Description
In APA Format, 5 pages, with title page, introduction, summary, and references. These are the following points to include in the essay:
- Consider the examples of leadership demonstrated in this week’s media presentation and the other Learning Resources.
- To further your self-knowledge, you are required to complete the Kiersey Temperament as indicated in this week’s Learning Resources. Consider your leadership style, including your strengths for leading others and include your results from Kiersey Temperament Sorter to describe potential challenges related to your leadership style.
- Mentally survey your work environment, or one with which you are familiar, and identify a timely issue/dilemma that requires you to perform the leadership role of moral agent or advocate to improve a situation (e.g., speaking or acting on behalf of a vulnerable patient, the need for appropriate staffing, a colleague being treated unfairly).
- What ethical, moral, or legal skills, dispositions, and/or strategies would help you resolve this dilemma? Define the differences between ethical, moral, and legal leadership.
- Finally, consider the values and principles that guide the nursing profession; the organization’s mission, vision, and values; the leadership and management competencies addressed in this course; and your own values and reasons for entering the profession. What motivation do you see for taking a stand on an important issue even when it is difficult to do so?
Below are the references i have attached that you can use for the essay. Please refer also to the textbook Marquis, B.L., & Huston, C.J., (2017). Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: Theory and application (9th ed).) on chapters 4, 5, & 6. Thank you.
Guest editorial
Beyond moral distress: Preserving
the ethical integrity of nurses
Nursing Ethics
2014, Vol. 21(2) 127–128
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
10.1177/0969733013512741
nej.sagepub.com
Martin Woods
Massey University, NZ
Every year, I meet a new group of postgraduate nursing students who come together to study ethics at an
advanced level. For some, it is the first time in their careers that they have been able to express their ethical
concerns in such a forum, or in some cases, in any formal setting; for others, it is a confirmation that not all
perceived failures relating to moral issues are necessarily of their or their nursing colleagues’ own making.
For all, it is a bitter-sweet confirmation of the difficulties involved in dealing with those sometimes painful
moral problems that they have encountered over what is often several years of practice. Indeed, it is as if
through the exchange of narratives, each student feels not only marginally unburdened but free to finally
state those things that really matter to them in a forum where others actually appreciate their opinions. But
then at some point, we come to an examination of what is currently called nursing ‘moral distress’, and
slowly but surely, a rising degree of exasperation and annoyance emerges around the room, as one by one
the students all focus on the same question, namely, ‘What are we to do about moral distress?’
Moral distress is a phenomenon that is a reality in nursing however it is labelled or packaged, and whatever the experts say it is or it is not. Whenever a group of experienced nurses identify a collection of unresolved or poorly resolved ethical issues in their workplaces, it will exist in one form or another.1 It is moral
distress (as opposed to other possibilities of nursing distress) when there exists a moral element or threat to a
nurse’s moral integrity that causes feelings of disquiet, and yes, even distress. It is moral distress (and not an
ethical dilemma) when nurses feel that they have no ethical choice to make in a given situation; when there
is ample evidence that nurses often feel devalued and ignored when attempting to resolve an ethical issue;
and when nurses in numerous countries all appear to be saying the same things about their difficulties and
frustrations when attempting to effectively respond to ethical issues in their practices. For my own part,
I discovered just how pertinent all of this was when analysing my own research results on this topic this
very year when it became clear that 16% of nurses in New Zealand were presently considering leaving their
positions, and 48% had at least considered leaving a given nursing position in the past because of moral
distress.2
The causes of moral distress in nursing practice are clearly many and varied, although in recent times,
they are largely described as being related to either ‘internal’ or ‘external’ constraints.3 Many nurses are no
doubt familiar with the first kind; it is often difficult to know what the right thing to do is because there are
always a number of conflicting interpretations and possibilities. Here, admittedly, the boundaries between a
moral dilemma and moral distress may become blurred; such is the nature of the mental gymnastics so often
associated with any significant ethical problem. But the second kind, the external constraints, is a different
matter. Then, as is often argued, most nurses know what is the right thing to do, but cannot do so because of
these constraints. It is not that there is even the illusion of choices in this instance because many of the constraints are related to factors outside the control of nurses. The list grows yearly, but lack of organisational
Corresponding author: Martin Woods, School of Nursing, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442,
New Zealand.
Email: M.Woods@massey.ac.nz
128
Nursing Ethics 21(2)
support across all levels, indifferent and unsupportive organisational cultures, poor leadership, lack of
adequate resources, recruitment and retention issues, government interference and dubious policies are but
a few of the main ones.1,4 This then is not an argument about the lack of motivation to do the right thing, or a
lack of moral ability or an adequate ethics education, but about the presence or otherwise of the best ethical
climate in which to do the right thing, or as best we can under the circumstances.
But how should nurses respond to moral distress? First, we must recognise and encourage debates about
the problem in healthcare settings at all levels. The state of affairs concerning moral distress, or whatever it
may eventually be called, cannot be allowed to continue forever, or to go unchallenged. Second, we need to
understand the wider implications of the problem by remembering that moral distress is not just about
nurses but about nurses and everyone else involved in healthcare, that is, patients, families, other healthcare
workers, managers, administrators, advisors and more. Subsequently, nurses should be involved in interdisciplinary group discussions, ethics committees, and in developing organisational policies and guidelines.
Third, we must respond in an organised and appropriate manner. Worksite interventional programmes could
be targeted at those employees identified most prone to experience the effects of moral distress. Nurse managers and other senior nurses should recognise the moral burden carried by those practitioners who deal
regularly with major moral issues. Fourth, we must find ways to educate ourselves and others about the issue
– by sharing our stories, by placing a greater emphasis on the problem at all levels of nursing education and
by ensuring that the general public is fully aware of the issue. Finally, we really must find ways to support
each other. Certain nurses could act as ethics counsellors or mentors on the unit level to help nurses identify
and control sources of moral stress, and Charge Nurses should find time to discuss morally distressing
patient care situations with their nursing staff.
All of the above will require a certain kind of moral courage,5 but unless a series of concerted and systematic challenges are made, nurses are likely to continue to face a wide range of ethical situations leading
to the experience of moral distress, and subsequent loss of moral integrity. Mindful of this, and whatever we
may call the phenomenon that is moral distress, and whatever the arguments for and against the varied conceptualisations of moral distress, what is really important is that something should be done about this serious
and demoralising problem now rather than later.
References
1. Royal College of Nursing. Defending dignity: challenges and opportunities for nursing. London: Royal College of
Nursing, 2008.
2. Woods M, Towers AJ, Rodgers VK, et al. Moral distress – the results and recommendations of a national survey
amongst New Zealand nurses. Paper presented at the International Council of Nurses 25th Quadrennial Congress,
Melbourne Convention Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 18–23 May 2013, p. 35 (in book of abstracts). Available
at: https://b-com.mci-group.com/Abstract/Statistics/AbstractStatisticsViewPage.aspx?AbstractID=133250
3. Corley MC. Nurse moral distress: a proposed theory and research agenda. Nurs Ethics 2002; 9(6): 636–650.
4. Pauly B, Varcoe C, Storch J, et al. Registered nurses’ perceptions of moral distress and ethical climate. Nurs Ethics
2009; 16(5): 561–573.
5. Gallagher A. Moral distress and moral courage in everyday nursing practice. Online J Issues Nurs 2011; 16(2): 1–7.
128
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
At a party do you
(a) interact with many, including strangers
(b) interact with a few people you know well
Are you more
(a) realistic than speculative
(b) speculative than realistic
Is it worse to
(a) be someone who likes variety and new ideas
(b) be someone who likes predictable routine
Are you more impressed by
(a) principles
(b) emotions
Are you more drawn towards the
(a) convincing
(b) touching
Do you prefer to work
(a) on a schedule with a deadlines
(b) whenever you are inspired to work
Do you tend to chose
(a) rather carefully
(b) somewhat impulsively
At parties do you
(a) stay late, with increasing energy
(b) leave early, with decreasing energy
Are you more attracted to
(a) practical people
(b) imaginative people
Are you more interested in
(a) what is actual
(b) what is possible
In judging others are you more swayed by
(a) laws than circumstances
(b) circumstances than laws
In approaching others is your inclination to be
somewhat
(a) objective
(b) personal
Are you more
(a) punctual
(b) leisurely
Does it bother you having things
(a) incomplete
(b) completed
In your social groups do you
(a) keep abreast of other’s happenings
(b) get behind on the news
In doing ordinary things are you more likely to
(a) do it the usual way
(b) do it your own way
Writers should
(a) “say what they mean and mean what they say”
(b) express things more by use of analogy
Which appeals to you more
(a) consistency of thought
(b) harmonious human relationships
Are you more comfortable in making
(a) logical judgments
(b) value judgments
1
20. Do you want things
(a) settled and decided
(b) unsettled and undecided
21. Would you say you are more
(a) serious and determined
(b) easy-going
22. In phoning do you
(a) rarely think about what you will say
(b) rehearse what you’ll say
23. Facts
(a) are valuable in themselves
(b) are useful because they illustrate principles
24. Are visionaries
(a) somewhat annoying
(b) rather fascinating
25. Are you more often
(a) a cool-headed person
(b) a warm-hearted person
26. Is it worse to be
(a) unjust
(b) without mercy for others
27. Should one usually let events occur
(a) by careful selection and choice
(b) randomly and by chance
28. Do you feel better about
(a) having purchased something
(b) having the option to buy something
29. In company do you
(a) initiate the conversation
(b) wait to be approached
30. Common sense is
(a) rarely mistaken
(b) frequently mistaken and unreliable
31. Children often do not
(a) make themselves useful enough
(b) exercise their fantasy enough
32. In making decision do you feel more comfortable
with
(a) standards
(b) feelings
33. Are you more
(a) firm than gentles
(b) gentle than firm
34. Which is more admirable:
(a) the ability to organize and be methodical
(b) the ability to adapt and adjust quickly
35. Do you put more value on what is
(a) definite
(b) open-ended
36. Does new and non-routine interaction with others
(a) stimulate and energize you
(b) leave you feeling tied
37. Are you more frequently
(a) a practical sort of person
(b) a fanciful sort of person
38. Are you more likely to
(a) see how others are useful
(b) see how others see
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter
39. Which is more satisfying:
(a) to discuss an issue thoroughly
(b) to arrive at agreement on an issue
40. Which rules your more:
(a) your head
(b) your heart
41. Are you more comfortable with work that is
(a) contracted and agreed upon
(b) done on a casual basis
42. Do you tend to look for
(a) the orderly
(b) whatever turns up
43. Do you prefer
(a) many friends with brief contact
(b) a few friends with more lengthy contact
44. Which has more value for you?
(a) Accurate facts
(b) Theoretical principles
45. Are you more interested in
(a) production and distribution
(b) design and research
46. Which is more of a compliment:
(a) “That person is very logical”
(b) “That person is gentle and caring”
47. Which do you value most in yourself?
(a) being unwavering
(b) being devoted
48. Do you more often prefer the
(a) final and unalterable statement
(b) tentative and preliminary statement
49. Are you more comfortable
(a) after a decision
(b) before a decision
50. Do you
(a) speak easily and at length with strangers
(b) find little to say to strangers
51. Are you more likely to trust your
(a) experience
(b) hunch
52. Do you feel
(a) more practical than creative
(b) more creative than practical
53. Which person is more to be complimented: one of
(a) clear reason
(b) strong feeling
54. Are you inclined more to be
(a) fair minded
(b) sympathetic
2
55. Is it preferable mostly to
(a) make sure things are arranged
(b) just let things happen
56. In relationships should most things be
(a) renegotiable
(b) random and circumstantial
57. When the phone rings do you
(a) hasten to get it first
(b) hope someone else will answer
58. Do you prize more in yourself
(a) a strong sense of reality
(b) a vivid imagination
59. Are you drawn more to
(a) fundamentals
(b) overtones and nuance
60. Which seems the greatest error
(a) to be too passionate
(b) to be too objective
61. Do you see yourself as basically
(a) hard-headed
(b) soft-hearted
62. Which situation appeals to you more:
(a) the structured and scheduled
(b) the unstructured and unscheduled
63. Are you a person that is more
(a) organized than playful
(b) playful than organized
64. Are you more inclined to be
(a) easy to approach
(b) somewhat reserved
65. In writings do you prefer
(a) the more literal
(b) the more figurative
66. Is it harder for you to
(a) identify with others
(b) utilize others
67. Which do you wish more for yourself
(a) clarity of reason
(b) strength of compassion
68. Which is the greater fault:
(a) being indiscriminate
(b) being critical
69. Do you prefer the
(a) planned event
(b) unplanned event
70. Do you tend to be more
(a) deliberate than spontaneous
(b) spontaneous than deliberate
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter
3
Answer Sheet
Enter a check for each answer in the column for a or b.
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
1
2
1
3
2
E
4
3
4
3
3
I
S
5
5
6
4
5
4
5
N
6
T
F
7
8
b
7
8
6
7
8
6
7
8
J
P
Directions for scoring
1. Add down so that the total number of “a” answers is written in the box at the bottom
of each column (see next page for illustration). Do the same for the “b” answers you
have checked. Each of the 14 boxes should have a number in it.
2. Transfer the number in box No. 1 of the answer sheet to box No. 1 below the answer
sheet. Do this for box No. 2 as well. Note, however, that you must have two numbers
for boxes 3 through 8. Bring down the first number for each box beneath the second,
as indicated by arrows. Now add all the pairs of numbers and enter the total in the
boxes below the answer sheet, so each box has only one number.
3. Now you have four pairs of numbers. Circle the letter below the larger of each pair.
You have now identified your “type.” It should be one of the following:
INFP
ENFP
INFJ
ENFJ
ISFP
ESFP
ISFJ
ESFJ
INTP
ENTP
INTJ
ENTJ
ISTP
ESTP
ISTJ
ESTJ
The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 581–594
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
The effects of authentic leadership on followers’ ethical
decision-making in the face of temptation: An
experimental study
Anna M. Cianci a,1,2, Sean T. Hannah a,1,3, Ross P. Roberts b,1,4, George T. Tsakumis c,⁎,1
a
b
c
School of Business, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC 27109, United States
Earl N. Phillips School of Business, High Point University, High Point, NC 27262, United States
Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 March 2013
Received in revised form 20 September 2013
Accepted 6 December 2013
Available online 18 January 2014
Handling Editor: Shelly Dionne
Keywords:
Authentic leadership
Temptation
Ethical decision making
Guilt
a b s t r a c t
The present research investigates the impact of authentic leadership on followers’ morality,
operationalized as ethical decision-making, in the face of temptation. This experiment finds that
authentic leadership and temptation interacted to affect individuals’ ethical decision-making.
Specifically, authentic leadership significantly inhibited individuals’ from making unethical
decisions in the face of temptation, whereas followers of neutral or less authentic leaders were
more likely to succumb to temptation. Authentic leadership did not have a significant impact on
ethical decision-making when temptation was absent. Further, results showed a significant
moderated-mediated effect whereby the interactive effect of authentic leadership and temptation
on individuals’ guilt appraisal was mediated through the nature of the ethical decision.
Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Research on behavioral ethics in organizations has increased dramatically in the last two decades, with the majority of that
research focused on aspects of ethical judgment/decision-making (Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008; Treviño, Weaver, &
Reynolds, 2006). From this research, we know that moral processing is influenced not just by individual differences (good and
bad apples) but the context in which individuals are embedded, such as culture, climate and other organizational phenomena
(good and bad barrels) (Treviño & Youngblood, 1990; Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010). However, surprisingly little
empirical research has examined how exemplary leadership (e.g., authentic and ethical leadership) – a potentially important
contextual factor – relates to followers’ (un)ethical decisions and behaviors (Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Some research, while
limited, has shown that leaders have effects on follower ethical processing. For example, leaders’ levels of cognitive moral
development, through role modeling and social learning, can affect that of followers (Dukerich, Nichols, Elm, & Vollrath, 1990);
leadership style can influence which ethical frameworks followers’ use to process ethical dilemmas (Schminke & Wells, 1999;
Schminke, Wells, Peyrefitte, & Sebora, 2002); and ethical leadership is positively related to followers’ organizational citizenship
behaviors (Avey, Palanski, & Walumbwa, 2011; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Further,
ethical leadership has positive influences on followers’ ethical thoughts and behaviors, both directly as well as indirectly, through
the positive influences ethical leaders have on building ethical cultures across multiple levels in organizations (Schaubroeck et al.,
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 302 831 7583; fax: +1 302 831 4676.
E-mail addresses: cianciam@wfu.edu (A.M. Cianci), hannahst@wfu.edu (S.T. Hannah), rroberts@highpoint.edu (R.P. Roberts), georget@udel.edu (G.T. Tsakumis).
1
All authors contributed equally to this project.
2
Tel.: +1 336 758 4297; fax: +1 336 758 6133.
3
Tel.: +1 336 758 5412; fax: +1 336 758 6133.
4
Tel.: +1 336 841 4562; fax: +1 336 888 6380.
1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.001
582
A.M. Cianci et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 581–594
2012). Authentic leadership, in particular, has been positively related to followers’ levels of moral courage, and through that
mechanism, their ethical behavior (Hannah, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2011). There is a void of experiments, however, testing the
effects of leader behaviors on follower ethical decision-making. To build upon this literature, we formulate and test a model
assessing the influence of authentic leadership, as a potentially important contextual factor, on followers’ ethical decision-making
under varying conditions of moral temptation.
Dynamic organizational contexts expose followers to numerous temptations, requiring the inner fortitude to restrain oneself
from taking “ethical shortcuts” or pursuing self-gain over the good of the larger collective (Monin, Pizarro, & Beer, 2007). For
example, high pressure organization contexts that prioritize performance over other values tend to have higher rates of unethical
behavior (e.g., Robertson & Rymon, 2001). We propose that through displaying moral perspective, transparency and other aspects
of authenticity that authentic leaders will activate followers’ moral perspectives and thereby reduce their inclinations to make
unethical decisions in the face of temptations as suggested by Hannah, Lester, and Vogelgesang (2005). By moral perspective, we
refer to the activation of identity-based structures (e.g., values) and self-regulatory structures that promote ethical decisions and
behaviors.
Authentic leadership is defined as “a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological
capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing
of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development”
(Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008, p. 94; for a recent comprehensive review, please see Gardner, Cogliser,
Davis, & Dickens, 2011). We chose to focus on authentic leadership because from its early theoretical development the construct
was conceptualized with the assumption that such leaders would raise the moral perspective of followers (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Hannah et al., 2005). Yet this premise has
not to our knowledge been directly tested, at least not in an experimental design. Yet, Brown and Mitchell (2010) proposed that
because of its “strong emphasis on the ethical dimension of leaders, future research linking authentic leadership to important
ethics-related outcomes is promising” (p. 586).
Finally, we assess how authentic leadership, through its effects on followers’ ethical decisions in the face of temptation,
influences followers’ guilt appraisals. Guilt appraisal entails the process whereby an individual determines the extent of guilt they
experience for contemplating or performing a given unethical act, based on the way the individual construes and interprets the
act and evaluates their behavioral response, such as their motivations for and level of causal agency in the act (Roseman, 1984;
Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990; Scherer, 1988). Left unfettered, individuals who make unethical choices tend to morally
disengage from those choices (Bandura, 1999). Moral disengagement occurs when individuals use strategies to rationalize, justify,
or downplay their causal role or the negative consequences or immorality of their unethical choices (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Importantly, when individuals discount or justify an unethical choice or their personal agency in the
act through using moral disengagement strategies, they are in turn less likely to experience guilt related to that action (Bandura et
al., 1996; Roseman et al., 1990). As described above, we expect that the followers of more as opposed to less authentic leaders will
tend to make more ethical decisions, and thus will have little reason to employ moral disengagement strategies. When both
groups (i.e., those that chose the ethical and unethical actions) are appraising the level of guilt they would experience for
committing the particular unethical act in question, we therefore expect them to report different levels of guilt. Specifically, those
who previously made the unethical choice will be more likely to have morally disengaged and will thus report lower levels of
appraised guilt as compared to those that previously made the ethical choice, when the latter appraises the guilt they would
experience if they too were to make the same unethical choice. This suggests that the moderated effects of authentic leadership
on appraised guilt are mediated through its effects on followers’ ethical choices. Understanding this process is important as
self-sanctions such as guilt are critical for controlling future ethical behavior (Bandura, 1999; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007;
Tenbrusel & Messick, 2004), and are related to unethical phenomena such as cheating, theft, and unethical negotiation behavior
(Cohen, 2010; Cohen, Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011).
In summary, as shown in Fig. 1, we propose that exposure to temptation is positively related to followers’ unethical
decision-making, but that this main effect is moderated by the level of authentic leadership, such that at higher levels of authentic
leadership the effect of temptation on unethical decisions is significantly reduced. Further, we test a moderated-mediated effect
whereby the interactive effect of authenticity and temptation on appraised guilt is partially mediated through the nature of the
ethical decision. Specifically, we propose that when authentic leadership is low, the negative effect of temptation on guilt is
mediated through making an unethical decision. That is, when authentic leadership is low, followers will be more likely to make
Authentic
Leadership
Temptation
Ethical
Decision
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.
Guilt
Appraisal
A.M. Cianci et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 581–594
583
an unethical decision and through disengagement appraise less guilt associated with that action. High authentic leadership,
however, strengthens followers to withstand temptation, making them less likely to disengage and thus more inclined to make an
ethical decision. Followers of more authentic leaders therefore would have greater guilt appraisal associated with that same
unethical act. We test our expectations in a laboratory experimental design.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. The influence of temptation on unethical decisions
Temptation has been defined as “enticement to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain” (Tenbrunsel, 1998). More specifically,
temptations are incentives that may influence the decision to behave unethically to obtain goals or rewards (Fischbach & Shah, 2006;
Fischbach, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2003; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002; Tenbrunsel, 1998; Treviño & Youngblood, 1990; Trope &
Fishbach, 2000). The decision to behave unethically often requires the consideration of two opposing goals: maximizing self-interest
and maintaining a positive moral self-image and public image (Ariely, 2012). In the current study, our conceptualization of
temptation is derived from agency theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). Under the agency framework, one party (the principal) delegates work
to another party (the agent). The principal’s interests are assumed to be in line with those of the firm (i.e., profit maximization), while
the agent’s interests may or may not be in line with the interests of the firm. The presence of two conditions, incentive and
opportunity to act to maximize self-interest, describes a situation in which the agent will be tempted to neglect the firm’s interests in
favor of his or her own. For example, all else being equal, if a project manager (agent) has an incentive to maximize his or her personal
gain, s/he is expected to be more likely to make decisions that are consistent with his/her self-interest even though such actions may
conflict with the profit-maximizing interests of senior management (principal). However, in order to achieve this objective, the
manager also needs the opportunity to actually make such decisions and do so with some adequate level of belief that they will not be
caught or punished. Thus, the presence of temptation (i.e., both incentive and opportunity) can influence individuals to behave
unethically and make unethical decisions to serve their self-interests, in conflict with the firm’s interests.
Along these lines, several experimental studies in the field of accounting have considered agency explanations for managers’
unethical project continuation decisions (Booth & Schulz, 2004; Harrison & Harrell, 1993; Harrell & Harrison, 1994; Rutledge &
Karim, 1999). This stream of research examines whether temptation (i.e., both incentive and opportunity) increases the
likelihood that a manager exhibits unethical behavior. Specifically, these studies show that if a project manager’s career,
promotion, or reward prospects are dependent on managing only profitable projects (i.e., incentive) and his/her superiors do not
have enough information to properly evaluate the project’s profitability (i.e., opportunity), then these managers exhibit a greater
tendency to continue unprofitable projects even though it’s against the best interests of the organization. Based on the
accumulated research on the effects of temptation, we expect that when faced (not faced) with temptation, individuals will be
generally more (less) likely to make unethical decisions. This main effect, however, is not only intuitive, but is over-simplified. We
propose that authentic leadership moderates the effects of temptation on unethical decision-making by raising followers’ moral
perspective and thus limiting tendencies to morally disengage and act unethically (Bandura, 1999; Bandura et al., 1996).
2.2. The effects of authentic leadership in strengthening followers against temptation
Prior theorizing suggests that authentic leadership behaviors raise the moral perspective of followers (Avolio et al., 2004;
Gardner et al., 2005; Hannah et al., 2005), and that the four dimensions of authentic leadership (self-awareness, internalized
moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency) promote ethical follower behavior (Hannah, Avolio, &
Walumbwa, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). We provide a brief overview of how each dimension of leader authenticity can
contribute to ethical follower decision-making and behavior.
Internalized moral perspective denotes that the leader has a well-developed moral constitution which allows him or her to
regulate decision-making based on internalized morals and standards, as opposed to external pressures such as temptation
(Hannah et al., 2005). In this way, the leader serves as a moral exemplar (Walker & Henning, 2004) and an example is set for
followers to resist temptation by adapting the authentic leader’s moral standards as the norm. In addition to having moral
perspective, authentic leaders are highly self-aware and have a clear understanding of their values and beliefs and how these
values can be enacted and positively impact others in the workplace (Campbell et al., 1996; Gardner et al., 2005). Authentic
leaders also enact relational transparency, making their ideals, values, and standards clear to others and “walk their talk” to ensure
their actions are in line with the values they espouse. This enhances the authentic leader’s ability to serve as a moral exemplar and
increases the clarity with which expected behaviors and standards are communicated to followers. Finally, using balanced
processing, authentic leaders set the example of objectively analyzing all relevant data – including information that does not favor
their own or their followers’ preferred circumstances or self-interests – and model to others a willingness to adjust their thinking
accordingly to act in line with the collective good (Gardner et al., 2005; Hannah et al., 2005). Through processing relevant
information in a richer and more deliberate manner, authentic leaders and their followers would be more likely to consider a
larger breadth of implications of their potential choices and be less likely to impulsively respond to temptations (Monin et al.,
2007). Research has shown that the four dimensions of authentic leadership represent an overall higher-order construct that
combines to influence outcomes (e.g., Hannah, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Together, the leader’s
demonstration of the dimensions of authenticity can activate followers’ moral perspective and thus ability to resist temptations
and make more ethical decisions.
584
A.M. Cianci et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 581–594
Avolio et al. (2004) propose that authentic leadership promotes moral perspective in followers through expressing honesty
and integrity and through modeling moral standards and displaying ethical decision making and behavior transparently to
followers (cf. Kernis, 2003). Hannah et al. (2005) similarly propose that the effects of authentic leadership are largely driven by
emulation, which results in a higher level of moral activation and a lower likelihood of possessing unethical behavioral intentions.
They state that authentic leaders’ displays of “altruism a
Beyond moral distress: Preserving
the ethical integrity of nurses
Nursing Ethics
2014, Vol. 21(2) 127–128
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
10.1177/0969733013512741
nej.sagepub.com
Martin Woods
Massey University, NZ
Every year, I meet a new group of postgraduate nursing students who come together to study ethics at an
advanced level. For some, it is the first time in their careers that they have been able to express their ethical
concerns in such a forum, or in some cases, in any formal setting; for others, it is a confirmation that not all
perceived failures relating to moral issues are necessarily of their or their nursing colleagues’ own making.
For all, it is a bitter-sweet confirmation of the difficulties involved in dealing with those sometimes painful
moral problems that they have encountered over what is often several years of practice. Indeed, it is as if
through the exchange of narratives, each student feels not only marginally unburdened but free to finally
state those things that really matter to them in a forum where others actually appreciate their opinions. But
then at some point, we come to an examination of what is currently called nursing ‘moral distress’, and
slowly but surely, a rising degree of exasperation and annoyance emerges around the room, as one by one
the students all focus on the same question, namely, ‘What are we to do about moral distress?’
Moral distress is a phenomenon that is a reality in nursing however it is labelled or packaged, and whatever the experts say it is or it is not. Whenever a group of experienced nurses identify a collection of unresolved or poorly resolved ethical issues in their workplaces, it will exist in one form or another.1 It is moral
distress (as opposed to other possibilities of nursing distress) when there exists a moral element or threat to a
nurse’s moral integrity that causes feelings of disquiet, and yes, even distress. It is moral distress (and not an
ethical dilemma) when nurses feel that they have no ethical choice to make in a given situation; when there
is ample evidence that nurses often feel devalued and ignored when attempting to resolve an ethical issue;
and when nurses in numerous countries all appear to be saying the same things about their difficulties and
frustrations when attempting to effectively respond to ethical issues in their practices. For my own part,
I discovered just how pertinent all of this was when analysing my own research results on this topic this
very year when it became clear that 16% of nurses in New Zealand were presently considering leaving their
positions, and 48% had at least considered leaving a given nursing position in the past because of moral
distress.2
The causes of moral distress in nursing practice are clearly many and varied, although in recent times,
they are largely described as being related to either ‘internal’ or ‘external’ constraints.3 Many nurses are no
doubt familiar with the first kind; it is often difficult to know what the right thing to do is because there are
always a number of conflicting interpretations and possibilities. Here, admittedly, the boundaries between a
moral dilemma and moral distress may become blurred; such is the nature of the mental gymnastics so often
associated with any significant ethical problem. But the second kind, the external constraints, is a different
matter. Then, as is often argued, most nurses know what is the right thing to do, but cannot do so because of
these constraints. It is not that there is even the illusion of choices in this instance because many of the constraints are related to factors outside the control of nurses. The list grows yearly, but lack of organisational
Corresponding author: Martin Woods, School of Nursing, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442,
New Zealand.
Email: M.Woods@massey.ac.nz
128
Nursing Ethics 21(2)
support across all levels, indifferent and unsupportive organisational cultures, poor leadership, lack of
adequate resources, recruitment and retention issues, government interference and dubious policies are but
a few of the main ones.1,4 This then is not an argument about the lack of motivation to do the right thing, or a
lack of moral ability or an adequate ethics education, but about the presence or otherwise of the best ethical
climate in which to do the right thing, or as best we can under the circumstances.
But how should nurses respond to moral distress? First, we must recognise and encourage debates about
the problem in healthcare settings at all levels. The state of affairs concerning moral distress, or whatever it
may eventually be called, cannot be allowed to continue forever, or to go unchallenged. Second, we need to
understand the wider implications of the problem by remembering that moral distress is not just about
nurses but about nurses and everyone else involved in healthcare, that is, patients, families, other healthcare
workers, managers, administrators, advisors and more. Subsequently, nurses should be involved in interdisciplinary group discussions, ethics committees, and in developing organisational policies and guidelines.
Third, we must respond in an organised and appropriate manner. Worksite interventional programmes could
be targeted at those employees identified most prone to experience the effects of moral distress. Nurse managers and other senior nurses should recognise the moral burden carried by those practitioners who deal
regularly with major moral issues. Fourth, we must find ways to educate ourselves and others about the issue
– by sharing our stories, by placing a greater emphasis on the problem at all levels of nursing education and
by ensuring that the general public is fully aware of the issue. Finally, we really must find ways to support
each other. Certain nurses could act as ethics counsellors or mentors on the unit level to help nurses identify
and control sources of moral stress, and Charge Nurses should find time to discuss morally distressing
patient care situations with their nursing staff.
All of the above will require a certain kind of moral courage,5 but unless a series of concerted and systematic challenges are made, nurses are likely to continue to face a wide range of ethical situations leading
to the experience of moral distress, and subsequent loss of moral integrity. Mindful of this, and whatever we
may call the phenomenon that is moral distress, and whatever the arguments for and against the varied conceptualisations of moral distress, what is really important is that something should be done about this serious
and demoralising problem now rather than later.
References
1. Royal College of Nursing. Defending dignity: challenges and opportunities for nursing. London: Royal College of
Nursing, 2008.
2. Woods M, Towers AJ, Rodgers VK, et al. Moral distress – the results and recommendations of a national survey
amongst New Zealand nurses. Paper presented at the International Council of Nurses 25th Quadrennial Congress,
Melbourne Convention Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 18–23 May 2013, p. 35 (in book of abstracts). Available
at: https://b-com.mci-group.com/Abstract/Statistics/AbstractStatisticsViewPage.aspx?AbstractID=133250
3. Corley MC. Nurse moral distress: a proposed theory and research agenda. Nurs Ethics 2002; 9(6): 636–650.
4. Pauly B, Varcoe C, Storch J, et al. Registered nurses’ perceptions of moral distress and ethical climate. Nurs Ethics
2009; 16(5): 561–573.
5. Gallagher A. Moral distress and moral courage in everyday nursing practice. Online J Issues Nurs 2011; 16(2): 1–7.
128
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
At a party do you
(a) interact with many, including strangers
(b) interact with a few people you know well
Are you more
(a) realistic than speculative
(b) speculative than realistic
Is it worse to
(a) be someone who likes variety and new ideas
(b) be someone who likes predictable routine
Are you more impressed by
(a) principles
(b) emotions
Are you more drawn towards the
(a) convincing
(b) touching
Do you prefer to work
(a) on a schedule with a deadlines
(b) whenever you are inspired to work
Do you tend to chose
(a) rather carefully
(b) somewhat impulsively
At parties do you
(a) stay late, with increasing energy
(b) leave early, with decreasing energy
Are you more attracted to
(a) practical people
(b) imaginative people
Are you more interested in
(a) what is actual
(b) what is possible
In judging others are you more swayed by
(a) laws than circumstances
(b) circumstances than laws
In approaching others is your inclination to be
somewhat
(a) objective
(b) personal
Are you more
(a) punctual
(b) leisurely
Does it bother you having things
(a) incomplete
(b) completed
In your social groups do you
(a) keep abreast of other’s happenings
(b) get behind on the news
In doing ordinary things are you more likely to
(a) do it the usual way
(b) do it your own way
Writers should
(a) “say what they mean and mean what they say”
(b) express things more by use of analogy
Which appeals to you more
(a) consistency of thought
(b) harmonious human relationships
Are you more comfortable in making
(a) logical judgments
(b) value judgments
1
20. Do you want things
(a) settled and decided
(b) unsettled and undecided
21. Would you say you are more
(a) serious and determined
(b) easy-going
22. In phoning do you
(a) rarely think about what you will say
(b) rehearse what you’ll say
23. Facts
(a) are valuable in themselves
(b) are useful because they illustrate principles
24. Are visionaries
(a) somewhat annoying
(b) rather fascinating
25. Are you more often
(a) a cool-headed person
(b) a warm-hearted person
26. Is it worse to be
(a) unjust
(b) without mercy for others
27. Should one usually let events occur
(a) by careful selection and choice
(b) randomly and by chance
28. Do you feel better about
(a) having purchased something
(b) having the option to buy something
29. In company do you
(a) initiate the conversation
(b) wait to be approached
30. Common sense is
(a) rarely mistaken
(b) frequently mistaken and unreliable
31. Children often do not
(a) make themselves useful enough
(b) exercise their fantasy enough
32. In making decision do you feel more comfortable
with
(a) standards
(b) feelings
33. Are you more
(a) firm than gentles
(b) gentle than firm
34. Which is more admirable:
(a) the ability to organize and be methodical
(b) the ability to adapt and adjust quickly
35. Do you put more value on what is
(a) definite
(b) open-ended
36. Does new and non-routine interaction with others
(a) stimulate and energize you
(b) leave you feeling tied
37. Are you more frequently
(a) a practical sort of person
(b) a fanciful sort of person
38. Are you more likely to
(a) see how others are useful
(b) see how others see
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter
39. Which is more satisfying:
(a) to discuss an issue thoroughly
(b) to arrive at agreement on an issue
40. Which rules your more:
(a) your head
(b) your heart
41. Are you more comfortable with work that is
(a) contracted and agreed upon
(b) done on a casual basis
42. Do you tend to look for
(a) the orderly
(b) whatever turns up
43. Do you prefer
(a) many friends with brief contact
(b) a few friends with more lengthy contact
44. Which has more value for you?
(a) Accurate facts
(b) Theoretical principles
45. Are you more interested in
(a) production and distribution
(b) design and research
46. Which is more of a compliment:
(a) “That person is very logical”
(b) “That person is gentle and caring”
47. Which do you value most in yourself?
(a) being unwavering
(b) being devoted
48. Do you more often prefer the
(a) final and unalterable statement
(b) tentative and preliminary statement
49. Are you more comfortable
(a) after a decision
(b) before a decision
50. Do you
(a) speak easily and at length with strangers
(b) find little to say to strangers
51. Are you more likely to trust your
(a) experience
(b) hunch
52. Do you feel
(a) more practical than creative
(b) more creative than practical
53. Which person is more to be complimented: one of
(a) clear reason
(b) strong feeling
54. Are you inclined more to be
(a) fair minded
(b) sympathetic
2
55. Is it preferable mostly to
(a) make sure things are arranged
(b) just let things happen
56. In relationships should most things be
(a) renegotiable
(b) random and circumstantial
57. When the phone rings do you
(a) hasten to get it first
(b) hope someone else will answer
58. Do you prize more in yourself
(a) a strong sense of reality
(b) a vivid imagination
59. Are you drawn more to
(a) fundamentals
(b) overtones and nuance
60. Which seems the greatest error
(a) to be too passionate
(b) to be too objective
61. Do you see yourself as basically
(a) hard-headed
(b) soft-hearted
62. Which situation appeals to you more:
(a) the structured and scheduled
(b) the unstructured and unscheduled
63. Are you a person that is more
(a) organized than playful
(b) playful than organized
64. Are you more inclined to be
(a) easy to approach
(b) somewhat reserved
65. In writings do you prefer
(a) the more literal
(b) the more figurative
66. Is it harder for you to
(a) identify with others
(b) utilize others
67. Which do you wish more for yourself
(a) clarity of reason
(b) strength of compassion
68. Which is the greater fault:
(a) being indiscriminate
(b) being critical
69. Do you prefer the
(a) planned event
(b) unplanned event
70. Do you tend to be more
(a) deliberate than spontaneous
(b) spontaneous than deliberate
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter
3
Answer Sheet
Enter a check for each answer in the column for a or b.
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
1
2
1
3
2
E
4
3
4
3
3
I
S
5
5
6
4
5
4
5
N
6
T
F
7
8
b
7
8
6
7
8
6
7
8
J
P
Directions for scoring
1. Add down so that the total number of “a” answers is written in the box at the bottom
of each column (see next page for illustration). Do the same for the “b” answers you
have checked. Each of the 14 boxes should have a number in it.
2. Transfer the number in box No. 1 of the answer sheet to box No. 1 below the answer
sheet. Do this for box No. 2 as well. Note, however, that you must have two numbers
for boxes 3 through 8. Bring down the first number for each box beneath the second,
as indicated by arrows. Now add all the pairs of numbers and enter the total in the
boxes below the answer sheet, so each box has only one number.
3. Now you have four pairs of numbers. Circle the letter below the larger of each pair.
You have now identified your “type.” It should be one of the following:
INFP
ENFP
INFJ
ENFJ
ISFP
ESFP
ISFJ
ESFJ
INTP
ENTP
INTJ
ENTJ
ISTP
ESTP
ISTJ
ESTJ
The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 581–594
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
The effects of authentic leadership on followers’ ethical
decision-making in the face of temptation: An
experimental study
Anna M. Cianci a,1,2, Sean T. Hannah a,1,3, Ross P. Roberts b,1,4, George T. Tsakumis c,⁎,1
a
b
c
School of Business, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC 27109, United States
Earl N. Phillips School of Business, High Point University, High Point, NC 27262, United States
Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 March 2013
Received in revised form 20 September 2013
Accepted 6 December 2013
Available online 18 January 2014
Handling Editor: Shelly Dionne
Keywords:
Authentic leadership
Temptation
Ethical decision making
Guilt
a b s t r a c t
The present research investigates the impact of authentic leadership on followers’ morality,
operationalized as ethical decision-making, in the face of temptation. This experiment finds that
authentic leadership and temptation interacted to affect individuals’ ethical decision-making.
Specifically, authentic leadership significantly inhibited individuals’ from making unethical
decisions in the face of temptation, whereas followers of neutral or less authentic leaders were
more likely to succumb to temptation. Authentic leadership did not have a significant impact on
ethical decision-making when temptation was absent. Further, results showed a significant
moderated-mediated effect whereby the interactive effect of authentic leadership and temptation
on individuals’ guilt appraisal was mediated through the nature of the ethical decision.
Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Research on behavioral ethics in organizations has increased dramatically in the last two decades, with the majority of that
research focused on aspects of ethical judgment/decision-making (Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008; Treviño, Weaver, &
Reynolds, 2006). From this research, we know that moral processing is influenced not just by individual differences (good and
bad apples) but the context in which individuals are embedded, such as culture, climate and other organizational phenomena
(good and bad barrels) (Treviño & Youngblood, 1990; Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010). However, surprisingly little
empirical research has examined how exemplary leadership (e.g., authentic and ethical leadership) – a potentially important
contextual factor – relates to followers’ (un)ethical decisions and behaviors (Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Some research, while
limited, has shown that leaders have effects on follower ethical processing. For example, leaders’ levels of cognitive moral
development, through role modeling and social learning, can affect that of followers (Dukerich, Nichols, Elm, & Vollrath, 1990);
leadership style can influence which ethical frameworks followers’ use to process ethical dilemmas (Schminke & Wells, 1999;
Schminke, Wells, Peyrefitte, & Sebora, 2002); and ethical leadership is positively related to followers’ organizational citizenship
behaviors (Avey, Palanski, & Walumbwa, 2011; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Further,
ethical leadership has positive influences on followers’ ethical thoughts and behaviors, both directly as well as indirectly, through
the positive influences ethical leaders have on building ethical cultures across multiple levels in organizations (Schaubroeck et al.,
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 302 831 7583; fax: +1 302 831 4676.
E-mail addresses: cianciam@wfu.edu (A.M. Cianci), hannahst@wfu.edu (S.T. Hannah), rroberts@highpoint.edu (R.P. Roberts), georget@udel.edu (G.T. Tsakumis).
1
All authors contributed equally to this project.
2
Tel.: +1 336 758 4297; fax: +1 336 758 6133.
3
Tel.: +1 336 758 5412; fax: +1 336 758 6133.
4
Tel.: +1 336 841 4562; fax: +1 336 888 6380.
1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.001
582
A.M. Cianci et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 581–594
2012). Authentic leadership, in particular, has been positively related to followers’ levels of moral courage, and through that
mechanism, their ethical behavior (Hannah, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2011). There is a void of experiments, however, testing the
effects of leader behaviors on follower ethical decision-making. To build upon this literature, we formulate and test a model
assessing the influence of authentic leadership, as a potentially important contextual factor, on followers’ ethical decision-making
under varying conditions of moral temptation.
Dynamic organizational contexts expose followers to numerous temptations, requiring the inner fortitude to restrain oneself
from taking “ethical shortcuts” or pursuing self-gain over the good of the larger collective (Monin, Pizarro, & Beer, 2007). For
example, high pressure organization contexts that prioritize performance over other values tend to have higher rates of unethical
behavior (e.g., Robertson & Rymon, 2001). We propose that through displaying moral perspective, transparency and other aspects
of authenticity that authentic leaders will activate followers’ moral perspectives and thereby reduce their inclinations to make
unethical decisions in the face of temptations as suggested by Hannah, Lester, and Vogelgesang (2005). By moral perspective, we
refer to the activation of identity-based structures (e.g., values) and self-regulatory structures that promote ethical decisions and
behaviors.
Authentic leadership is defined as “a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological
capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing
of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development”
(Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008, p. 94; for a recent comprehensive review, please see Gardner, Cogliser,
Davis, & Dickens, 2011). We chose to focus on authentic leadership because from its early theoretical development the construct
was conceptualized with the assumption that such leaders would raise the moral perspective of followers (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Hannah et al., 2005). Yet this premise has
not to our knowledge been directly tested, at least not in an experimental design. Yet, Brown and Mitchell (2010) proposed that
because of its “strong emphasis on the ethical dimension of leaders, future research linking authentic leadership to important
ethics-related outcomes is promising” (p. 586).
Finally, we assess how authentic leadership, through its effects on followers’ ethical decisions in the face of temptation,
influences followers’ guilt appraisals. Guilt appraisal entails the process whereby an individual determines the extent of guilt they
experience for contemplating or performing a given unethical act, based on the way the individual construes and interprets the
act and evaluates their behavioral response, such as their motivations for and level of causal agency in the act (Roseman, 1984;
Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990; Scherer, 1988). Left unfettered, individuals who make unethical choices tend to morally
disengage from those choices (Bandura, 1999). Moral disengagement occurs when individuals use strategies to rationalize, justify,
or downplay their causal role or the negative consequences or immorality of their unethical choices (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Importantly, when individuals discount or justify an unethical choice or their personal agency in the
act through using moral disengagement strategies, they are in turn less likely to experience guilt related to that action (Bandura et
al., 1996; Roseman et al., 1990). As described above, we expect that the followers of more as opposed to less authentic leaders will
tend to make more ethical decisions, and thus will have little reason to employ moral disengagement strategies. When both
groups (i.e., those that chose the ethical and unethical actions) are appraising the level of guilt they would experience for
committing the particular unethical act in question, we therefore expect them to report different levels of guilt. Specifically, those
who previously made the unethical choice will be more likely to have morally disengaged and will thus report lower levels of
appraised guilt as compared to those that previously made the ethical choice, when the latter appraises the guilt they would
experience if they too were to make the same unethical choice. This suggests that the moderated effects of authentic leadership
on appraised guilt are mediated through its effects on followers’ ethical choices. Understanding this process is important as
self-sanctions such as guilt are critical for controlling future ethical behavior (Bandura, 1999; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007;
Tenbrusel & Messick, 2004), and are related to unethical phenomena such as cheating, theft, and unethical negotiation behavior
(Cohen, 2010; Cohen, Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011).
In summary, as shown in Fig. 1, we propose that exposure to temptation is positively related to followers’ unethical
decision-making, but that this main effect is moderated by the level of authentic leadership, such that at higher levels of authentic
leadership the effect of temptation on unethical decisions is significantly reduced. Further, we test a moderated-mediated effect
whereby the interactive effect of authenticity and temptation on appraised guilt is partially mediated through the nature of the
ethical decision. Specifically, we propose that when authentic leadership is low, the negative effect of temptation on guilt is
mediated through making an unethical decision. That is, when authentic leadership is low, followers will be more likely to make
Authentic
Leadership
Temptation
Ethical
Decision
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.
Guilt
Appraisal
A.M. Cianci et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 581–594
583
an unethical decision and through disengagement appraise less guilt associated with that action. High authentic leadership,
however, strengthens followers to withstand temptation, making them less likely to disengage and thus more inclined to make an
ethical decision. Followers of more authentic leaders therefore would have greater guilt appraisal associated with that same
unethical act. We test our expectations in a laboratory experimental design.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. The influence of temptation on unethical decisions
Temptation has been defined as “enticement to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain” (Tenbrunsel, 1998). More specifically,
temptations are incentives that may influence the decision to behave unethically to obtain goals or rewards (Fischbach & Shah, 2006;
Fischbach, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2003; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002; Tenbrunsel, 1998; Treviño & Youngblood, 1990; Trope &
Fishbach, 2000). The decision to behave unethically often requires the consideration of two opposing goals: maximizing self-interest
and maintaining a positive moral self-image and public image (Ariely, 2012). In the current study, our conceptualization of
temptation is derived from agency theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). Under the agency framework, one party (the principal) delegates work
to another party (the agent). The principal’s interests are assumed to be in line with those of the firm (i.e., profit maximization), while
the agent’s interests may or may not be in line with the interests of the firm. The presence of two conditions, incentive and
opportunity to act to maximize self-interest, describes a situation in which the agent will be tempted to neglect the firm’s interests in
favor of his or her own. For example, all else being equal, if a project manager (agent) has an incentive to maximize his or her personal
gain, s/he is expected to be more likely to make decisions that are consistent with his/her self-interest even though such actions may
conflict with the profit-maximizing interests of senior management (principal). However, in order to achieve this objective, the
manager also needs the opportunity to actually make such decisions and do so with some adequate level of belief that they will not be
caught or punished. Thus, the presence of temptation (i.e., both incentive and opportunity) can influence individuals to behave
unethically and make unethical decisions to serve their self-interests, in conflict with the firm’s interests.
Along these lines, several experimental studies in the field of accounting have considered agency explanations for managers’
unethical project continuation decisions (Booth & Schulz, 2004; Harrison & Harrell, 1993; Harrell & Harrison, 1994; Rutledge &
Karim, 1999). This stream of research examines whether temptation (i.e., both incentive and opportunity) increases the
likelihood that a manager exhibits unethical behavior. Specifically, these studies show that if a project manager’s career,
promotion, or reward prospects are dependent on managing only profitable projects (i.e., incentive) and his/her superiors do not
have enough information to properly evaluate the project’s profitability (i.e., opportunity), then these managers exhibit a greater
tendency to continue unprofitable projects even though it’s against the best interests of the organization. Based on the
accumulated research on the effects of temptation, we expect that when faced (not faced) with temptation, individuals will be
generally more (less) likely to make unethical decisions. This main effect, however, is not only intuitive, but is over-simplified. We
propose that authentic leadership moderates the effects of temptation on unethical decision-making by raising followers’ moral
perspective and thus limiting tendencies to morally disengage and act unethically (Bandura, 1999; Bandura et al., 1996).
2.2. The effects of authentic leadership in strengthening followers against temptation
Prior theorizing suggests that authentic leadership behaviors raise the moral perspective of followers (Avolio et al., 2004;
Gardner et al., 2005; Hannah et al., 2005), and that the four dimensions of authentic leadership (self-awareness, internalized
moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency) promote ethical follower behavior (Hannah, Avolio, &
Walumbwa, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). We provide a brief overview of how each dimension of leader authenticity can
contribute to ethical follower decision-making and behavior.
Internalized moral perspective denotes that the leader has a well-developed moral constitution which allows him or her to
regulate decision-making based on internalized morals and standards, as opposed to external pressures such as temptation
(Hannah et al., 2005). In this way, the leader serves as a moral exemplar (Walker & Henning, 2004) and an example is set for
followers to resist temptation by adapting the authentic leader’s moral standards as the norm. In addition to having moral
perspective, authentic leaders are highly self-aware and have a clear understanding of their values and beliefs and how these
values can be enacted and positively impact others in the workplace (Campbell et al., 1996; Gardner et al., 2005). Authentic
leaders also enact relational transparency, making their ideals, values, and standards clear to others and “walk their talk” to ensure
their actions are in line with the values they espouse. This enhances the authentic leader’s ability to serve as a moral exemplar and
increases the clarity with which expected behaviors and standards are communicated to followers. Finally, using balanced
processing, authentic leaders set the example of objectively analyzing all relevant data – including information that does not favor
their own or their followers’ preferred circumstances or self-interests – and model to others a willingness to adjust their thinking
accordingly to act in line with the collective good (Gardner et al., 2005; Hannah et al., 2005). Through processing relevant
information in a richer and more deliberate manner, authentic leaders and their followers would be more likely to consider a
larger breadth of implications of their potential choices and be less likely to impulsively respond to temptations (Monin et al.,
2007). Research has shown that the four dimensions of authentic leadership represent an overall higher-order construct that
combines to influence outcomes (e.g., Hannah, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Together, the leader’s
demonstration of the dimensions of authenticity can activate followers’ moral perspective and thus ability to resist temptations
and make more ethical decisions.
584
A.M. Cianci et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 581–594
Avolio et al. (2004) propose that authentic leadership promotes moral perspective in followers through expressing honesty
and integrity and through modeling moral standards and displaying ethical decision making and behavior transparently to
followers (cf. Kernis, 2003). Hannah et al. (2005) similarly propose that the effects of authentic leadership are largely driven by
emulation, which results in a higher level of moral activation and a lower likelihood of possessing unethical behavioral intentions.
They state that authentic leaders’ displays of “altruism a
Categories: