J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2905-9
Linking Ethical Leadership with Firm Performance:
A Multi-dimensional Perspective
Dan Wang1 • Taiwen Feng2 • Alan Lawton3
Received: 19 May 2015 / Accepted: 9 October 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Despite the importance of ethical leadership,
the impacts of its different facets on firm-level performance
are unclear. Drawing on the resource-based view of the
firm and the group engagement model, we propose that
ethical leadership consisting of leader humane orientation,
leader responsibility and sustainability orientation and
leader moderation orientation are beneficial to firm per-
formance, and leader justice orientation plays moderating
roles. We empirically tested this theoretical framework
employing multi-source survey data collected from 264
Chinese firms. The findings reveal that both leader humane
orientation and leader responsibility and sustainability
orientation have positive influences on both firm financial
and social performance, while leader moderation orienta-
tion only has positive influence on firm financial perfor-
mance. In addition, leader justice orientation positively
moderates the relationship between leader humane orien-
tation and leader responsibility and sustainability orienta-
tion and financial performance as well as the relationship
between leader moderation orientation and social perfor-
mance. These findings provide theoretical and practical
& Taiwen Feng
typhoonfeng@gmail.com
Dan Wang
dan.wang@monash.edu
Alan Lawton
alan.lawton@ferderation.edu.au
1
School of Business and Economics, Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia
2
School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical
University, Xi’an, China
3
Federation Business School, Federation University,
Melbourne, Australia
implications for understanding how different facets of
ethical leadership jointly function to influence firm
performance.
Keywords Ethical leadership
Leader humane
orientation
Leader responsibility and sustainability
orientation
Leader moderation orientation
Leader justice
orientation
Firm performance
Introduction
Ethical leadership has become a focal topic in both the
popular media and the academic literature over the last
decade (Brown et al. 2005; Mayer et al. 2012; Treviño
et al. 2006). Although management scholars have explored
antecedents of ethical leadership (Walumbwa and Schau-
broeck 2009) and how ethical leaders influence followers’
ethics-related outcomes (Kacmar et al. 2011; Schaubroeck
et al. 2012), there is still conceptual vagueness of the
ethical leadership construct, and the extended influence of
ethical leadership beyond the leader–follower relationship
into a broader organizational domain including firms’
performance and stakeholder perceptions (Eisenbeiss 2012;
Resick et al. 2011).
The definition of ethical leadership has proven elusive
but a widely utilized one is ‘‘…the normatively appropriate
conduct through personal actions and interpersonal rela-
tionships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers
through two-way communication, reinforcement and
decision-making.’’ (Brown et al. 2005, p. 120). The focus
on relationships and definition leaves open what ‘‘norma-
tive appropriate conduct’’ is? Recent research has argued
for a more elaborate approach to provide minimum nor-
mative references as fundamental ethical principles that
123

leaders should promote (Eisenbeiss 2012; Klein 2002).
Eisenbeiss (2012) conceptualized four central orientations,
including humane, moderation, justice, and sustainability
orientations, which captured varied facets of ethical lead-
ership. These facets are concerned with employees’ needs,
employee diversity, the fair treatment of employees and
environmental welfares. Instead of viewing ethical lead-
ership as a unidimensional construct, this approach pro-
vides greater insights into leader ethical principles that can
be universally applied across countries/cultures. However,
it is still unclear in the literature how different facets of
ethical leadership influence follower and firm performance
independently (i.e. through what mechanisms), and whe-
ther these facets could function jointly and interactively in
contributing to follower and firm performance.
Furthermore, previous studies on ethical leadership have
mainly focused on leader influence on followers (Avey et al.
2012; Neubert et al. 2009). There is relatively little explo-
ration of how ethical leadership at CEO level influence firm-
level performance (for an exception, see Shin et al. 2015).
The existing leader–follower stream of research is insightful
in explaining how leaders’ ethical conduct influences fol-
lower attitudes, behaviours and performance, which echoes
Brown et al.’s (2005) definition for ethical leadership that
stresses the leader–follower interactions. However, leader-
ship in general refers to leading others to achieve organi-
zational goals, and the goal-achieving component, such as
sustaining and promoting firm performance, has been lar-
gely overlooked in existing research. This knowledge gap
needs to be addressed as it has significant implications for
ethical leaders’ influence not only in promoting ethical cli-
mate within the firm, but also in achieving organizational
objectives in financial returns and positive public image as
outcomes of ethical leadership.
In this study, we address the above gaps by investigating
how different facets of ethical leadership influence firm
performance in financial and social terms. Drawing on
resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Wernerfelt 1984),
we argue that CEO ethical leadership in humane, respon-
sibility and sustainability and moderation orientations can
enhance collective employee effort in investment of per-
sonal resources, extra-role behaviour in environmental
protection, and organizational learning which promote firm
performance. This process is moderated by leader justice
orientation underpinned by group engagement model
(Blader and Tyler 2009; Tyler and Blader 2003), as
employees’ fairness perceptions could shape their group
identity and contribute to better engagement and perfor-
mance in the workplace.
This study fills the research gaps in three ways. First, we
indicate that varied facets of ethical leadership may influ-
ence firm performance via different mechanisms. This
highlights the need to adopt a more elaborate view on
123
D. Wang et al.
ethical leadership as compared to previous studies using
the unidimensional approach to measure ethical leadership
(i.e. Avey et al. 2012; Mayer et al. 2012). Second, we
contribute to previous understanding by identifying the
moderating effect of leader justice orientation on the
relationships between leader humane, responsibility and
sustainability and moderation orientations and firm per-
formance. This provides further insights into how different
dimensions of ethical leadership function in synergistic
manner to achieve organizational objectives. Finally, we
link ethical leadership to firm-level outcomes, which
extends previous studies that predominantly focused on the
people influencing component of ethical leadership. By
investigating the influence of ethical leadership on firm’s
financial and social performance, we focus on a goal-
achieving perspective from top leaders using ethical lead-
ership as a tool to enhance firm-specific resources and
realize firm strategic objectives. Our study presents a more
comprehensive picture by looking at not only varied facets
of ethical leadership but also both the people-influencing
and the goal-attaining aspects of ethical leadership.
Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses
Development
The most widely used definition of ethical leadership is
proposed by Brown et al. (2005) and has been introduced
above. Based on a qualitative study with executives, Brown
and Treviño (2006) found two aspects of ethical leader-
ship—the ‘‘moral person’’ and the ‘‘moral manager’’. The
moral person aspect depicts a leader’s personal character-
istics such as integrity and honesty, while the moral man-
ager aspect refers to a leader’s effort to influence ethical
behaviours of followers through promoting ethical stan-
dards and disciplining unethical behaviours.
This definition provides an initial conceptualization of
ethical leadership but it takes a relativistic approach by
centering on ‘‘normatively appropriate conduct’’ without
specifying what principles leaders may refer to when pro-
moting them. Brown et al. (2005) argued that they inten-
tionally chose this vague phrasing because normatively
appropriate behaviours can vary across organizations or
societies. However, Giessner and van Quaquebeke (2010,
p. 43) noted that ‘‘yet, while this definition leaves little to
argue with, it also provides little to work with’’. Tenbrunsel
and Smith-Crowe (2008) also pointed out that providing
definitions of ethical behaviours without content is not
informative. As describing conducts as ethical inherently
engages normative frameworks (Treviño and Weaver
2003), it seems insufficient to define ethical leadership
without having a minimum set of normative reference that
help evaluate the ethicality of conducts (Eisenbeiss 2012).
Linking Ethical Leadership with Firm Performance: A Multi-dimensional Perspective
Other leadership theories, in particular servant leader-
ship theory (van Dierendonck 2011), transformational
leadership (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999), and authentic
leadership (Avolio and Gardner 2005) have more or less
addressed leader’s morality and ethical conduct which
partially overlaps with ethical leadership. For example,
servant leadership emphasizes sharing power and putting
the needs of others first, which reflects a strong sense of
morality to followers (Sendjaya and Cooper 2011).
Transformational leaders need to demonstrate high ethical
standards to enhance motivation and performance of fol-
lowers (Bass and Avolio 1994), and authentic leaders build
legitimacy through honesty and ethical leader–follower
relationships (Brown and Treviño 2006). Although all
these theories integrate an ethical element into their lead-
ership conceptualization, they do not clarify which ethical
principles leaders should follow and promote (Eisenbeiss
2012). Indeed, Yukl et al. (2013) also argue that previous
attempts to measure ethical leadership include items that
measure behaviour not inherently ethical and exclude rel-
evant aspects of ethical leadership. In addition, none of
these leadership theories integrate various principles of
ethical approaches to investigate the joint and overall
influence of ethical leadership on follower or firm perfor-
mance. Researchers (e.g. Eisenbeiss 2012; Klein 2002)
have called for a holistic view on ethical leadership by
incorporating central ethical principles into the conceptual
framework and examine their combined influence on fol-
lower and firm performance.
Recently, based on a critical review and analysis of the
Western and Eastern moral philosophies, Eisenbeiss (2012)
identified four general moral principles that form the
minimum normative reference for ethical leadership:
humane, justice, responsibility and sustainability, and
moderation orientations. This conceptual framework not
only includes Western moral philosophies of altruism
(McGrath 2006) and justice (Rawls 1971) but also includes
Eastern philosophies of long-term orientation (i.e. sus-
tainability) (Hofstede 1991) and moderation (Johnson
2009). It extends previous frameworks by integrating the
most influential standpoints of Western and Eastern moral
philosophies to offer a balanced exemplification of the
ethical leadership framework.
According to Eisenbeiss (2012), leader humane orien-
tation refers to ‘‘treating others with dignity and respect
and to see them as ends not as means’’ (p. 795). This
dimension corresponds to the golden Confucian teaching of
serving others (Yao 2000) and also the fundamental Wes-
tern ethical principle of respecting for dignity and human
rights (Ulrich and Maak 1996). Leader justice orientation
concerns non-discriminatory treatment of others in relation
to gender, nationality, religion, and socio-economic status
(Treviño et al. 2003). This principle is deeply rooted in the
moral philosophy that everyone is entitled to the same
basic liberties (Rawls 1971), and researchers (Brown et al.
2005; Kalshoven et al. 2011) have included justice as an
element in their ethical leadership conceptualization. Lea-
der responsibility and sustainability orientation refers to
‘‘leaders’ long-term views on success and their concern for
the welfare of society and the environment’’ (Eisenbeiss
2012, p. 796). This dimension corresponds to the universal
ethical conduct of protecting the environment and other
beings on the planet to protect the welfare of succeeding
generations (De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Kalshoven
et al. 2011). Finally, leader moderation orientation identi-
fies leader characteristics of embracing diversity and dif-
ferent ideas with a modest attitude (Eisenbeiss 2012),
which represents Western moral philosophies of humility
and temperance (Singh 2005) and Eastern guideline of a
‘‘golden mean’’ between excess and deficiency as well as
harmony as the most important virtue (Rainey 2010).
In this study, we follow Eisenbeiss’s conceptualization
of ethical leadership as it provides a normative framework
that outlines four central ethical orientations applicable to
both Western and Eastern cultures. Based on the RBV of
the firm (Wernerfelt 1984), we argue that CEO ethical
leadership can engender employee collective learning and
ethical conduct that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-
substitutable (VRIN) resources which underpins firm
dynamic capability to achieve superior performance. In
particular, humane orientation enhances employee per-
ception of work meaningfulness which leads to a high level
of intellectual and emotional engagement in both customer-
and other stakeholder-related activities. Responsibility and
sustainability orientation enhances employee behaviours in
green product innovation, cost-saving through materials
recycling, and image building through eco-friendly con-
duct. Moderation orientation allows voice by employees
and stakeholders, which facilitates bottom-up knowledge
generation and decision making. Therefore, collective
employee efforts under ethical leadership can result in
competitive advantage of a firm which leads to improved
financial and social performance.
Furthermore, we combine RBV and group engagement
model to explain the moderating effects of leader justice
orientation. Group engagement model suggests that when
employees perceive a high level of workplace fairness, it is
likely that they will form a strong group identity which
boosts their engagement collectively and hence performance
of the firm (Blader and Tyler 2009; Tyler and Blader 2003).
That is to say, fairness perceptions may influence the extent
to which employees are willing to engage in goal attainment
of the firm (i.e. firm financial and social performance)
through collective investment of their personal resources
and extra-role behaviours developed under humane,
responsibility and sustainability and moderation
123
 D. Wang et al.

Leader justice
orientation

H4a H4b H4c H4d H4e H4f

Leader humane Financial
H1a
orientation performance
H1
b
Leader H2a
Responsibility and
sustainability
H2b
orientation
a
H3

Leader moderation
H3b Social performance
orientation

Fig. 1 Conceptual model

orientations. We develop the integrated conceptual model in 2014). Humane leaders also influence followers to treat
Fig. 1 to depict our hypothesized relationships. customers as unique and valuable individuals, adopting an
individual customer approach in product design and deliv-
ery. Organizational members are likely to be sensitive in
Leader Humane Orientation and Firm Performance
attending customers’ personalized needs and empathize
with their feelings, which help to retain customer satisfac-
Leader humane orientation in an organizational context creates
tion. Several studies have confirmed the positive link
a supporting and caring workplace environment through
between customer satisfaction and financial performance
leaders’ full recognition of others’ rights and genuine concern
(Homburg et al. 2005; Ramani and Kumar 2008).
about employees’ well-being (Eisenbeiss 2012). Organiza-
Apart from financial performance, the literature also
tional members are treated with dignity and respect and are
suggests that leader ethical treatment of employees can
viewed as ends not as means. Such humane treatment is likely
facilitate firm interaction with external stakeholders through
to nurture positive psychological condition among employees
proactive practices of public relations (Lotila 2010; Maak
which enhances their engagement and commitment at work
and Pless 2006). This implies that the influence of humane
(Barrick et al. 2015; Kahn 1992). According to social exchange
orientation could go beyond the immediate objectives of the
theory, employees feel the need to reciprocate favourable
organization to far-reaching social influence. For example,
organizational treatment with attitudes and behaviours that in
Lotila (2010) argued that humane leadership could promote
turn benefit the organization (Eisenberger et al. 1986).
employee interaction with stakeholders, which creates
In return, employees under humane orientation are likely
mutual understanding and alleviates social pressure even
to engage more fully at work through psychical, cognitive,
when firms fail to meet stakeholder expectations. Slack et al.
and emotional efforts (Kahn 1990). Collective employee
(2015) also found that employee engagement play a vital
engagement is able to enhance the focal firm’s dynamic
role for the scope of a firm’s corporate social responsibili-
capability for superior performance (Barrick et al. 2015).
ties. From a social learning perspective (Bandura 1977),
From a cost advantage point of view (Porter 1985), high
humane leaders act as role models and lead organizational
level of employee engagement facilitates internal informa-
members to show genuine concern for stakeholder interests
tion sharing and coordination among functional work units,
and to support stakeholder development. Through reciprocal
which reduce internal communication and integration cost
exchange and active stakeholder relationship management,
for the organization. From a differentiation advantage per-
firms are able to gain institutional support for a good public
spective (Barney 1991), fully engaged employees are likely
image and brand loyalty. Based on the above arguments, we
to better exploit firm existing resources that could extend
hypothesize that:
and reconfigure firm competencies to the optimal usage.
This enhances firm capability to respond to customer H1 Leader humane orientation has a positive influence
demand faster, and absorb customer feedback more effec- on (a) financial performance and (b) social performance of
tively to enhance customer satisfaction (Riivari and Lämsä a firm.

123
Linking Ethical Leadership with Firm Performance: A Multi-dimensional Perspective
Leader Responsibility and Sustainability
Orientation and Firm Performance
Leader responsibility and sustainability orientation creates
an organizational culture that protects the environment,
and enables employee collective thinking and behaviour
on sustainable development without overuse of resources
for short-term profits. Along with the rising awareness of
consumers and communities for environmental protec-
tion, government pressures and policies on green opera-
tions, and a global trend towards more effective use of
resources (Cong and Wei 2012; Lo et al. 2012), firms
that have a sustainability leadership are able to gain
stakeholder recognition on their eco-friendly procedures
and practices. For example, Darnall et al. (2008) found
that firm effort on environmental monitoring and pro-
tection has a positive impact on firm’s social perfor-
mance. As social performance focuses on a firm’s
relationship with society (Baird et al. 2012), this ethical
dimension can greatly enhance firm positive image
building towards stakeholders since it demonstrates
managerial commitment to social responsibility through
environmental protection.
Apart from social performance, leader responsibility
and sustainability orientation is likely to enhance firm
financial performance through the following mechanisms.
First, employees under sustainability leadership are likely
to identify more cost-saving opportunities through envi-
ronmental planning and material recycling. For examples,
scholars found that firms attempting to reduce physical
waste or using reusable components through eco-friendly
approaches, are able to reduce costs and improve prof-
itability (Menguc and Ozanne 2005; Wong et al. 2012).
Systematic environmental planning through raw material
acquisition, to manufacturing and distribution can also
help to reduce life-cycle costs of products (Melnyk et al.
2003). Furthermore, firms under sustainable leadership are
likely to gain more external legitimacy and positive cor-
porate image due to their responsible conduct. According
to RBV, such corporate image is an intangible asset for a
firm which could improve customer loyalty and repeat
purchase rate from existing customers. It also allows firms
to charge a premium price due to their differentiated
brand and image which enhances firm profitability (Feng
and Wang 2015). Therefore, sustainable leadership could
not only help firms save cost, but also be helpful in
generating additional financial returns based on brand
differentiation.
H2 Leader responsibility and sustainability orientation
has a positive influence on (a) financial performance and
(b) social performance of a firm.
Leader Moderation Orientation and Firm
Performance
Leader moderation orientation reflects leader attributes of
humility, embracing diversity, and balanced behaviour in
achieving financial profits for the organization and social
benefits within the wider community (Eisenbeiss 2012). It
corresponds to recent leadership theories which have called
for leader openness to their own limitations and have
stressed that leaders adopt humble attitudes in enhancing
organizational capabilities and performance (Owens and
Hekman 2012; Weick 2001). It also follows Eastern man-
agerial philosophies of emphasizing harmony and not
encouraging extreme ideas (Rainey 2010), which assist
firms to make wise decisions in balancing short-term and
long-terms goals as well as organizational interests and
stakeholder interests (Eisenbeiss 2012).
Leader moderation orientation is likely to enhance
financial performance of a firm through two mechanisms.
First, leaders who are modest and embracing diversity are
able to promote a wider range of ideas and perspectives
originated from employees in the workplace. Divergent
views can lead to better information processing, multiple
solutions to a single problem, and can avoid pitfalls of
group-think (Ely and Thomas 2001). Research has already
shown that workplace diversity in terms of ideas, culture,
ethnicity and gender could enhance firm capability in
learning, reduce learning cost, and generate internal synergy
(Cantwell and Mudambi 2005; Theodorakopoulos and
Budhwar 2015). As a result, firms can achieve better finan-
cial performance due to their cost-efficient and synergistic
internal operations. In addition, divergent ideas promoted by
moderation orientation are particularly beneficial for new
product development. Existing studies have demonstrated
that firm learning capability is closely related to new
knowledge generation and R&D unit’s performance that
predict long-term competitiveness of a firm (Ambos and
Schlegelmilch 2008; Sivakumar and Nakata 2003). There-
fore, we expect that moderation orientation has a positive
influence on firm’s financial performance not only from a
cost-saving perspective, but also from new opportunities and
profit generations based on enhanced R&D capability.
In terms of social performance, firms are likely to ben-
efit from leader moderation orientation due to employees’
vicarious learning from firm leaders. According to social
learning theory (Bandura 1977), moderate leaders set
examples for employees to embrace divergent perspectives
and to balance social and financial benefits wisely. Such an
organizational climate is likely to allow a greater say by
stakeholders in the firm–stakeholder exchanges, leading to
co-creation of values and procedures for the firm that are
123
 D. Wang et al.

viewed as socially desirable (Prahalad and Ramaswamy (b) social performance in a way that the positive effects of
2004). Collective decision making by the firm and its humane orientation on financial and social performance are
stakeholders also opens up avenues for promoting mutual strengthened as justice orientation increases.
benefits and respect, which deepens the connection
H4 Leader justice orientation moderates the relationship
between the firm and its stakeholders (Bhattacharya et al.
between leader responsibility and sustainability orientation
2009). Hence, firms are likely to reap social benefits from
and (c) financial and (d) social performance in a way that
the moderation orientation of their leaders. We therefore
the positive effects of sustainability orientation on financial
hypothesize that
and social performance are strengthened as justice orien-
H3 Leader moderation orientation has a positive influ- tation increases.
ence on (a) financial performance and (b) social perfor-
H4 Leader justice orientation moderates the relationship
mance of a firm.
between leader moderation orientation and (e) financial and
(f) social performance in a way that the positive effects of
Moderating Effects of Leader Justice Orientation
moderation orientation on financial and social performance
are strengthened as justice orientation increases.
To investigate the boundary conditions that may constrain
the extent to which humane, responsibility and sustainability
and moderation orientations of leaders influence firm per-
Methods
formance, we take leader justice orientation as a moderator
based on the theoretical underpinning of group engagement
Sampling and Data Collection
model (Blader and Tyler 2009; Tyler and Blader 2003).
Group engagement model expands group value model on
Survey data were collected from Chinese firms to test our
justice to provide theoretical insights on how justice shapes
research hypotheses. China has achieved rapid economic
cooperation in groups, organizations, and societies (Colquitt
growth over the last two decades, and there has been
et al. 2001). It states that when group members perceive a
improved inclusion and plurality in values held by its
high level of justice in their workplace, they experience
people (Xie et al. 2008). Accompanying the economic
strong collective identity, which boosts the engagement and
growth is the policy guidance for firms not only to play
performance of the collective (Tyler and Blader 2003).
economic roles, but also become ethical players in the
Therefore, when just leaders allocate tasks to employees
marketplace (He et al. 2012). Therefore, China offers an
fairly and make procedures transparent, they (re)shape
ideal context for extending and enriching the ethical
employee fairness perceptions about the work environment
leadership literature. In this study, we are particularly
and engender employee positive group identity with pride
interested in examining the impacts of ethical leadership on
and respect. Through positive collective identity, employees
firm’s financial and social performance in China.
are willing to engage in in-role and extra-role work activities
The levels of economic development and market reform
both psychologically and behaviourally which promotes
are distinct in different areas of China. Therefore, we
goal accomplishment and superior performance of a firm
strategically chose five provinces that are located in dif-
(van Dijke et al. 2012).
ferent areas (namely, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shandong,
Therefore, if the degree of leader justice orientation is
Shaanxi and Henan) to obtain representative data. These
high, employees are likely to form a fairness perception that
five provinces reflect diverse level and stage of economic
encourages their collective group identity. Such group
development. For each province, we randomly selected 300
identity can further facilitate employees’ collective invest-
firms as our sampling frame, totalling up to 1,500 firms.
ment of personal resources (i.e. in physical, cognitive and
The firm list and contact information were provided by the
emotional terms) developed under leader humane orienta-
published industry directories available in the library.
tion, extra-role behaviour in environmental monitoring and
These selected firms were then called to obtain the contact
protection developed under responsibility and sustainability
details of key informants. We explained the academic
orientation, and collective learning and knowledge sharing
nature, research purpose and confidentiality of our research
efforts developed under moderation orientation. However, if
to the respondents. To encourage their participation, we
the degree of justice orientation is low, employees are less
also promised a summary report on request. After that, 539
likely to form a group identity which might hamper their
firms agreed to participate in our research.
effort in engaging and investing into the organization. Based
We first developed the English version of the ques-
on the above arguments, we hypothesize that:
tionnaire based on existing literature. To ensure cross-
H4 Leader justice orientation moderates the relationship cultural equivalence, the translation/back-translation
between leader humane orientation and (a) financial and approach was used. Before initiating the survey, the

123
Linking Ethical Leadership with Firm Performance: A Multi-dimensional Perspective
measures were carefully examined by three researchers and
five practitioners. At the pilot test stage, the questionnaire
was sent to 16 managers from ten firms. We conducted in-
depth interviews with managers after they had completed
the questionnaire. Based on their feedback, we refined the
questionnaire to ensure its clearance and relevance to
business practices in China.
Two waves of surveys were conducted in this study in
summer 2013 and spring 2014. At time 1, employees
reported four facets of ethical leadership (i.e. leader
humane orientation, leader responsibility and sustainability
orientation, leader moderation orientation and leader jus-
tice orientation). For the scale of ethical leadership, we
asked two representative groups of employees, from both
front-line and middle-managerial levels, to rate for the
CEO. These two groups of respondents were selected on
random basis, each consisting 5–15 people, and they were
requested to provide a consensus response based on in-
group discussion. At time 2, 6 months after time 1, top
managers of firms were asked to respond to the scales for
financial and social performance in each firm. To mitigate
the threat of potential social-desirability bias, every infor-
mant was informed that there are no absolute right or
wrong answers and that their responses would maintain
strictly confidential and never be shared with their
colleagues.
Among the top manager informants, 29.54 % were
CEOs/president and the rest were from top management
teams. The average work experience of top manager
respondents is 8.23 years, while the average work experi-
ence of employee respondents is 5.46 years. These results
suggest that our respondents were familiar with the firm
and were knowledgeable to provide information related to
ethical leadership and firm performance. Overall, survey
data from 264 firms were employed for final analysis,
yielding a response rate of 17.6 %. The final sample covers
firms with different sizes and ownership types, among
which 15.15 % were large firms (with above 2000
employees), 22.03 % were middle firms (with between 300
and 2000 employees), and 62.50 % were small firms (with
less than 300 employees); 28.03 % were state-owned
enterprises, 51.89 % were private firms, and 20.08 % were
foreign-invested firms.
Two approaches were employed to test potential non-
response bias. First, firm size and firm age between the
responding firms and non-responding firms in the sample
were compared. The t test results suggested no significant
differences at the significance level of 0.05. Second, firm
size and firm age between early and late responses were
also compared. We did not find statistical significant dif-
ferences between them at the significance level of 0.05.
Thus, we can conclude that non-response bias was not a
major concern in this study.
Measures
Leader humane Orientation
A five-item scale adapted from Eisenbeiss (2012) and
Kalshoven et al. (2011) was used to measure leader
humane orientation. Response options ranged from 1
(‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’). Items included
‘Treat employees with dignity and respect’, ‘Is caring and
pays attention to employees’ personal needs’, ‘Takes time
to talk about work-related emotions with employees’, ‘Is
not genuinely concerned about employees’ personal
development’, and ‘Sympathizes with employees when
they have problems’. We averaged the ratings from two
groups to measure leader humane orientation. For this
measure, ICC[1] = 0.38, ICC[2] = 0.59, and rwg = 0.836.
Leader Responsibility and Sustainability Orientation
Leader responsibility and sustainability orientation was
measured using a five-item scale adapted from Eisenbeiss
(2012) and Kalshoven et al. (2011). Response options
ranged from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’).
Items included ‘Care about the environment and stimulate
recycling’, ‘Long-term focus on success, concerns about
the welfare of future generations’, ‘Puts the interests of
society above those of the organization or him or herself’,
‘Shows concern for sustainability issues’, and ‘Would like
to work in an environmentally friendly manner’. We
averaged the ratings from two groups to measure leader
responsibility and sustainability orientation. For this mea-
sure, ICC[1] = 0.44, ICC[2] = 0.61 and rwg = 0.871.
Leader Moderation Orientation
A four-item scale adapted from Eisenbeiss (2012) was used
to measure leader moderation orientation. Response
options ranged from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly
agree’). Items included ‘The leader has modest attitude’,
‘Giving others the possibility to shine’, ‘Do not encourage
extreme objectives, ideas, and behaviours’, and ‘Accept
diversity and differences’. We averaged the ratings from
two groups to measure leader moderation orientation. For
this measure, ICC[1] = 0.19, ICC[2] = 0.74, and
rwg = 0.928.
Leader Justice Orientation
A five-item scale adapted from Kalshoven et al. (2011) was
used to assess leader justice orientation. Response options
ranged from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’).
Items included ‘Treat others in a way that is right and
equal’, ‘Distributes work to employees fairly’, ‘Holds
123

employees responsible for things that are not their fault’,
‘Never pursues his/her own success at the expense of
others’, and ‘Make just decisions’. The answers from two
groups were averaged to measure leader justice orientation.
For this measure, ICC[1] = 0.23, ICC[2] = 0.76, and
rwg = 0.901.
Financial Performance
We used seven items of perceived financial performance
developed by Li and Zhang (2007) to assess financial
performance. The informant was asked to assess his or her
firm’s performance compared to its major competitors with
regard to ‘sales growth’, ‘profit growth’, ‘return on assets’,
‘return on investment’, ‘market share growth’, ‘overall
efficiency of operations’, and ‘return on sales’. Response
options ranged from 1 (‘far below the competitors’) to 7
(‘far above the competitors’).
Social Performance
A three-item scale developed from Rao and Holt (2005)
was used to assess social performance. Response options
ranged from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’).
Items included ‘Improved public image’, ‘Improved rela-
tions with stakeholders’, and ‘Improved brand image’.
Control Variables
A number of factors such as firm size, firm age, industry
type, and technology turbulence were controlled for in this
study. Firm size was deemed to be important in explaining
firm performance as large firms were expected to have more
resources and information to meet customer demand (Van
Doorn et al. 2013). Firm age might affect a firm’s strategies
and operations, since younger firms might be more flexible
(Van Doorn et al. 2013). We measured firm size and firm age
by calculating the natural logarithm of the number of
employees and firm operating years, respectively. Because
firm performance varied across industries, industrial effects
were controlled for by including a dummy variable: high-
tech versus non-high-tech industry (Wei et al. 2014). Since
technology turbulence might influence firm performance (Li
and Atuahene-Gima 2001), it was also controlled for.
Reliability and Validity
Following Fornell and Larcker (1981), we evaluated the
reliability of constructs using Cronbach’s alpha and com-
posite reliability (CR). The results in Table 1 showed that
all seven Cronbach’s alpha and CR values were higher than
0.80. Therefore, measures in our study had satisfactory
internal consistency.
123
D. Wang et al.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
assess convergent validity and discriminant validity. The
model fit was acceptable (v2 = 1038.31, d.f. = 474,
RMSEA = 0.068, CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.98, SRMR =
0.046). All factor loadings in Table 1 were significant,
indicating convergent validity was acceptable. The average
variance extracted (AVE) values were also calculated to
evaluate convergent validity (O’Leary-Kelly and Vokurka
1998). The AVE values were higher than 0.5, which pro-
vided further support for convergent validity.
The square root of AVE value for each construct was
compared with the correlations between this construct and
the other constructs in order to evaluate discriminant valid-
ity. To ensure adequate discriminant validity, the square root
of AVE value should be higher than the correlations (Hair
et al. 2006). Table 2 showed the square root of AVEs and the
inter-correlations of all the constructs. The square root of
AVE for each construct was higher than the correlations with
the other constructs suggested good discriminant validity.
Common Method Variance
Several procedures suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003)
were used to reduce and estimate the potential influence of
common method variance (CMV). First, because collecting
data from a single respondent is the most important sources
of CMV, survey data used in this study were collected from
three respondents in each firm: one top manager and two
groups of employees. Since the information relating to the
independent, moderating and dependent variables were
sourced from different respondents, CMV is fairly miti-
gated. Second, the independent/moderating and dependent
variables in this study are based on data that were collected
at different points of time (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Thus,
CMV can be further reduced. Third, the order of the ques-
tions was mixed by putting the items for seven constructs on
different pages with items of the other constructs to reduce
the contextual influences. Finally, we conducted CFA to
assess the potential CMV. We tested a model that linked all
items to a single factor. The model fit was unsatisfactory
(v2 = 3142.84, d.f. = 495, RMSEA = 0.18, CFI = 0.90,
NNFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.10). If all items were assigned to
their expected factors, the model fit was satisfactory.
Therefore, CMV was unlikely to be not an issue.
Results
We conducted hierarchical multiple regression analysis to
examine the hypothesized relationships. Results of
regression analysis are shown in Table 3. Control variable
were first entered (Models 1 and 4), and independent and
moderating variables were then entered in the second step
Linking Ethical Leadership with Firm Performance: A Multi-dimensional Perspective

Table 1 CFA results

Construct Item code Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE

Leader humane orientation HO1 0.81 0.881 0.886 0.615

HO2 0.86
HO3 0.80
HO4 0.52
HO5 0.88
Leader responsibility and sustainability orientation SO1 0.86 0.855 0.863 0.564
SO2 0.90
SO3 0.70
SO4 0.66
SO5 0.59
Leader moderation orientation MO1 0.81 0.841 0.853 0.593
MO2 0.85
MO3 0.65
MO4 0.76
Leader justice orientation JO1 0.83 0.840 0.853 0.545
JO2 0.83
JO3 0.52
JO4 0.64
JO5 0.83
Firm performance FP1 0.88 0.955 0.955 0.679
FP2 0.91
FP3 0.88
FP4 0.89
FP5 0.83
FP6 0.84
FP7 0.83
Social performance SP1 0.89 0.908 0.909 0.770
SP2 0.84
SP3 0.90
Technology turbulence TT1 0.80 0.828 0.841 0.580
TT2 0.49
TT3 0.92
TT4 0.77

(Models 2 and 5). Results in Table 3 present that leader
humane orientation has positive influences both on finan-
cial performance (b = 0.279, p \ 0.01) and social perfor-
mance (b = 0.292, p \ 0.01). Thus, H1a and H1b are
empirically supported. Similarly, Table 3 indicates that
leader responsibility and sustainability orientation has
positive influences both on financial performance
(b = 0.229, p \ 0.01) and social performance (b = 0.291,
p \ 0.001). These results provide empirical support for
H2a and H2b. Table 3 also shows that the positive impact
of leader moderation orientation on financial performance
is significant (b = 0.207, p \ 0.05). However, the impact
of leader moderation orientation on social performance is
not significant (b = 0.129, p [ 0.10). Thus, H3a is sup-
ported while H3b is not supported.
Interaction terms were further entered to test H3a-H3f
(Models 3 and 6). Before producing the interaction term,
the independent and moderating variables were mean-
centred. Table 3 suggests that the interaction term of leader
humane orientation and leader justice orientation is sig-
nificant for financial performance (b = 0.148, p \ 0.05)
but is not significant for social performance (b = 0.067,
p [ 0.10). Leader justice orientation positively moderates
the relationship between leader humane orientation and
financial performance. Thus, H3a is empirically supported
and H3b is not empirically supported. Results in Table 3
also indicate that the interaction term of leader responsi-
bility and sustainability orientation and leader justice ori-
entation is significant for financial performance
(b = 0.119, p \ 0.05), and not for social performance

123
 D. Wang et al.

(b = 0.065, p [ 0.10). Leader justice orientation posi-

-0.015
tively moderates the relationship between leader modera-

9
tion orientation and financial performance. Hence, H3c is

0.417***
supported and H3d is not supported. Furthermore, the

-0.119
interaction term of leader moderation orientation and lea-
der justice orientation is significant for social performance
8

(b = 0.142, p \ 0.01), and not for financial performance

0.762
-0.033
-0.112
0.063
(b = -0.070, p [ 0.10). Leader justice orientation posi-
tively moderates the relationship between leader modera-
7

tion orientation and social performance. Therefore, H3f is

0.229***
supported while H3e is not supported.
0.877

-0.014
-0.015
-0.051
To shed more light on the moderating effects, the sig-
nificant interactions were plotted for low and high levels of
6

leader justice orientation (i.e. one standard deviation below

0.524***
0.330***

and above its mean) (Aiken and West, 1991). Figure 2

0.824

-0.022
-0.109
-0.017

presents that the relationship between leader humane ori-

entation and financial performance becomes stronger when
5

the level of leader justice orientation increases. Simple

0.476***
0.544***
0.381***

slope test indicates that the positive slope for high level of
-0.136*
0.738

-0.098
-0.019

leader justice orientation is significant (b = 0.425,

p \ 0.001), while the positive slope for low level of leader
4

justice orientation is not significant (b = 0.133, p [ 0.10).

0.549***
0.423***
0.448***
0.354***
-0.141*

Our findings support H3a that leader justice orientation

0.770

-0.040
-0.055

positively moderates the relationship between leader

humane orientation and financial performance.
3

Figure 3 indicates that the relationship between leader

0.509***
0.554***
0.324***
0.385***
0.340***

responsibility and sustainability orientation and financial

0.751

-0.017
-0.042
-0.052

performance is strengthened as the level of leader justice

2

orientation increases. Slope test further show that the

positive slope for high level of leader justice orientation is
0.496***
0.562***
0.599***
0.433***
0.481***
0.386***
-0.158*

significant (b = 0.220, p \ 0.05) while the positive slope

0.784

-0.041
-0.057

for low level of leader justice orientation is not significant

1

(b = 0.105, p [ 0.10). Thus, our results support H3c that

Table 2 Mean, standard deviations, and correlations of the constructs

1.042
1.008
1.034
0.987
1.148
1.090
1.174
1.852
0.762
0.493

leader justice orientation positively moderates the rela-

SD

*** p \ 0.001; * p \ 0.05; square root of AVE is on the diagonal

tionship between leader responsibility and sustainability

orientation and financial performance.
Mean

5.402
5.252
5.416
5.309
5.016
5.498
4.571
5.289
2.464
0.591

In Fig. 4, interaction plots reveal that the relationship

between leader moderation orientation and social perfor-
2. Leader responsibility and sustainability orientation

mance is strengthened as the level of leader justice orientation

increases. Slope test further shows that the positive slope for
high level of leader justice orientation is significant
(b = 0.275, p \ 0.01), while the negative slope for low level
of leader justice orientation is not significant (b = -0.005,
p [ 0.10). These findings support H3f that leader justice
3. Leader moderation orientation

orientation positively moderates the relationship between

1. Leader humane orientation

4. Leader justice orientation

leader moderation orientation and social performance.

7. Technology turbulence
6. Social performance
5. Firm performance

10. Industry type

Discussion and Conclusion

8. Firm size
9. Firm age
Constructs

This study investigates how multiple dimensions of ethical

leadership influence firm performance from both financial
and social perspectives. Empirical evidence from Chinese

123
Linking Ethical Leadership with Firm Performance: A Multi-dimensional Perspective

Table 3 Results of regression analysis

Variables Financial performance Social performance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Firm size 0.032 0.120* 0.110  -0.027 0.068 0.065

Firm age -0.090 -0.142* -0.129* 0.024 -0.023 -0.024
Industry type -0.035 0.026 0.028 -0.069 -0.002 -0.023
 
Technology turbulence 0.323*** 0.100 0.060 0.235*** -0.034 -0.030
Leader humane orientation (HO) 0.279** 0.263** 0.292** 0.259**
***
Leader responsibility and sustainability orientation (SO) 0.229** 0.222** 0.291 0.297***
Leader moderation orientation (MO) 0.207* 0.169* 0.129 0.135
Leader justice orientation (JO) -0.109 -0.025 0.014 0.041
HO 9 JO 0.148* 0.067
SO 9 JO 0.119* 0.065
MO 9 JO -0.070 0.142**
R square 0.117 0.370 0.395 0.057 0.410 0.430
Adjusted R square 0.103 0.350 0.368 0.043 0.392 0.406
R square change 0.253*** 0.025* 0.353*** 0.020*
 
*** p \ 0.001; ** p \ 0.01; * p \ 0.05; p \ 0.1

6.0 6.5
Low JO High JO Low JO High JO
Financial performance

5.5
Social performance

6.0
5.0

4.5 5.5

4.0
Low HO High HO 5.0
Low MO High MO
Fig. 2 Interactive effects of leader humane orientation and leader
justice orientation on financial performance Fig. 4 Interactive effects of leader moderation orientation and leader
justice orientation on social performance

6.0 firms reveals that both leader humane orientation and lea-
Low JO High JO der responsibility and sustainability orientation have posi-
tive influences on financial performance and social
Financial performance

5.5
performance, while leader moderation orientation only has
positive influence on financial performance. However, the
direct impacts of leader justice orientation on financial
performance and social performance are not significant.
5.0 Furthermore, leader justice orientation positively moder-
ates the relationships between leader humane orientation
and leader responsibility and sustainability orientation and
4.5 financial performance as well as the relationship between
Low SO High SO
leader moderation orientation and social performance.
Fig. 3 Interactive effects of leader responsibility and sustainability These findings provide empirical evidence for the rela-
orientation and leader justice orientation on financial performance tionships between different dimensions of ethical

123

leadership and firm performance and contribute to theory
and practice.
Theoretical Contributions
The findings of this study make three major contributions
to the ethical leadership literature. First, we extend previ-
ous studies by considering ethical leadership as a multi-
dimensional construct. Existing literature have viewed
ethical leadership as a unidimensional construct, which
may overlook the differences among different facets of
ethical leadership (Avey et al. 2012; Mayer et al. 2012). In
addition, Shin et al. (2015) found that the direct relation-
ships between ethical leadership and organizational out-
comes are not significant. Our study provides new insights
by integrating Western moral philosophies of altruism and
justice, and Eastern philosophies of long-term orientation
(i.e. sustainability) and moderation. This study also enri-
ches extant literature by identifying divergent mechanisms
through which different facets of ethical leadership con-
tribute to organizational outcomes. We confirmed the
positive influence of leader humane, responsibility and
sustainability, and moderation orientations on firm finan-
cial and social performance, but revealed insignificant
influence of leader moderation orientation on firm social
performance. This indicates that compared to social image
building, Chinese employees at current stage may focus
more on mobilizing their knowledge and skills for profit
generation, therefore voice behaviour under leader mod-
eration orientation is more related to consumer satisfaction
rather than meeting a wide range of stakeholder expecta-
tions. This is consistent with current literature indicating
that monetary incentives are still given priority by Chinese
employees, and thus constraining the positive effect of
leader moderation orientation on social performance (i.e.
Zou et al. 2015).
Second, we contribute to ethical leadership literature by
studying under what conditions the impact of ethical lead-
ership and firm performance will be strengthened. Based on
group engagement model, employees perceiving a high
level of workplace fairness are more likely to form positive
collective identity which boost their engagement and per-
formance (Tyler and Blader 2003). Thus, leader justice
orientation may play moderating roles on the relationships
between leader humane/responsibility and sustainabil-
ity/moderation orientation and firm performance. Our find-
ings show that fairness perceptions of employees are task-
dependent, and hence leader justice orientation can better
influence in-role behaviours of employees than extra-roles.
This explains why leader justice orientation significantly
moderates the relationship between leader humane/respon-
sibility orientations and firm financial performance, but not
social performance. Social performance requires employee
123
D. Wang et al.
citizenship behaviour to accommodate stakeholder
demands, which is usually extra-role related and difficult to
be judged by workplace fairness. In addition, leader justice
orientation does not moderate the relationship between
leader moderation orientation and financial performance, as
employee voice behaviour and bottom-up knowledge gen-
eration under leader moderation leadership also require a
high level of discretionary (extra-role) activities. Despite the
limited influence of leader justice orientation on social
performance, our findings demonstrate that leader justice
orientation moderates the relationship between leader
moderation orientation and social performance. This indi-
cates that although just leaders may not be able to push
employees’ extra-role behaviour, but they can guide
employees’ learning towards ethical values of leaders, par-
ticularly under moderation leadership where a free envi-
ronment for learning is provided and encouraged. Therefore,
extra-role behaviour of employees can be achieved not
through direct enforcement, but through a learning envi-
ronment and model setting of leaders.
Third, the current study contributes to previous literature
by linking ethical leadership to firm-level outcomes. The
enormous studies on ethical leadership have been focused
on the impacts of ethical leadership on individual- or
group-level outcomes (Kacmar et al. 2011; Schaubroeck
et al. 2012; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009). In con-
trast, ethical leadership at the firm-level has been largely
neglected, and very little is known about how ethical
leadership is likely to influence organizational perfor-
mance. This research gap is an important omission given
that CEO shapes the ethical climate and culture as well as
the strategy of a firm (Freeman et al. 1988; Shin et al. 2015;
Treviño et al. 1998), thus considering CEO ethical lead-
ership as a critical factor influencing firm performance is
sound. By demonstrating that leader humane orientation
and leader responsibility and sustainability orientation have
significant and positive impacts on financial and social
performance, and leader moderation orientation has sig-
nificant and positive impact on financial performance, this
study expands the ethical leadership literature to the firm-
level of analysis.
Managerial Implications
This study has highlighted the important role played by top-
level executives in business firms for developing ethical
climate to reap financial and social benefits. It shows that
ethical leadership can be used as a tool by top executives to
mobilize human resources of a firm, which further enhance
firm capabilities and competitive advantages in the mar-
ketplace. First, the findings reinforce the idea that treating
employees with dignity, respect, and genuine concern using
a humane approach could promote firm performance.
Linking Ethical Leadership with Firm Performance: A Multi-dimensional Perspective
Therefore, top executives are expected to create a humane
environment in the workplace, which could enhance
employees’ commitment and engagement at work.
Employees with sufficient commitment and engagement
might devote psychical, cognitive, and emotional efforts to
reciprocate favourable organizational treatment which in
turn improve financial and social outcomes of the firm.
Second, managers should be noted that leader respon-
sibility and sustainability orientation is conductive to the
improvement of financial and social performance. Thus,
leaders caring for environmental protection could create an
eco-friendly culture, and enable employee collective
thinking and behaviour on sustainable development. By
enhancing financial and social performance of a firm, this
study consolidates the idea that being a socially responsible
corporate citizen can ensure success in the long run.
Third, firm leaders are also expected to be moderate, by
showing their willingness to give employee voice and their
balanced pursuit of economic and social goals. Such a
balanced approach could enable firms achieve sustainable
growth, without compromising the capability of the firm
for gaining short-term financial profits. However, leaders
expecting to improve social performance through moder-
ation orientation may be disappointed. Since leader mod-
eration orientation may boost more consumer-related
improvements by employees than meeting a wide range of
stakeholder expectations, it is found to be insignificant in
leading to firm social performance.
Finally, when leaders demonstrate justice orientation to
strengthen the positive effects of humane, responsibility
and sustainability, and moderation orientations on firm
performance, they need to be cautious of the consequences
of employee fairness perceptions. Justice orientation can
generate employee fairness perceptions towards transparent
procedures and therefore form a strong collective identity
to promote engagement and firm performance. However,
leader justice orientation plays different moderating roles
for the relationships between different dimensions of eth-
ical leadership and different types of firm performance.
Limitations and Future Directions
The findings in this study should be interpreted with cau-
tion in light of several limitations. First, CEO ethical
leadership was assessed by two groups of employees.
However, some scholars argued that because top managers
closely work with CEO and possess specific knowledge on
CEO’s ethical values and behaviours, top manager ratings
are likely to be more accurate than employee evaluations of
ethical leadership (Brown and Treviño 2006). Further
research may need to combine reports of employees and
top managers to assess CEO ethical leadership in order to
mitigate potential bias.
Second, we only focused on leader humane orientation,
leader responsibility and sustainability orientation, leader
moderation orientation and leader justice orientation. In
addition to these three facets of ethical leadership, other
forms of ethical leadership (e.g. charismatic leadership)
may also have impact on firm outcomes. Future studies
could consider the potential consequences of other forms of
ethical leadership to provide more insightful findings.
Third, future research could incorporate more organi-
zational factors to have an elaborated understanding of how
CEO ethical leadership influences firm performance. For
example, organizational factors such as organizational
culture and employee perceptions of organizational prac-
tices could be included to investigate their influence on
CEO ethical leadership and its consequences in firm per-
formance (Shin et al. 2015). Therefore, it could provide a
more complete picture on how ethical leadership function
in a firm. Further studies could investigate the potential
mediating effects of organizational culture and employee
behaviours on the relationship between ethical leadership
and firm performance.
Finally, we did not use objective scales to measure firm
performance for all the participating firms. Although per-
ceived performance has been used in several previous studies
(Eisenbeiss et al. 2015; Torugsa et al. 2012), future studies
may operationalize firm performance by constructing sev-
eral accounting measures of performance such as return on
sales, return on assets, and return on equity. Accordingly, a
design combining objective and subjective measures of firm
performance would benefit to future research.
Acknowledgments Our thanks go to the editor and the two
anonymous referees. This work was supported by the Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant (No. 71402141), the Humanity and
Social Science Youth foundation of Ministry of Education of China
(No. 13YJC630031), the Ph.D. Programs Foundation of Ministry of
Education of China (No. 20136102120066), the Humanities and
Social Sciences and Management Promotion Fund of Northwestern
Polytechnical University (No. RW201307), and the Scientific
Research Project of Shaanxi Provincial Education Department (No.
12JK0074).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2008). Innovation in multina-
tional firms: Does cultural fit enhance performance? Manage-
ment International Review, 48(1), 189–206.
Avey, J., Wernsing, T., & Palanski, M. (2012). Exploring the process
of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and
psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1),
21–34.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership
development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.
123

Baird, P. L., Geylani, P. C., & Roberts, J. A. (2012). Corporate social
and financial performance re-examined: Industry effects in a
linear mixed model analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3),
367–388.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NI:
Prentice-Hall.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advan-
tage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H.
(2015). Collective organizational engagement: Linking motiva-
tional antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 111–135.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational
effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic
transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly,
10(2), 181–217.
Bhattacharya, C., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening
stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial
corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business
Ethics, 85, 257–272.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group
engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural
justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445–464.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-
ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97(2), 117–134.
Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence-creating
subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12),
1109–1128.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K.
Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of
25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.
Cong, R. G., & Wei, Y. M. (2012). Experimental comparison of
impact of auction format on carbon allowance market. Renew-
able and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 4148–4156.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2008). Do environmental
management systems improve business performance in an
international setting? Journal of International Management,
14(4), 364–376.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic
leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top
management effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-
method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297–311.
Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdis-
ciplinary integrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5),
791–808.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Fahrbach, C. M. (2015).
Doing well by doing good? Analyzing the relationship between
CEO ethical leadership and firm performance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 128(3), 635–651.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986).
Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 71, 500–507.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The
effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and
outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.
Feng, T., & Wang, D. (2015). The influence of environmental
management systems on financial performance: A moderated-
123
D. Wang et al.
mediation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/
s10551-014-2486-z.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 29–50.
Freeman, R. E., Gilbert, D. R., & Hartman, E. (1988). Values and the
foundations of strategic management. Journal of Business
Ethics, 7(11), 821–835.
Giessner, S. R., & van Quaquebeke, N. (2010). Using a relational models
perspective to understand normatively appropriate conduct in
ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 43–55.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R.
L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
He, G., Lu, Y., Mol, A. P. J., & Beckers, T. (2012). Changes and
challenges: China’s environmental management in transition.
Environmental Development, 3, 25–38.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind,
international cooperation and its importance for survival.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do satisfied
customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between
customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. Journal of Mar-
keting, 69(2), 84–96.
Johnson, C. E. (2009). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership:
Casting light or shadow. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011).
Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring
the moderating role of gender and organizational politics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 633–642.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engage-
ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at
work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321–349.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).
Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development
and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(1), 51–69.
Klein, S. (2002). Ethical business leadership: Balancing theory and
practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and
the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(6), 1123–1134.
Li, H., & Zhang, Y. (2007). The role of managers’ political
networking and functional experience in new venture perfor-
mance: Evidence from China’s transition economy. Strategic
Management Journal, 28(8), 791–804.
Lo, C. K., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2012). The impact of
environmental management systems on financial performance in
fashion and textiles industries. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics, 135(2), 561–567.
Lotila, P. (2010). Corporate responsiveness to social pressure: An
interaction-based model. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 395–409.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a
stakeholder society–A relational perspective. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 66(1), 99–115.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012).
Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An
examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leader-
ship. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171.
McGrath, A. E. (2006). Christianity: An introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Melnyk, S. A., Sroufe, R. P., & Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the
impact of environmental management systems on corporate and
Linking Ethical Leadership with Firm Performance: A Multi-dimensional Perspective
environmental performance. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 21(3), 329–351.
Menguc, B., & Ozanne, L. K. (2005). Challenges of the ‘‘green
imperative’’: A natural resource-based approach to the environ-
mental orientation–business performance relationship. Journal of
Business Research, 58(4), 430–438.
Neubert, M., Carlson, D., Kacmar, K., Roberts, J., & Chonko, L.
(2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior:
Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2),
157–170.
O’Leary-Kelly, S. W., & Vokurka, R. J. (1998). The empirical
assessment of construct validity. Journal of Operations Man-
agement, 16(4), 387–405.
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An
inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingen-
cies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4),
787–818.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantages: Creating and sustain-
ing superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition:
Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Rainey, L. D. (2010). Confucius and confucianism: The essentials.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and firm
performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 27–45.
Rao, P., & Holt, D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to
competitiveness and economic performance? International Jour-
nal of Operations & Production Management, 25(9), 898–916.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Resick, C., Martin, G., Keating, M., Dickson, M., Kwan, H., & Peng,
C. (2011). What ethical leadership means to me: Asian,
American, and European perspectives. Journal of Business
Ethics, 101(3), 435–457.
Riivari, E., & Lämsä, A.-M. (2014). Does it pay to be ethical?
Examining the relationship between organisations’ ethical culture
and innovativeness. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 1–17.
Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W.,
Lord, R. G., Trevinño, L. K., et al. (2012). Embedding ethical
leadership within and across organization levels. Academy of
Management Journal, 55(5), 1053–1078.
Sendjaya, S., & Cooper, B. (2011). Servant leadership behavior scale:
A hierarchical model and test of validity. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 416–436.
Shin, Y., Sung, S. Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. S. (2015). Top
management ethical leadership and firm performance: Mediating
role of ethical and procedural justice climate. Journal of
Business Ethics, 129(1), 43–57.
Singh, J. (2005). Ethics of the sikhs. Understanding Sikhism: The
Research Journal, 7(1), 35–38.
Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2003). Designing global new product
teams: Optimizing the effects of national culture on new product
development. International Marketing Review, 20(4), 397–445.
Slack, R. E., Corlett, S., & Morris, R. (2015). Exploring employee
engagement with (corporate) social responsibility: A social
Exchange perspective on organisational participation. Journal of
Business Ethics, 127(3), 537–548.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision
making. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.
Theodorakopoulos, N., & Budhwar, P. (2015). Guest editors’
introduction: Diversity and inclusion in different work settings:
emerging patterns, challenges, and research agenda. Human
Resource Management, 54(2), 177–197.
Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., & Hecker, R. (2012). Capabilities,
proactive CSR and financial performance in SMEs: Empirical
evidence from an Australian manufacturing industry sector.
Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 483–500.
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M. E., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative
investigation of perceived ethical leadership: Perceptions from
inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1),
5–37.
Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The
ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee atti-
tudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476.
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2003). Managing ethics in business
organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral
ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management,
32(6), 951–990.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model:
Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.
Ulrich, P., & Maak, T. (1996). Ethik in wirtschaft und gesellschaft. In
P. Ulrich (Ed.), Ethik in wirtschaft und gesellschaft: Eine
systematische einführung für lehrkräfte (pp. 9–25). Aarau:
Verlag Sauerländer.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and
synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.
van Dijke, M., de Cremer, D., Mayer, D., & van Quaquebeke, N.
(2012). When does procedural fairness promote organizational
citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types
in relational justice models. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 235–248.
Van Doorn, S., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W.
(2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance:
Drawing attention to the senior team. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30(5), 821–836.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits
and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical
leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.
Wei, Z., Yang, D., Sun, B., & Gu, M. (2014). The fit between
technological innovation and business model design for firm
growth: Evidence from China. R&D Management, 44(3), 288–305.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Leadership as the legitimization of doubt. In W.
Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, & T. G. Cummings (Eds.), The future of
leadership: Today’s top leadership thinkers speak to tomorrow’s
leaders (pp. 91–102). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Wong, C. W., Lai, K. H., Shang, K. C., Lu, C. S., & Leung, T. K. P.
(2012). Green operations and the moderating role of environ-
mental management capability of suppliers on manufacturing
firm performance. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, 140(1), 283–294.
Xie, J. L., Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2008). Theories of job
stress and the role of traditional values: A longitudinal study in
China. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 831–848.
Yao, X. (2000). An introduction to confucianism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An
improved measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 20(1), 38–48.
Zou, H. L., Zeng, S. X., & Lin, H. (2015). Top executives’
compensation, industrial competition, and corporate environ-
mental performance: Evidence from China. Management Deci-
sion. doi:10.1108/MD-08-2014-0515.
123