This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Purpose Drawing upon social learning theory (SLT), the study examines the consequences of ethical leadership on followers' voice behavior facets (promotive and prohibitive). The study tests hypotheses about the processing mechanism (moral identity) and the boundary condition (proactive personality) to understand these relationships. Design/methodology/approach The study collected time-lagged survey data through an online structured questionnaire from 182 respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to ensure the validity and reliability of the data. Moreover, structural equation modeling was run to test the hypotheses using AMOS. Findings Ethical leadership positively affects followers' promotive and prohibitive voice behavior via the psychological mechanism of moral identity. Proactive personality moderates the moral identity – promotive and moral identity – prohibitive voice relationships, such that these relations are stronger when the individuals are high on proactive personality. Research limitations/implications Robust evidence of a genuine cause-and-effect relationship may not be yielded owing to cross-sectional and self-reported data at the follower level of analysis. Future researchers can use dyadic, longitudinal and experimental designs to overcome these limitations. Organizations targeting to increase voice behavior can benefit from maintaining ethical leaders and proactive followers at the workplace. Originality/value The study significantly contributes to the ethical leadership and voice behavior literature. Ethical leadership enhances followers' promotive/prohibitive voice behaviors through their moral identity enhancement. The paper also confirmed that a proactive personality is a critical boundary condition in these relationships. Empirical evidence from the Eastern context has been added, and research directions have also been provided.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zahoor et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: