Tough and fair or tough is fair? Disciplinary decisions, power

distance and justice as predictors of ethical leadership

Chris Bell1

Art Assoiants2, Abdul Karim Khan3, Imran Hameed4, & Joyce X. Tan1

Schulich School of Business, York University1; Social Psychology, York University2;Lahore University of Management Studies3; King Saud University, Riyadh4

The Order of Organizations

• Organizations are purposeful economic entities– Primary terms of membership is an economic contract

• People join organizations in order to gain the means by which to thrive– material sustenance – career and personal achievement

• Managers play a critical role in this contract – ensuring that required work is being done – taking measures to encourage work efforts and discourage disruptive

or counterproductive behavior

The Discipline Paradox• Managers must enforce norms and discipline transgressors

– withholding of some positive outcome or the administration of a negative outcome• People don’t enjoy either of those experiences

• Managers are often anxious about discipline (Butterfield, Trevino, & Ball, 1996)

• However, an aversion to being punished should not generalize to an aversion against punishment of anyone. – People want the norms and values of their social groups to be

meaningfully supported by the group’s authorities. – Employees want their workgroups to be coherent and well ordered – Discipline is a critical factor in the maintenance of the workplace

Ethicality & Social Order

• Social Identity Theory suggests that people prefer a well ordered, coherent group, particularly under conditions of uncertainty

• (Hogg, 2000, 2007; Hogg & Mullin, 1999)

• System Justification Theory: people who are disadvantaged by a social system may sometimes still support it

• Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Kay et al. 2009

– Status quo provides some assurance against uncertainty– When uncertain, people tend to endorse the power that social

systems have over them • (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Hunyaday, 2005; Kay, Gaucher, Peach et

al., 2009; MacGregor, 2003; van den Bos, 2009b)

Hypotheses

• H1: Perceptions of or attitudes about power and governance will be positively associated with perceptions of leader ethicality

• H2: This relationship will be pronounced under conditions of uncertainty

Study 1

• 58 managers from an executive education program at the Lahore University of Management Studies in Lahore, Pakistan nominated 3 to 5 subordinates for us to contact separately (N =193)

– 5 point Likert-type scales on which 1 was labeled ‘Disagree Strongly’ and 5 was labeled ‘Agree Strongly’

– Measures arranged in blocks, blocks randomized in three different presentations

Tough Disciplinary Decisions

• “If there was a free rider in the work group, my supervisor/manager would call that person out”

• “If someone in the group had to be laid off or fired, my supervisor/manager would have no problem making that decision”

• “My supervisor/manager carries through with tough calls and disciplinary decisions”

• “When someone in the workgroup needs to be disciplined, my supervisor/manager would have no problem taking action.”

Alpha .68

Power Distance

• Earley & Erez (1997) – ‘Employees should not express disagreements

with their managers’ – ‘Once a top-level executive makes a decision,

people working for the company should not question it’

– ‘Managers who let their employees participate in decisions lose power.’

Alpha .69

Overall Justice & Ethical Leadership

• Overall Justice (Combined facets of Colquitt, 2001)Alpha .8

• Ethical Leadership (Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005) – ‘sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics,’ – ‘defines success not just by results but also the way that they are

obtained’ – ‘has the best interests of employees in mind.’ – Omitted:

• ‘When making decisions, asks "what is the right thing to do?’• ‘Makes fair and balanced decisions’• ‘Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards’

Alpha .92

AnalysesDisciplinary Decisions & Justice

Tough Disciplinary DecisionsWithin groups

Between groupsEthical Leadership

Overall Justice

β .166*

β .435* *

* = p < .05; * * = p < .01; * * * = p < .001

AnalysesDisciplinary Decisions & Ethical Leadership

Tough Disciplinary DecisionsWithin groups

Between groupsEthical Leadership

Overall Justice

β .257* *

β .281 *

* = p < .05; * * = p < .01; * * * = p < .001

AnalysesJustice & Ethical Leadership

Tough Disciplinary DecisionsWithin groups

Between groupsEthical Leadership

Overall JusticeWithin groupsBetween groups β .752* * *

β .670* * *

* = p < .05; * * = p < .01; * * * = p < .001

AnalysesMediation

Tough Disciplinary DecisionsWithin groups

Between groupsEthical Leadership

Overall JusticeWithin groupsBetween groups β .680* * *

β .668* * *

* = p < .05; * * = p < .01; * * * = p < .001

β .089p = .205

β -.003P = .982

AnalysesPower Distance

Power Distance

Ethical Leadership

Overall Justice

* = p < .05; * * = p < .01; *** = p < .001

β .336 ***

β .350 ***

AnalysesPower Distance

Power Distance

Ethical Leadership

Overall JusticeWithin groupsBetween groups β .721***

β .667***

* = p < .05; * * = p < .01; * * * = p < .001

β .083, p = .295

Study 1Discussion

• Tough disciplinary decisions were interpreted positively, associated with fairness and ethicality

• However, Pakistan’s uncertain economic and political conditions may have contributed to the effect– in conditions of uncertainty, people might prefer

leaders who maintain and enforce normative order

Study 2

• Objectives:– explore the moderating effect of uncertainty on

a) perceptions of a leader’s authoritativeness and ethical leadership qualities

b) power distance and perceptions of ethical leadership qualities

• Experimental study:– Manipulate uncertainty– ‘First impression’ of person of authority

• 36 undergraduate business school students (19 male, 17 female; age M = 19.4, S.D. 1.2)

Design

• First component– Manipulation: think about how they might feel

when they are generally uncertain or consider how they feel when watching television

• van den Bos, 2001

• Single item manipulation check “to what extent do you feel uncertain right now?” – 1 (“Not at all uncertain”) to 9 (“Very Uncertain”).

Design

• Second component– First impressions of a person of authority

President

VP Academic & Provost VP Advancement VP Finance & Administration

VP Research & Innovation Vice Provost Students

Measures• First Impression Traits (1 (‘Not at all’) to 7 (‘ Very much’))

– Authoritativeness: • assertive, authoritative, determined, strong, decisive, and firm

– Benevolence:• caring, compassionate, friendly, kind, generous, and helpful

• (Aquino & Reed, 2002)

– Ethicality:• Fair, honest, hardworking

• (Aquino & Reed, 2002)

• Trustworthy, ethical

• Power Distance:– Earley & Erez (1997) scale as in study 1

Power Distance x Uncertainty

Control ConditionUncertainty Condition

Low High0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Chart Title

POWER DISTANCE

ETH

ICA

LITY

(β .142, p = .008)

Authoritativeness x Uncertainty

Low High3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Chart Title

AUTHORITATIVENESS

ETH

ICA

LITY

Control ConditionUncertainty Condition

(β -.587, p = .144)

Conclusion• Employees care about the normative order of the workplace

• Enforcement of rules in the workplace is appreciated, considered both fair and ethical– Consistent with Uncertainty Identity Theory

• preference for a well ordered, coherent group is especially pronounced under conditions of subjective uncertainty

• (Hogg 2000; 2001; 2007; Hogg & Mullin, 1999; also McGregor, 2003)

• Power distance: belief in the legitimacy of the unequal distribution of power– Power distance is associated with the perception that persons of authority

are ethical and act justly• Stronger under conditions of subjective uncertainty

– Consistent with System Justification Theory• (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Kay et al. 2009)

Conclusion

– Contrary to our hypothesis, we found a negative trend between authoritativeness and leader ethicality under conditions of subjective uncertainty

• Authoritativeness is a personality factor– Could represent rigidity and inflexibility

• Tough disciplinary decisions predicated on social concern of maintaining and supporting the normative order of the group

Future Directions

• Re-run the experimental study– Distinguish between authoritativeness and tough

decision making

• Distinguish between personal subjective uncertainty and group or system uncertainty

• Explore further implications of tough decision making– Commitment, performance, relationship to fairness

THANK YOU!!

• Questions?

• Comments?

• Observations?

• Suggestions?