro-
judged by the nature of that act or the intention of cesses. At the core of ethical leadership exists a
the person committing the act, independent of its cognitive component consisting of leaders’ values
consequences (Lefkowitz, 2003). Thus, personal and knowledge (integrity, ethical awareness, and
motivations and intentions are of critical impor- community/people-orientations) which then influ-
tance to determining if an action is good regardless ence the way leaders behave and use their social
of the consequences (Pincoffs, 1985; Slote, 1992). power (motivating, encouraging, and empowering
A particularly relevant aspect of Kant’s writing for followers and holding people accountable). By
ethical leadership research is his contention that the focusing broadly on the psychological processes
one absolute and unconditional good is respecting (cognitions and behaviors) involved with ethical
the value of human beings, and that a moral or leadership, we provide an alternative perspective to
good act is one that is motivated by intentions or a Brown et al.’s model. We do not intend to criticize
sense of duty to uphold the value of humanity their work, but rather to provide an alternative,
(Lefkowitz, 2003). Moreover, Lefkowitz (2003) theoretically grounded perspective that focuses on
noted that Kant’s perspective on humanity is one of both leader cognition and behavior. We applaud
the most important moral guidelines ever put for- Brown et al. for their ground-breaking work in this
ward as it asserted that all human beings have area. Our intention is to build on their efforts and
‘‘absolute worth in and of themselves and thus further contribute to the understanding of ethical
should be treated with dignity and respect’’ (p. 48). leadership in organizations.
Deontology is clearly apparent in Ciulla’s (2004) In their study of executive ethical leadership,
perspective on ethical leadership. While deontology Treviño et al. (2003) noted that there is likely to be
is embodied in the entire notion of ethical lead- considerable variation in the importance people
ership, it is perhaps most clearly evident in the attach to ethical leadership, and research is needed
character and integrity, ethical awareness, and that examines whether people view ethical leader-
community/people-orientation aspects of ethical ship as important for effective leadership. Societal
leadership, as they involve respecting and promot- culture provides people with a powerful set of cues
ing the respect of others. Third, utilitarianism is a as to the behaviors that are encouraged or discour-
type of teleological ethical theory that contends an aged by that society, and provide a powerful set of
action is good if it produces that greatest amount of contextual forces that affect the types of leadership
good for the greatest number of people (Bentham, that people come to view as effective in a setting
1789/1948). By and large, leaders are expected to (Lord et al., 2001).
 Endorsement of Ethical Leadership 349

Cross-cultural leadership studies ratings or in relationships between predictor and

outcome variables may be the result of true differ-
The practices, norms, and values that become com- ences across cultures (Myers and Tan, 2002) or to the
monly shared by members of a society provide a non-equivalence in measures (Mullen, 1995). For
frame of reference for making social comparisons researchers to draw meaningful comparisons across
(Heine et al., 2002), as well as judgments about the cultures, they need to first demonstrate the mea-
appropriateness or inappropriateness of behavior. surement equivalence of questionnaires (Vandenberg
Hofstede’s (1980) work was instrumental in identi- and Lance, 2000). When measurement equivalence is
fying the implications of culture differences for demonstrated, researchers can assume that variables of
organizational behavior. One area addressed by interest have similar meaning and are thus comparable
recent research has examined culture as it relates to across cultures (Drasgow and Kanfer, 1985; Kara-
the types of leadership practiced within a society (see hanna et al., 2002), which then enhances the inter-
Dickson et al., 2003; House and Javidan, 2004). For pretability of results (van de Vijer and Leung, 1997).
example, Offermann and Hellmann (1997) found This paper examines the endorsement of com-
that managers from countries with low power dis- ponents of ethical leadership across cultures. First, a
tance values tended to be more communicative and measure of ethical leadership is designed and the
perceived as more approachable than managers from measurement equivalence of this scale is examined
higher power distance countries. Societal culture has across 31 different societies. Then, variation in the
also been found to be related to variation in the endorsement of components of ethical leadership is
expectations that people have about leaders (e.g., examined across clusters of societies with similar
Den Hartog et al., 1999; Dorfman and House, 2004; cultures.
Gerstner and Day, 1994; House and Javidan, 2004).
These expectations are critical to the leadership
process as they influence the types of people who are Method
accepted as leaders, the amount of discretion and
authority that leaders are able to exercise, follower Participants
loyalty, and the type of leadership provided by leaders
(Lord and Maher, 1991; Lord et al., 2001). Data from the Global Leadership and Organizational
Researchers have found that societal culture is asso- Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program
ciated with differences in personal values and sensi- (House et al., 1999; House and Javidan, 2004), a
tivities to ethical issues (Jackson, 2001). Business study of leadership and culture across 62 different
practices that are commonly accepted in one country societies, are used for this study. In short, GLOBE’s
may conflict with a code of ethics or standard prac- team of approximately 180 social scientists from
tices in another country creating ethical dilemmas for around the world collected data from approximately
managers trying to conduct business across cultures 17,000 middle managers from 931 organizations in
(Carroll, 2004; Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999). As 62 different societies and three different industries
such, the cross-cultural research suggests that there is (financial services, food services, and telecommuni-
likely to be variation across cultures regarding whe- cations) during the mid 1990s. As part of GLOBE’s
ther the various aspects of ethical leadership are data collection efforts, all participants completed
viewed as contributing to or impeding effective questionnaires designed to measure perceptions of
leadership. As expectations for both leadership and leaders. Next, approximately one-half of the par-
ethics may vary across cultures, research is needed ticipants from each organization completed scales
that examines cross-cultural variation in the impor- designed to assess organizational culture (Form A)
tance attached to various aspects of ethical leadership. while the other half completed scales designed to
Vandenberg and Lance (2000), among others, have examine societal culture (Form B). Forms A and B
contended that researchers need to establish mea- were distributed randomly to participants within
surement equivalence in their questionnaires prior to organizations. In the present study, data regarding
making comparisons across groups, particularly when the endorsement of ethical leadership are obtained
conducting cross-cultural research. Differences in from both Form A and Form B respondents.
350 Christian J. Resick et al.

Measures aspects. We labeled the next factor Collective

Motivation (five items, a = 0.76), and it aligned
Dimensions of ethical leadership clearly with the motivating aspects of ethical lead-
GLOBE’s leadership scales were developed to assess ership. The final factor that emerged was labeled
21 dimensions of leadership. The scales were com- Encouragement (two items, a = 0.73). This factor
posed of 100 attributes or behavioral descriptors (e.g., also aligned with the encouraging/empowering as-
autocratic; benevolent; nurturing; visionary). Partic- pects of ethical leadership discussed earlier. Table I
ipants were asked to rate each descriptor on a 7-point compares the dimensions of ethical leadership ad-
response scale ranging from 1-This behavior or charac- dressed by this measure to the conceptual dimen-
teristic greatly inhibits a person from being an outstanding sions of ethical leadership identified through the
leader to 7-This behavior or characteristic contributes greatly review of the literature.
to a person being an outstanding leader. Because the In summary, a comprehensive review of the
GLOBE project did not originally develop scales to literature was performed to identify the core
measure ethical leadership, we derived a measure
using the attribute and behavioral descriptor items.
First, we asked six graduate students enrolled in an
Industrial/Organizational Psychology program who TABLE I
had completed a Doctoral seminar on leadership to Comparison of the dimensions of ethical leadership
perform a q-sort exercise. In this exercise, they were addressed by the ethical leadership measure to the
presented a written summary of ethical leadership and conceptual dimensions identified in the literature
asked to identify which of GLOBE’s 100 items were
reflective of ethical leadership. A total of 23 items Conceptual dimensions Scale dimensions of
of ethical leadership ethical leadership
were identified by at least four of the six raters as
being reflective of ethical leadership. These items Character and Integrity Character/Integrity
were then standardized within countries according to • Trust
procedures recommended by Dickson et al. (2000) . • Sincere
As different societal cultures provide different frames • Just
of reference for making social comparisons (Heine • Honest
et al., 2002), this procedure helped to minimize Community/
reference group effects. People-Orientation Altruism
Next, an exploratory factor analysis across all • Generous
countries was conducted using these standardized • Fraternal
items and a four-factor solution including 15 of the • Compassionate
• Modest
23 items was retained. A confirmatory factor analysis
Collective Motivation
was then conducted using structural equation mod-
• Communicative
eling procedures in Mplus (2.01). The fit of a model • Confidence Building
in which each item was set to load only on its • Group Orientation
respective factor was tested. Results suggested that • Motive Arouser
the model fit the data well (CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = • Team Building
0.05), providing evidence to support the four-factor Motivating Collective Motivation
solution. The four factors that emerged aligned Encouraging Encouragement
closely with the key components of ethical leader- and Empowering • Encouraging
ship identified in the literature. The first factor was • Morale Booster
labeled Character/Integrity (four items; a = 0.74), Ethical Awareness Not addressed
and closely aligned with the character and integrity Managing Ethical
Accountability Not addressed
aspect of ethical leadership. The second factor was
labeled Altruism (four items, a = 0.66), and aligned Note: The Scale Dimensions of Ethical Leadership column
closely with the notions of altruism and civility identifies the individual items (leader attributes) that
embodied in the community/people-orientation compose that dimension.
 Endorsement of Ethical Leadership 351

components of ethical leadership from a conceptual TABLE II

perspective. Items from GLOBE’s leadership scales Societies included in this study grouped by Culture
that were consistent with conceptual components of Cluster Membership
ethical leadership were identified by Industrial and
Organizational Psychology graduate students. These Culture Cluster Society N
items were then subject to an exploratory factor
analysis which produced a solution with four factors Anglo Australiaa 344
that aligned closely with the conceptually defined Canadaa 257
components of ethical leadership, and the factor Englanda 168
Irelanda 156
structure was then confirmed using confirmatory
New Zealand 184
factor analyses. Unfortunately, the GLOBE attri-
United Statesa 399
butes and behaviors did not match up with the White South Africaa 180
ethical awareness or accountability components. As Confucian Asian Chinaa 160
such these components of ethical leadership were Hong Kong 171
not addressed in the current study. While ethical Japan 195
awareness and managing standards of ethical conduct Singapore 218
are obviously important components of ethical South Koreaa 233
leadership, our measure addressed both leader cog- Taiwana 236
nition (Character/Integrity and Altruism) and Eastern European Albania 120
behavior (Collective Motivation and Empower- Georgia 258
ment) all of which have been identified as important Greecea 234
Hungrya 183
aspects of ethical leadership. As such, we suggest that
Kazakhstan 121
while our measure was not able to capture the full
Poland 278
breadth of the six components comprising the ethical Russian 301
leadership construct, it provides a useful starting Sloveniaa 254
point for examining beliefs about ethical leadership Germanic European Austria 169
across cultures. Germany (Former East) 44
Germany (Former GDR)a 413
Societal culture clusters Netherlandsa 287
While every society has its own unique culture, there Switzerlanda 321
are societies with similar cultures (Dickson and Den Latin American Argentinaa 153
Hartog, 2005). Ronen and Shenkar (1985) were Bolivia 102
among the first researchers to create culture clusters Brazila 263
Columbiaa 289
by grouping together countries that have similar
Costa Rica 115
work-related values and attitudes. Building on their
Ecuador 49
work, GLOBE created a set of culture clusters by El Salvador 26
combining societies that have similar cultural values Guatemala 112
and practices (Gupta and Hanges, 2004). First, Mexicoa 308
GLOBE project researchers assessed cultural values Venezuelaa 142
and practices of societies along nine dimen- Latin European France 182
sions, including Assertiveness, Future Orientation, Israela 543
Gender Egalitarianism, Human Orientation, In-Group Italya 266
Collectivism, Institutional Collectivism, Performance Ori- Portugal 79
entation, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance. Spain 360
Then they conducted a cluster analysis of the cultural Middle Eastern Egypta 201
Kuwait 50
values and practices of the 62 societies, and identified
Morocco 105
10 culture clusters listed in Table II. Societies that
Qatar 147
were grouped into a cluster are similar to each other Turkeya 289
along multiple cultural dimensions. Additionally, in
352 Christian J. Resick et al.

TABLE II include a minimum of five cases per estimated

(Continued) parameter. As the ethical leadership questionnaire
contained 15 items, a minimum of 75 respondents
Culture Cluster Society N ensures a minimum of five cases per factor loading
within each society. As such, only societies with a
Nordic European Denmark 324 minimum of 75 respondents providing complete
Finlanda 430 data were included. For the present study, the factor
Sweden 895 loadings for each item were constrained to be
Southeast Asian Indiaa 228 identical across societies, a model was estimated, and
Indonesiaa 336
fit indices were examined to determine if the
Malaysia 121
estimated model fit the sample data. A comparative
Philippinesa 285
Thailanda 444 fit index (CFI) greater than or equal to 0.90 and a
Sub-Saharian Africa Black South Africaa 241 root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
Nambia 32 of less than 0.10 were criteria used to determine
Nigeria 415 model fit.
Zambia 76 Regarding Character/Integrity, results provided
Zimbabwe 45 some indication of model fit as an acceptable CFI of
a 0.91 was obtained, however the RMSEA value was
Indicates that society was also included in the multi-
much higher than desired (RMSEA = 0.13). These
group confirmatory factor analyses.
results provide conflicting evidence of model fit, and
many instances the societies within a cluster share a suggest that the model provides only a modest fit of
common language, are located in geographic close the data. For the Altruism dimension, a more clear
proximity, and/or have a similar physical climate. It indication of overall model fit was found
is important to note that while commonalities exist (CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.08). Finally, since the
among societies within a cluster, differences exist as Encouragement dimension contained only two
well. Ignoring these differences fails to address the items, the equivalence of both the Collective
intricacies of day-to-day life within a society. Motivation and Encouragement dimensions were
However, the use of culture clusters provides a examined in one CFA analysis. Results again pro-
parsimonious approach for examining differences in vided evidence of overall model fit (CFI = 0.93;
beliefs about leadership by grouping together those RMSEA = 0.09). Model fit indices are summarized
societies that have a number of commonalities. in Table III. Overall, the results of the measurement
equivalence analyses provide some evidence, though
modest in nature, that the dimensions of ethical
Results leadership are defined by the same items across
societies, and thus demonstrate measurement
First, we conducted a series of multi-group confir- equivalence. We then used these scales to examine
matory factor analyses (CFA) using M-plus (2.01) to variation in the endorsement of ethical leadership
test whether there was equivalence in the factor dimensions across societal cultures using GLOBE’s
structure of the ethical leadership measure across culture cluster groupings.
societies. Multi-group CFA uses latent variable As noted previously, GLOBE culture clusters are
structural equation modeling procedures to deter- groupings of those societies that have similar cultural
mine whether the factor loadings of each item on its values and practices along multiple dimensions of
latent construct (i.e., dimension of ethical leadership) culture. A series of four one-way analyses of variance
are equivalent across multiple groups (i.e., societies). (ANOVAs) were conducted to determine if there
The measurement equivalence analyses were con- were differences across the culture clusters. All par-
ducted on a sub-sample of 7715 participants from 31 ticipants from the GLOBE project that responded to
different societies. In determining appropriate sam- questions used for the ethical leadership scales
ple sizes for structural equation modeling analyses, (N=13,537) were used in these analyses. Individual
Bentler and Chou (1987) suggest that researchers responses were aggregated to the country level and
 Endorsement of Ethical Leadership 353

TABLE III
Confirmatory factor analyses examining factor loading equivalence across countries

Dimension v2 df p CFI RMSEA

Integrity 7639.42 186 <0.001 0.91 0.13

Altruism 5261.51 186 <0.001 0.96 0.08
Collective Motivation and Encouragement 17400.32 651 <0.001 0.93 0.09

CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

the ANOVAs were conducted on a sample of 59 Results indicated that the endorsement of each
different societies (leadership scales were not com- dimension of ethical leadership differed significantly
pleted by participants from three societies). across the culture clusters: Character/Integrity

TABLE IV
Ranking of societal culture clusters based on endorsement of each dimension of ethical leadership

Band Character/Integrity Altruism Collective Motivation Encouragement

Higher Nordic Southeast Asian (5.16) Anglo (6.32)

European (6.40)
Latin American (6.27)
Nordic European (6.25)
M Range 6.40 5.16 6.25–6.32
Middle Germanic Sub-Saharan (4.96) Germanic European (6.12) Nordic European (6.43)
European (6.31)
Latin Confucian Asian (4.93) Sub-Saharan (6.12) Anglo (6.39)
American (6.26)
Anglo (6.22) Latin American (4.87) Latin European (6.09) Latin American (6.19)
Southeast Middle Eastern (4.76) Southeast Asian (6.06) Germanic European (6.18)
Asian (6.19)
Sub-Saharan Anglo (4.70) Eastern European (5.86) Sub-Saharan (6.17)
(6.01)
Latin Eastern European (4.53) Confucian Asian (5.78) Southeast Asian (6.15)
European (6.00)
Eastern Germanic European (4.37) Confucian Asian (6.04)
European (5.89)
Confucian Eastern European (6.03)
Asian (5.82)
Latin European (6.01)
M Range 5.82–6.31 4.37–4.96 5.78–6.12 6.01–6.43
Lower Middle Latin European (4.29) Middle Eastern (5.53) Middle Eastern (5.57)
Eastern (5.65)
Nordic European (4.23)
M Range 5.65 4.23–4.29 5.53 5.57

N = 59 (Anglo n = 7; Confucian Asian n = 6; Eastern European n = 8; Germanic European n = 5; Latin American

n = 10; Latin European n = 5; Middle Eastern n = 5; Nordic European n = 3; Sub-Saharian African n = 5; Southeast
Asian n = 5.).
354 Christian J. Resick et al.

(F(9,49) = 2.457, p < 0.05, g2 = 0.311); Altruism European societies to 5.16 in Southeast Asian soci-
(F(9,49) = 3.230, p < 0.01, g2 = 0.372); Collective eties. While cluster-level means universally drifted
Motivation (F(9,49) = 3.773, p < 0.01, g2 = 0.409); toward positive endorsement of Altruism, results also
and Encouragement (F(9,49) = 2.403, p < 0.05, indicated that Southeast Asian societies endorsed
g2 = 0.306). The magnitude of the differences was Altruism as important for effective leadership to a
also estimated using the Eta-squared (g2) effect size significantly greater degree than either Nordic or
statistic, which represents the proportion of variance Latin European societies. Scores for the Collective
in the dependent variables (i.e., ethical leadership Motivation dimension ranged from 5.53 for societies
dimension) explained by categorization in one of the in the Middle Eastern cluster to 6.32 in Anglo
culture clusters. The effect size estimates indicated societies. Again, while Collective Motivation was
that societal culture clusters had a substantial influ- universally viewed as facilitating effective leadership,
ence on the endorsement of ethical leadership scores. Anglo, Latin American, and Nordic European
For example, approximately 37% of the differences societies endorsed this aspect of ethical leadership to
in scores across societies regarding the endorsement a significantly greater degree than societies in the
of Altruism as important for effective leadership Middle Eastern cluster. Finally, the mean scores
were attributable to the culture cluster that a par- for Encouragement ranged from 5.57 for Middle
ticular society was categorized in. Eastern societies to 6.43 in Nordic European
Further examination of the results reveals an societies. Middle Eastern societies tended to endorse
interesting finding. While statistically and practically Encouragement to a lesser degree than societies
significant differences existed between culture clus- comprising the remaining ten culture clusters.
ters, the cluster-level mean endorsement was above
the scale midpoint (4.0) for all dimensions, and
above 5.0 for all dimensions except Altruism. This Discussion
finding suggests that there is universal endorsement
for the importance of the components of ethical In general, the findings from this study indicate that
leadership; however, societies differ in the degree of Character/Integrity, Altruism, Collective Motiva-
endorsement. tion, and Encouragement – four components that
We then conducted a series of post hoc analyses characterize ethical leadership in western societies –
using the Student–Newman–Keuls procedure to are universally supported, and viewed as behaviors
identify where differences between clusters existed. and characteristics that contribute to a person being
Table IV summarizes the results of this analysis. an effective leader across cultures. At the same time,
Within each ethical leadership dimension, societal however, cultures also differed in the degree of
clusters are ranked from high to low according to the endorsement for each dimension. This suggests that
cluster-level average. Based on the Student–Newman– the dimensions of ethical leadership included in this
Keuls results, clusters were then grouped into Higher, study represent a variform universal, which exists
Middle, or Lower bands. Within each band, the when a principle is viewed similarly around the
clusters do not differ significantly from each other. world, however cultural subtleties lead to differences
Regarding the Character/Integrity dimension, in the enactment of that principle across cultures
the mean endorsement varied from 5.65 for societies (Hanges et al., 2000). We now further discuss the
included in the Middle Eastern cluster to 6.40 for specific findings, along with the practical and theo-
societies included in the Nordic European cluster. retical implications of this work.
While the high mean scores indicate that Character/ For the Character/Integrity dimension, the highest
Integrity is universally viewed as facilitating a person level of endorsement was found among Nordic
being an effective leader, societies in the Nordic European societies. Interestingly, two of the societies
European cluster endorsed Character/Integrity to a in this cluster, Sweden and Finland, have continu-
significantly greater degree than societies in the ously been ranked among the countries with the
Middle Eastern cluster. Regarding the Altruism lowest levels of corruption throughout society as
dimension, the mean endorsement ranged from 4.23 indicated by Transparency International’s Corrup-
in Nordic European societies and 4.29 in Latin tion Perceptions Index (CPI) (Transparency
 Endorsement of Ethical Leadership 355

International, 2001). These findings appear to sug- these cultures, people tend to prefer leaders that
gest that integrity is highly valued among Nordic communicate their vision in a non-aggressive man-
societies, and one that is particularly important for ner (Fu and Yukl, 2000), and thus they are less likely
leaders. Character/Integrity was endorsed to a lesser to view arousing followers’ motives or building
extent among Middle Eastern societies. A possible confidence as important leader attributes.
explanation for this finding is the importance of Nordic European societies were also among the
saving face in Middle Eastern societies. To gain the strongest endorsers of Collective Motivation, along
respect of peers and subordinates, as well as to with Encouragement. Cultural practices in Nordic
maintain one’s own self respect, it is particularly European societies tend to emphasize a lower level
important for leaders to maintain their image or of power distance and a greater emphasis on col-
status (Dickson and Den Hartog, 2005). While lective distribution of rewards (Gupta and Hanges,
Character/Integrity was viewed as important, per- 2004). Perhaps this translates into a desire for leaders
haps they take on different meaning and have a who are encouraging, expressive, and foster an
different emphasis due to the importance of saving environment of teamwork.
face in these societies. In contrast, Middle Eastern societies tended to
Within the Altruism dimension, Southeast Asian endorse Collective Motivation and Encouragement
societies demonstrated the greatest level of endorse- to a lesser extent than other societies. A closer look
ment of leader Altruism. There is a strong sense of in- at cultural beliefs and leadership practices among
group pride and loyalty coupled with a humane these societies may provide some insights into these
orientation engrained in the culture of societies findings. First, beliefs about what constitutes
in the Southeast Asian culture cluster (Gupta and an effective leader may differ. For example, Power
Hanges, 2004). Perhaps these aspects of culture Distance is a highly valued aspect of culture in
translate into expectations that effective leaders are Middle Eastern societies (Gupta and Hanges, 2004).
generous and fraternal toward their subordinates. As a result, people are accepting of centralized
Altruism was endorsed to a lesser degree among Latin decision making, more willing to accept direction
European and Nordic European societies. Humane from leaders, and less likely to question the actions of
oriented cultural practices have been found to be less their leaders (see Dickson et al., 2003). Additionally,
common among Latin European societies, while in- protecting one’s reputation and saving face are
group pride and loyalty practices have been found to extremely important among Middle Eastern socie-
be less common among Nordic European societies ties. When a leader’s reputation is tarnished, their
(Gupta and Hanges, 2004). Perhaps these cultural ability to be viewed as an effective leader by both
characteristics translate into Altruism being viewed as colleagues and subordinates is severely hindered,
less critical for leaders to be effective. which in turn will likely lead to further challenges
Latin American and Anglo societies tended to for the individual. Moreover, Middle Eastern soci-
endorse collective motivation to a greater extent eties are built on social networks of interconnected
than other societies. Collective Motivation embod- relationships (Hutchings and Weir, 2004). Secondly,
ies aspects of communication, team building, and the attributes and behaviors that are characteristic of
motive arousing in followers. Both Latin American ethical leaders according to Middle Eastern norms
and Anglo societies tend to be generally accepting of and expectations may differ from other countries.
expressive communication and open displays of Islamic religious values are deeply rooted aspects of
emotion (Dickson and Den Hartog, 2005). Anglo everyday life throughout Middle Eastern societies
societies in particular tend to view visionary com- (Hutchings and Weir, 2004), and ethical leadership
munication by leaders positively and have expecta- likely takes on additional components that address
tions for communication and participation in upholding Islamic values when conducting business.
decision making (Dickson et al., 2003). As such, it The dimensions of ethical leadership examined in
stands to reason that these societies would have a this study would not have captured those compo-
high level of endorsement of Collective Motivation. nents. As a result, ethical leadership in Middle
In contrast, Confucian Asian societies tended to Eastern societies likely involves not only compo-
endorse collective motivation to a lesser degree. In nents of Integrity, Altruism, Collective Motivation,
356 Christian J. Resick et al.

and Encouragement (because they were all endorsed A second point that needs to be addressed
as contributing to effective leadership), but also more involves the culture clusters. Even though societies
specialized components that involve modeling and within a cluster have similar cultures and endorse
respecting Islamic values and building relationships similar forms of leadership there are differences in
across organizational boundaries. values and norms between societies. In addition,
considerable variability also exists within a society in
Implications and limitations terms of the things people pay attention to and
emphasize. The findings from this study provide
In examining the implications of this study, several indication of how people within a culture cluster, on
points need to be addressed. First, as noted average, view certain aspects of ethical leadership as
previously, our conceptualization of ethical leader- of more or less importance for effective leadership.
ship in this study is drawn primarily from a western While these leadership attributes are universally
view of business ethics and ethical theories. The endorsed there was also considerable variation across
implications of these findings are thus most applicable societies. This variation provides important
to organizations based in western societies engaging information to organizations developing compliance
in business outside of their home culture cluster. programs, integrity programs, or codes of ethics on
However, the finding of measurement equivalence an international basis, by identifying areas
suggests that our measure of ethical leadership has where organizations may either have an easier time
some utility for examining ethical leadership across implementing programs or where they may meet
cultures. Further, as each of these dimensions aligned greater resistance. For example, organizations are
with the theoretical conceptualization of ethical likely to encounter less conflict regarding ethical
leadership discussed earlier and were universally en- norms within a cluster than between clusters.
dorsed as contributing to a person being an effective Developing implementation strategies that take into
leader, we suggest that they provide a useful starting account variation in the degree of endorsement of
point for understanding the core components of ethical leadership may help to ensure a smoother
ethical leadership that are similar across cultures. transition process, and also to gain quicker and
While cultural values of a society impact what greater acceptance of these initiatives. Finally,
people view as right and wrong (Beauchamp and understanding differences across societies can be
Bowie, 2001), managers are increasingly likely to useful in the design of codes of ethics that are sen-
encounter situations where the norms of their home sitive to norms of various countries, yet do not
country conflict with the norms of the country he or violate hypernorms of ethical conduct.
she is doing business in. In fact Carroll (2004) noted There are several limiting factors to this research.
‘‘the primary venue for ethical debates in the future First, again this study is largely based on a western
will more and more be the world stage’’ (p. 114). view of ethics. As such, characteristics that may be
Accordingly, Donaldson and Dunfee (1994, 1999) considered essential for ethical leadership outside of
contend that establishing codes of ethical conduct that western society are not addressed in this study. For
are consistent with hypernorms of ethical behavior example, Islamic values are deeply rooted in the
may help to reduce ethical uncertainty in international cultural values of societies in the Middle Eastern
business environments. Hypernorms refer to funda- culture just as Confucian values are pervasive
mental principles of human existence that are uni- throughout societies in the Confucian Asian cluster.
versally endorsed, such as providing physical security The conceptual model of components of ethical
for workers or deception being viewed as wrongful leadership presented in this paper does not capture
(Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994). Given the variform ethical values that are unique to those societies.
universal endorsement of the four ethical leadership Future research is needed that identifies both dif-
dimensions found in this study, perhaps these ferences and similarities in the core attributes and
dimensions reflect a hypernorm of leading that may behaviors that characterize ethical leadership across
help to provide guidance to organizations faced with cultures.
the challenge of establishing and maintaining stan- Secondly, this study was conducted using an
dards of ethical conduct across cultures. archival dataset that was not originally designed to
 Endorsement of Ethical Leadership 357

address ethical leadership. However, this study is Bass, B. M.: 1956, ÔDevelopment of a Structured Dis-
based on a powerful dataset that allowed us to guised Personality TestÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology
examine beliefs about some of the important aspects 40, 393–397.
of ethical leadership across 59 different societies. In Bass, B. M.: 1985, Leadership and Performance beyond
addition, our measure did not capture the full Expectations (Free Press, New York).
Bass, B. M.: 1990, Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leader-
conceptual space of the ethical leadership construct.
ship: Theory, Research, and Management Applications
Future research is needed that examines the
3(The Free Press, New York).
endorsement of all of the components of ethical Bass, B. M.: 1998, Transformational Leadership: Industrial,
leadership, including ethical awareness and managing Military, and Educational Impact (Lawrence Erlbaum
ethical accountability. Associates, Mahwah, NJ).
In conclusion, each of the ethical leader- Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio: 1993, ÔTransformational
ship dimensions addressed in this paper focuses on Leadership: A Response to CritiquesÕ, in M. M.
leading in a positive or people-focused manner. Chemers and R. Ayman (eds), Leadership Theory and
When combined, these dimensions reflect leading in Research Perspectives and Qualitys (Academic Press, San
a manner that is respectful of the rights and dignity of Diego, CA), pp. 49–80.
others – that is, ethical leadership. Traditionally, Bass, B. M. and P. Steidlmeier: 1999, ÔEthics, Character,
leadership researchers have focused on studying the and Authentic Transformational Leadership BehaviorÕ,
The Leadership Quarterly 10, 181–217.
complexities of the leadership process with an ulti-
Beauchamp, T. L. and N. E. Bowie: 2001, Ethical Theory and
mate aim at understanding how leaders influence
Business 6th ed. (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
performance. Ethical leadership stands alongside and Bennis, W. G.: 1989, On Becoming a Leader (Addison-
complements the performance focus of these theo- Wesley, Reading, MA).
ries by outlining ways that leaders can lead ethically Bentham, J.: 1948, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals
and ensure the ethics of business practices in their and Legislation (Clarendon, Oxford)(Original work
organizations. This is not to say that ethical leader- published 1789).
ship is not important for effectiveness or perfor- Bentler, P. M. and C. Chou: 1987, ÔPractical Issues in
mance. In fact, we speculate that ethical leadership Structural ModelingÕ, Sociological Methods and Research
will likely have a strong relationship with unit per- 16, 78–117.
formance, perhaps by having an additive or inter- Bowie, N.: 1991, ÔChallenging the Egoistic ParadigmÕ,
active effect with more performance-focused aspects Business Ethics Quarterly 1, 1–23.
Brown, M. E., L. K. Treviño and D. A. Harrison: 2005,
of leadership such as leader-member exchange.
ÔEthical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for
Moreover, given the financial devastation that re-
Construct Development and TestingÕ, Organizational
sulted from the demise of corporations such as Enron Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97, 117–134.
and WorldCom that occurred largely from the fail- Carroll, A. B.: 2004, ‘Managing Ethically with Global
ure of their leaders to act ethically, the importance of Stakeholders: A Present and Future Challenge’, Acad-
ethical leadership for firm performance cannot be emy of Management Executive, 18, 114.
ignored. At the very least, increased focus on ethical Ciulla, J.: 2004, ‘Is Good Leadership Contrary to Human
leadership should help organizations avoid these Nature’, Presentation at the Gallup Leadership Insti-
economic pitfalls that have affected not only mem- tute Summit, Lincoln, NE.
bers of individual organizations, but also the com- Cullen, J. B., B. Victor and C. Stephens: 1989, ÔAn
munities which these organizations serve. Indeed, Ethical Weather Report: Assessing the Organization’s
the prosperity of a society is intricately linked to the Ethical ClimateÕ, Organizational Dynamics 18, 50–62.
Den Hartog, D., R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, S. A. Ruiz-
ethics of those who lead, and the citizens who en-
Quintanilla, P. W. Dorfman and GLOBE: 1999,
dorse, and indeed demand, virtue in their leaders.
ÔCulture-Specific and Cross-Culturally-Generalizable
Implicit Leadership Theories: Are Attributes of
Charismatic/Transformational Leadership Universally
References Endorsed?Õ, Leadership Quarterly 10(2), 219–256.
Dickson, M. W., R. N. Aditya and J. S. Chhokar: 2000,
Barnard, C. I.: 1938, The Functions of the Executive (Har- ÔDefinition and interpretation in cross-cultural orga-
vard University Press, Cambridge). nizational culture reserch: Some pointers from the
358 Christian J. Resick et al.

GLOBE research programÕ, in N. Ashkanasy, C. Fu, P. P. and G. Yukl: 2000, ÔPerceived Effectiveness of
Wilderom and M. F. Peterson (eds), Handbook of Influence tactics in the United States and ChinaÕ, The
Organizational Culture and Climate. (Sage, Newbury Leadership Quarterly 11(2), 251–266.
Park, CA), pp. 447–464. Gerstner, C. R. and D. V. Day: 1994, ÔCross-Cultural
Dickson, M. W., D. N. Den Hartog and J. K. Mit- Comparison of Leadership PrototypesÕ, Leadership
chelson: 2003, ÔResearch on Leadership in a Cross- Quarterly 5, 121–134.
Cultural Context: Making Progress, and Raising Gini, A.: 1997, ÔMoral Leadership: An OverviewÕ, Journal
new QuestionsÕ, The Leadership Quarterly 14, of Business Ethics 16, 323–330.
729–768. Gini, A.: 1998, ÔMoral Leadership and Business EthicsÕ,
Dickson, M. W., P. J. Hanges and R. J. Lord: 2001, in C. B. Ciulla (ed), Ethics, the Heart of Leadership
ÔTrend, Developments and Gaps in Cross-Cultural (Quorum Books, Westport, CT).
Research on LeadershipÕ, in W. H. Mobley and M. Gupta, V. and P. J. Hanges: 2004, ÔRegional and Climate
W. McCall (eds), Advances in Global Leadership 2 Clustering of Societal CulturesÕ, in R. J. House, P. J.
(Oxford, UK, Elsevier Science), pp. 75–100. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman and V. Gupta
Dickson, M. W. and D. N. Den Hartog: 2005, ÔWhat (eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The
Good is this to me? Managerial Implications of Global GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (Sage, Thousand Oaks,
Leadership ResearchÕ, in R. R. Sims and S. J. Quatro CA), pp. 95–101.
(eds), Leadership: Succeeding in the Private, Public, and Hanges, P. J., R. G. Lord and M. W. Dickson: 2000, ÔAn
Non-for-profit Sectors. (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY), pp. information processing perspective on leadership and
348–366. culture: A case for connectionist architectureÕ, Applied
Dickson, M. W., D. B. Smith, M. W. Grojean and Psychology: An International Review 49, 133–161.
M. Ehrhart: 2001, ÔEthical climate: The result of Heine, S. J., D. R. Lehman, K. Peng and J. Greenholtz:
interactions between leadership, leader values, and 2002, ÔWhat’s Wrong with Cross-Cultural Compari-
follower valuesÕ, Leadership Quarterly 12, 1–21. sons of Subjective Likert Scales?: The Reference-
Dirks, K. T. and D. L. Ferrin: 2002, ÔTrust in Leadership: Group EffectÕ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Meta-Analytic Findings and Implication for Research 82(6), 903–918.
and PracticeÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 611–628. Hofstede, G.: 1980, Cultures Consequences (Sage, Beverly
Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1994, ÔTowards a Hills, CA).
Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative House, R. J., P. J. Hanges, S. A. Ruiz-Quintanilla, P. W.
Social Contracts TheoryÕ, Academy of Management Dorfman, M. Javidan and M. W. Dickson, et al.: 1999,
Review 19, 252–284. ÔCultural Influences on Leadership: Project GLOBEÕ,
Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1999, ÔWhen Ethics in W. Mobley, J. Gessner and V. Arnold (eds), Ad-
Travel: The Promise and Peril of Global Business vances in Global Leadership. Vol. 1 (JAI Press, Stanford,
EthicsÕ, California Management Review 41(4), 45–63. CT), pp. 171–233.
Dorfman, P. W. and R. J. House: 2004, ÔCultural House, R. J. and M. Javidan: 2004, ÔOverview of
Influence on Organizational Leadership: Literature GLOBEÕ, in R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.
Review, Theoretical Rationale, and GLOBE Project W. Dorfman and V. Gupta (eds), Culture, Leadership,
GoalsÕ, in R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies
W. Dorfman and V. Gupta (eds), Culture, Leadership, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 9–26.
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies House, R. J., N. S. Wright, and R. N. Aditya: 1997,
(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 51–67. ‘Cross-Cultural Research on Organizational Leader-
Drasgow, F. and R. Kanfer: 1985, ÔEquivalence of Psy- ship: A Critical Analysis and a Proposed Theory’, in P.
chological Measurement in Heterogeneous Popula- C. Earley and M. Erez (eds.), New Perspectives on
tionsÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 70, 662–680. International Industrial/Organizational Psychology (San
Emler, N. and T. Cook: 2001, ÔMoral Integrity in Francisco, CA), pp. 535–625.
Leadership: Why it matters and Why it may be diffi- Hutchings, K. and D. Weir: 2004, ‘Interpersonal Con-
cult to AchieveÕ, in B. W. Roberts and R. Hogan nections in China and the Arab World: Implications
(eds), Personality Psychology in the Workplace (Washing- for Western Managers’, Paper presented at the Irish
ton, DC, American Psychological Association), pp. Academy of Management Annual Conference, Dub-
277–298. lin, Ireland.
Fluker, W.: 2002, ‘Roundtable 3: Ethics and Leadership’, Jackson, T.: 2001, ÔCultural Values and Management
in Conversations on Leadership (President and Fellows of Ethics: A 10-Nation StudyÕ, Human Relations 54,
Harvard College, Cambridge MA). 1267–1302.
 Endorsement of Ethical Leadership 359

Karahanna, E., R. Evaristo and M. Srite: 2002, ÔMeth- Potts, J. D.: 2002, ÔLeadership and Ethics: Advancing the
odological Issues in MIS Cross-Cultural ResearchÕ, ConversationÕ, in C. Cherrey and L. R. Matusak
Journal of Global Information Management 10, 48–55. (eds), Building Leadership Bridges (Academy of Leader-
Krebs, D.: 1982, ÔAltruism: A Rational ApproachÕ, in H. ship, College Park, MD), pp. 41–47.
Eizenberg (ed), The Development of Prosocial Behavior Ronen, S. and O. Shenkar: 1985, ÔClustering Countries
(Academic Press, New York), pp. 53–76. on Attitudinal Dimensions: A Review and SynthesisÕ,
Kanungo, R. N. and M. Mendonca: 1996, Ethical Academy of Management Review 10, 435–454.
Dimensions of Leadership (Sage Series in Business Ethics, Slote, M.: 1992, From Morality to Virtue (Oxford Uni-
Thousand Oaks, CA). versity Press, New York).
Lefkowitz, J.: 2003, Ethics and Values in Industrial and Transparency International: 2001, Corruption Perceptions
Organizational Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mah- Index (Transparency International, Germany).
wah, NJ). Treviño, L. K., M. Brown and L. P. Hartman: 2003, ÔA
Locke, E. A., et al.: 1999, The Essence of Leadership: The Qualitative Investigation of Perceived Executive Eth-
Four Keys to Leading Successfully (Lexington Books, ical Leadership: Perceptions from Inside and Outside
Lanham, MD). the Executive SuiteÕ, Human Relations 56(1), 5–37.
Lord, R. G. and K. J. Maher: 1991, Leadership and Infor- Van de Vijer, F. and K. Leung: 1997, Methods and Data
mation Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research (Sage Publications,
(Unwin Hyman, Boston). Thousand Oaks, CA).
Lord, R. G., D. J. Brown, J. L. Harvey and R. J. Hall: Vandenberg, R. J. and C. E. Lance: 2000, ÔA Review and
2001, ÔContextual Constraints on Prototype Genera- Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature:
tion and their Multilevel Consequences for Leadership Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for
PerceptionsÕ, The Leadership Quarterly 12, 311–338. Organizational ResearchÕ, Organizational Research
Macaulay, J. and L. Berkowitz: 1970, ÔOverviewÕ, in Methods 3, 4–69.
J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (eds), Altruism and Helping Zaleznick, A.: 1990, ÔThe Leadership GapÕ, Academy of
Behavior (Academic Press, New York), pp. 1–12. Management Executive 4(1), 12.
Mautz, R. K. and H. A. Sharaf: 1961, The Philosophy of
Auditing (American Auditing Association, Sarasota, Christian J. Resick, PhD.
FL). Department of Psychology,
Melloan, G.: 2004, ‘Feeling the Muscle of the Multina- Florida International University,
tionals’, Wall Street Journal, 6 January 2004. University Park,
Miroshnik, V.: 2002, ‘Culture and International Man- DM-287,
agement: A Review’, Journal of Management Develop-
11200 SW 8th Street,
ment 21, 521–544.
Miami, FL 33199,
Mullen, M. R.: 1995, ‘Diagnosing Measurement Equiv-
alence in Cross-National Research’, Journal of Interna- U.S.A.
tional Business Studies 26(3), 573–596. E-mail: [email protected]
Myers, M. D. and F. B. Tan: 2002, ÔBeyond Models of
National Culture in Information Systems ResearchÕ, Paul J. Hanges, PhD.
Journal of Global Information Management 10(1), 24–32. Department of Psychology,
Offermann, L. R. and P. S. Hellmann: 1997, ÔCulture’s University of Maryland,
Consequences for Leadership Behavior: National College Park,
Values in ActionÕ, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology MD 20742,
28, 342–351. U.S.A.
Petrick, J. A. and J. F. Quinn: 1997, Management Ethics:
Integrity at Work (Sage Series in Business Ethics,
Marcus W. Dickson, PhD.
Thousand Oaks, CA).
Jacqueline K. Mitchelson,
Pincoffs, E. L.: 1985, ÔTwo Cheers for Meno’s the
Definition of VirtuesÕ, in E. E. Shelp (ed), Virtue and Department of Psychology,
Medicine (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands), pp. Wayne State University,
95–111. Detroit,
Posner, B. Z. and W. H. Schmidt: 1984, ÔValues and the MI 48202,
American Manager: An UpdateÕ, California Management U.S.A.
Review 26, 202–216.