transformational leadership and knowledge and knowledge sharing within an organization

This week’s journal articles focus on transformational leadership and knowledge and knowledge sharing within an organization, please review these concepts and answer the following questions:

How do trustworthy and ethical leaders enhance knowledge sharing in organizations? How does this impact the rate of information technology implementations? How does this impact data management within organizations?
How does servant leadership assist with transferring knowledge in an organization?
When thinking about data analytics, how does transformational leadership assist with building good data structures?

Be sure to use the UC Library for scholarly research. Google Scholar is also a great source for research. Please be sure that journal articles are peer-reviewed and are published within the last five years.The paper should meet the following requirements:

3-5 pages in length (not including title page or references)
APA guidelines must be followed. The paper must include a cover page, an introduction, a body with fully developed content, and a conclusion.
A minimum of five peer-reviewed journal articles.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026618806201

Organization & Environment
2020, Vol. 33(2) 155 –174

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1086026618806201

journals.sagepub.com/home/oae

Article

Making It Personal: Developing
Sustainability Leaders in Business

Aoife Brophy Haney1 , Jenny Pope2,3,4,
and Zoë Arden5

Abstract
Sustainability challenges present organizations in many industries with the need to change.
Leaders are critical to the process of becoming more sustainable, and yet leading change
for sustainability requires new competencies. Learning at an individual level is central
to developing new competencies; however, there has been limited focus to date in the
literature on corporate sustainability on how leaders can learn to respond to sustainability
challenges. In this article, we focus on how managers learn to become sustainability leaders
in their organizations by exploring the phenomenon of experiential learning programmes.
We do this by interviewing participants and organizers of four programmes about what they
learned and how the programmes helped them achieve these learning outcomes. We find
that the programmes supported the development of understanding, personal connection,
and empowerment to act for sustainability. In particular, making sustainability personal for
participants led to deep learning in each of these three areas. We contribute to conversations
in the corporate sustainability literature on the potential for individuals within organizations
to respond to and connect with sustainability issues in different ways. We also contribute to
the literature on education for sustainability and provide practical implications for experiential
learning programmes in business and business education.

Keywords
corporate sustainability, corporate social responsibility, learning, sustainability leadership,
experiential learning

Introduction

Corporate sustainability confronts business with the challenge of addressing not just commercial
but also environmental and social goals (Goleman & Lueneburger, 2010). Leaders are crucial to
the process of organizational change that is needed for organizations to become more sustainable

1ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
3Integral Sustainability, South Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia
4North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
5University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, Cambridge, UK

Corresponding Author:
Aoife Brophy Haney, Group for Sustainability and Technology, ETH Zurich, Weinbergstrasse 56/58, Zurich, 8037,
Switzerland.
Email: abhaney@ethz.ch

806201OAEXXX10.1177/1086026618806201Organization & EnvironmentHaney et al.
research-article2018

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/oae

mailto:abhaney@ethz.ch

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1086026618806201&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-10-21

156 Organization & Environment 33(2

)

(Eccles & Perkins, 2012). But there is increasing acknowledgement that addressing complex
sustainability challenges requires the development of new leadership skills and attributes (Barth,
Godemann, Rieckmann, & Stoltenberg, 2007; Osagie, Wesselink, Blok, Lans, & Mulder, 2016;
Ploum, Blok, Lans, & Omta, 2017; Rieckmann, 2012). Although there has been some recent
research on how university programmes can be designed to develop sustainability skills
(Hesselbarth & Schaltegger, 2014), there has been less focus on the attainment of skills for sus-
tainability in business. In this article, we explore the particular phenomenon of experiential learn-
ing programmes (ELPs) designed for sustainability professionals from the business world, to
understand how these programmes support managers to become effective sustainability leaders
in their organizations.

The interdependence of economic, environmental, and social objectives at the heart of corpo-
rate sustainability requires an expansive view of the role of business in society (Bondy, Moon, &
Matten, 2012; Gitsham, 2012; Quinn & Dalton, 2009). According to this view, the financial or
economic imperative of business is intertwined with the interrelated challenges of

(1) long-term viability of natural systems and the services they provide for human existence; (2)
unacceptable social conditions at home and in communities around the world; and (3) the potential
for local and global economies to create a modicum of wealth and prosperity for all inhabitants of the
earth. (Ferdig, 2007, p. 26)

These challenges have significant implications for leaders charged with setting the strategic
direction of their organizations in response (Coleman, 2013). First, combining these different
goals is challenging for leaders in business because there are often many tensions involved. For
example, just as there are tensions between competing goals (Margolis & Walsh, 2003), there are
tensions between the traditional short-term focus of managerial decision making and the long-
term focus that firms are increasingly expected to exhibit in order to respond to big societal chal-
lenges such as climate change (Slawinski & Bansal, 2012; Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, & Figge, 2014).
Second, sustainability challenges are often categorized as “wicked problems,” that is, they are
complex, are ill-defined, and do not have clear solutions (Lans, Blok, & Wesselink, 2014). Hence,
management approaches grounded in learning from past experiences to predict and control the
future are increasingly found to be inadequate (Ferdig, 2007; Rieckmann, 2012; Sterling, 2011;
Wesselink, Blok, van Leur, Lans, & Dentoni, 2015), because knowledge structures based on past
experience may be too rigid to allow for innovative alternatives to be recognized (Benner &
Tripsas, 2012; Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). Third, dealing with these challenges requires engage-
ment with multiple stakeholders with different views, values, and perceptions not only of the
problem (Lans et al., 2014), but also of the desirable goals or objectives (Goleman & Lueneburger,
2010).

In the face of these challenges, it is increasingly recognized that leadership that engages with
sustainability and seeks to promote sustainability outcomes through business activities, often
referred to as “sustainability leadership” (Visser & Courtice, 2011), is both crucial (Eccles &
Perkins, 2012; Gloet, 2006) and different from traditional business leadership (Gitsham, 2012;
Martin & Ernst, 2005). The role of the individual business leader in sustainability has received
much less focus in the literature than institutional and organizational dimensions (Aguinis &
Glavas, 2012). But there is increasing focus on individual managers and a recognition that it is
important to understand the challenges they face (Allen, Marshall, & Easterby-Smith, 2015), as
well as the potential they represent within their organizations to think and act differently in
response to sustainability (Hahn & Aragón-Correa, 2015). Businesses are also clearly recogniz-
ing the important role that informed, motivated, and empowered business leaders can play in
driving change for sustainability through sponsoring their participation in ELPs. In fact, many
organizations are now turning to intensive, field-based training programmes designed to support

Haney et al. 157

sustainability leadership. These programmes, often described as “‘experiential learning pro-
grammes” (Baden & Parkes, 2013), are based on bringing participants close to sustainability
issues and providing opportunities to engage with a wide range of people with different perspec-
tives (Gitsham, 2012). Most research on field-based learning has focused on contexts such as
schools and universities or professions such as nursing and teaching (Kolb & Kolb, 2005;
Quinn, 2000). Bringing business leaders into the field to develop sustainability leadership has
only recently started to receive attention. There has been little research to date that has sought
to understand how and to what extent ELPs support managers in developing the competencies
needed for sustainability leadership (Gitsham, 2012). Developing a better understanding of
ELPs can also contribute to general conversations in the literature about the potential of indi-
vidual leaders to address sustainability within their organizations and the educational means
through which to support this potential (Hahn & Aragón-Correa, 2015; Sharma & Hart, 2014;
Shrivastava, 2010).

In this article, we analyze the experiences of managers from a range of different organizations
who have participated in ELPs for sustainability leadership, as well as the perspectives of some
of the organizers of these programmes. Our research is based on a series of semi-structured inter-
views to explore, first, what managers learned and, second, how this learning occurred. We ask,
“How do ELPs support the development of sustainability leadership?” In the following section,
we review the key literature on competencies for sustainability leadership, and learning and edu-
cation for sustainability. We draw on this literature to articulate the characteristics of effective
ELPs for sustainability leadership. In the subsequent section, we illustrate how the programmes
selected for this research reflect these characteristics, and we explain our research methodology
in more detail. We then show in the results section, first, the learning outcomes of the pro-
grammes, and, second, how learning occurred, as experienced by participants. Finally, we dis-
cuss our findings in the context of the literature on sustainability leadership and corporate
sustainability more broadly.

Theoretical Background

Competencies for Sustainability Leadership

Much of the literature on the attributes of sustainability leaders is focused on the competencies
such leaders require. The term competency has been used to mean different things in different
contexts (Barth et al., 2007; Wesselink et al., 2015), and several different schools of thought can
be distinguished (Osagie et al., 2016). There is broad agreement, however, that a comprehensive
perspective of competency includes more than just cognitive and functional dimensions such as
skills and knowledge; it also embraces attitudes, motives, values, and ethics (Barth & Michelsen,
2013; Hesselbarth & Schaltegger, 2014; Osagie et al., 2016; Ploum et al., 2017; Rieckmann,
2012; Svanström, Lozano-García, & Rowe, 2008; UNESCO, 2017; Visser & Crane, 2010;
Wesselink et al., 2015). In this article, we follow Wiek, Withycombe, and Redman (2011) to
define competency as “a functionally linked complex of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that
enable successful task performance and problem solving” (p. 204). The purpose of the compe-
tency is then clearly linked to a task or a problem, in our case related to sustainability.

In their discussion of sustainability leadership, Visser and Crane (2010) also emphasize the
importance of personality traits and leadership styles. Arguably, these softer, more intangible
dimensions are particularly important for sustainability leadership since sustainability is essen-
tially a values-driven concept (Barth & Michelsen, 2013; Frisk & Larson, 2011). It is noted that
the development of an ethical imperative, motivation (Sinatra, Kardash, Taasoobshirazi, &
Lombardi, 2012) or “moral emotion” (Ferdig, 2007; Sekerka & Stimel, 2012) to act for sustain-
ability is often associated with a particular value set (Svanström et al., 2008), reflecting “more

158 Organization & Environment 33(2)

ethical and more responsible values” (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010, p. 358). Gaining compe-
tence for sustainability therefore involves both cognitive and practical development in the form
of ability to deal with increasing complexity, and the learning of values and ongoing reflection
on these (Barth & Michelsen, 2013; Savage, Tapics, Evarts, Wilson, & Tirone, 2015).

While there have been numerous studies seeking to identify competencies for sustainability,
Ploum et al. (2017) point out that many of these are conceptual in nature and specifically seek to
inform the higher education sector (Barth et al., 2007; Rieckmann, 2012; Wiek et al., 2011). For
example Wiek et al. (2011) identify five core competencies they believe are required to address
sustainability challenges and to solve complex multidimensional problems, namely, systems
thinking (“the ability to collectively analyze complex systems across different domains . . . and
across different scales,” p. 207), anticipatory (“the ability to collectively analyze, evaluate, and
craft rich ‘pictures’ of the future related to sustainability issues and sustainability problem-solv-
ing frameworks,” pp. 207 and 209), normative (“the ability to collectively map, specify, apply,
reconcile, and negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals, and targets,” p. 209), strategic
(“the ability to collectively design and implement interventions, transitions, and transformative
governance strategies toward sustainability,” p. 210), and interpersonal (“ the ability to motivate,
enable, and facilitate collaborative and participatory sustainability research and problem solv-
ing,” p. 211) competencies. In recent years, a number of studies have been undertaken specifi-
cally within a professional context (Hesselbarth & Schaltegger, 2014; Lans et al., 2014; Osagie
et al., 2016; Wesselink et al., 2015). These studies are reviewed by Ploum et al. (2017) who find
three competencies common to the four studies: strategic (management) competence, systems
thinking competence, and interpersonal competence.

What is notable about these contributions, which have proliferated in recent years, is that the
resulting lists of competencies are remarkably similar regardless of whether they are conceptual
or empirical, or whether focused on the higher education or business sectors. They all tend to
include both core competencies for sustainability and competencies related to management skills,
many of which are similar to the leadership competencies articulated by Martin and Ernst (2005)
for leadership in times of paradox and complexity more generally. Osagie et al. (2016) suggest
that many of the competencies described in the literature are somewhat instrumental and under-
play the importance of ethics. Based on their empirical study of corporate social responsibility
professionals within business, they emphasize the importance of “personal value-driven compe-
tencies” relating to the ability to apply personal ethics to a business situation and to “strike an
appropriate balance between idealism and pragmatism” (p. 243). They also emphasize the impor-
tance of motivation or “the moral transformation from a passive attitude with respect to sustain-
ability issues into an active and engaged attitude” (p. 249). This perspective is strongly aligned
with the views of Ferdig (2007), Sekerka and Stimel (2012), Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010),
and Sinatra et al. (2012) discussed previously in relation to the importance of motivation, moral
emotion, and ethical imperative in sustainability leadership.

Learning and Education for Sustainability Leaders

Sustainability leadership then requires the development of not only cognitive and functional
competencies but also values-oriented competencies that help leaders engage on sustainability
issues. Accordingly, there have been calls for new kinds of education for sustainability, as evi-
denced by the United Nations’ Decade of Education for Sustainability (2005-2015), and the
tertiary education sector has been the hub of research in this area (see e.g., Barth et al., 2007;
Sipos, Battisti, & Grimm, 2008; Sterling, 2011; Svanström et al., 2008). The education for sus-
tainability literature reports of various pedagogical approaches designed to develop the knowl-
edge, skills, and values required by sustainability leaders, including active and problem-based
learning (MacVaugh & Norton, 2012); authentic problems, learning cycles, shared inquiry,

Haney et al. 159

transdisciplinarity, exploration, and engagement (Hull, Kimmel, Robertson, & Mortimer, 2016);
and encouraging critical and reflective thinking about sustainability paradigms (Stubbs &
Cocklin, 2008). While these and other similar contributions emphasize the importance of per-
sonal values for sustainability, this approach has also been challenged by those who believe that
universities are not the place for the “moral agenda” (Butcher, 2007). This debate aside, the
consensus in this body of work is that education for sustainability requires less of a transfer of
information from educator to student and more of a process of student-centred personal devel-
opment or transformation based on experiential learning (Savage et al., 2015). The ELPs that
are the subject of our research embody similar pedagogical philosophies but are targeted at
business professionals rather than students. In this section, we briefly review two key bodies of
work in the education for sustainability field: “experiential learning” and “transformative learn-
ing.” While neither of these terms has clear and commonly accepted definitions, we see key
aspects of each reflected in the ELPs that are the focus of our research.

“Experiential learning” is often equated with learning that is learner-centred and based on
real-life experience or practical “learning by doing” (e.g., Barth & Michelsen, 2013; Dieleman &
Huisingh, 2006; Gitsham, 2012). Illeris (2007) provides a useful review of the concept of expe-
riential learning, exploring how it can be distinguished from nonexperiential learning. He notes
that while many discussions on the topic refer back to the work of Kolb (1984) and his experien-
tial learning cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and
active experimentation, in fact Kolb himself concluded that all learning is experiential.

Illeris (2007) posits that three dimensions comprise all forms of learning on a spectrum from
nonexperiential to experiential: “the content dimension of knowledge, understandings, skills,
abilities, attitudes and the like, the incentive dimension of emotion, feelings, motivation and voli-
tion, and the social dimension of interaction, communication and cooperation—all of which are
embedded in a societally situated context” (pp. 87-88), arguing that experiential learning occurs
when the three dimensions are in balance. This conceptualization echoes the literature discussed
in the previous section by emphasizing that incentive is as important as the development of skills
and knowledge in learning. Illeris’s content and incentive also have some resonance with
Dieleman and Huisingh (2006)’s comprehension and apprehension, where the former is cogni-
tive (right brain) and the latter involves “the tangible and felt qualities of the immediate situa-
tion” (p. 838) (left brain).

“Transformation” through “transformative learning” is similarly a common theme in the sus-
tainability education literature, where it is argued that it is essential to shift learners from their
current ways of thinking into a new way of seeing the world (Sipos et al., 2008; Sterling, 2011;
Wals & Corcoran, 2006). As discussed in the previous section, particular values, attitudes, moti-
vations, frames, and ethical positions are often argued to be essential to sustainability leadership.
Learning is thus understood not just as the development of competencies “within existing (men-
tal) frameworks, norms, policies and rules” (Tosey, Visser, & Saunders, 2012, p. 292) but as a
process that challenges and ultimately changes these mental frameworks (or frames to use the
language of the previous section), norms, and policies, in a process that has been called “concep-
tual change” (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). For example, Argyris and Schön (1996) refer to
single- and double-learning,1 which is analogous to Glasbergen’s distinction between technical
and conceptual learning (Glasbergen, 1996). Others go beyond this dichotomy to distinguish a
broader range of learning types. For example, Sterling (2011) presents a hierarchy of “levels of
knowing” ranging from actions at the simplest level, through ideas/theories, norms/assumptions,
beliefs/values, paradigm/worldview, to metaphysics/cosmology at the most complex, with the
implication that learning can occur in relation to each of these levels. Illeris (2007) argues that
transformation is more likely when learning is experiential.

The notion of transformative learning is usually attributed to Jack Mezirow (e.g., Mezirow,
1990, 1997) who developed the concept over a period of 30 years or more (see Kitchenham, 2008

160 Organization & Environment 33(2)

for a comprehensive review of Mezirow’s work). While it is not always clear that the term trans-
formative learning is used consistently in the sustainability leadership literature or in line with
Mezirow’s conceptualization, the essential argument is that learning for sustainability needs to be
considerably more profound than the simple acquisition of knowledge and skills, involving
changes to attitudes, values, beliefs, and frames (Wals, 2011), and that such transformation can
be facilitated by experiential learning.

The learning literature suggests that transformation is often catalyzed by some form of uncom-
fortable experience: for example, Laws and Rein (2003) refer to “uncertainty and doubt,” Sinclair
and Diduck (2001) to a “disorienting dilemma,” and van der Knaap (1995) to “cognitive disso-
nance.” All of these allude to a process whereby learners somehow find themselves outside their
comfort zone, in a position where their existing mental frameworks and beliefs cannot help in
making sense of the situation, forcing a change at some level of understanding or value system.
This process is the basis of learning models such as Otto Scharmer’s Theory U (Scharmer &
Senge, 2009), whose relevance to sustainability has been explored (van Lawick van Pabst &
Visser, 2012), and is also sometimes conceptualized as “sensemaking” (Maitlis & Christianson,
2014).

This process of learning or conceptual change is not a purely cognitive process: The seminal
work of Pintrich et al. (1993) found an important role for motivation interacting with cognition
in this form of learning in the classroom, which has come to be called the “warming trend” within
educational psychology. Other authors have explored the emotional dimension within transfor-
mative learning (Baden & Parkes, 2013; Coleman, 2013). For example, Gitsham (2012, p. 300)
argues, “While cognitive learning approaches are valuable in raising awareness, emotional
arousal through felt experience is crucial in moving from awareness to commitment to change,”
while Sipos et al. (2008) speak of the need to engage the heart as well as the head and hands.

Summar

In summary, if we take as a starting point that sustainability leadership calls for the development
of specific competencies that include not only knowledge and skills (cognitive and functional
competencies) but also attitudes, motives, values, and ethics, then ELPs for business leaders may
be an appropriate way to catalyze such learning and facilitate the development of sustainability
leadership. Following Illeris (2007), ELPs should have the content, incentive, and social dimen-
sions in balance to best achieve this goal. In the following section, we introduce four programmes
that aim to support the development of sustainability leaders and that which demonstrate these
characteristics but do not clearly articulate the learning outcomes in the form of sustainability
leadership competencies. We begin by exploring the learning outcomes of the programmes from
the perspectives of participants and organizers. We then explore how different aspects of the
programmes encourage the development of different learning outcomes.

Method

Context and Data Collection

We use two main sources of data for our analysis. First, we conducted interviews with managers
who participated in ELPs for sustainability leadership as well as with some organizers of these
ELPs. We chose two organizations that specialize in providing such programmes for companies,
Leaders’ Quest (LQ) and the U.K. charity Business in the Community (BITC), as well as two
bespoke programmes designed specifically by training providers for multinational companies.
The programmes run by LQ and BITC are the longest running ELPs in the United Kingdom
focused on senior business leaders across multiple organizations. Including participants from

Haney et al. 161

both NGO-led and bespoke programmes allowed us to interview leaders across a range of differ-
ent industries. It also allowed us to look for replication of our results in programmes with differ-
ent types of organizers or, conversely, to challenge some of our findings by comparing results
across the programmes. We focused on senior managers to reduce the effect that hierarchy might
have on our results.

LQ is a social enterprise committed to helping companies integrate social purpose into com-
pany performance. They do this primarily through the delivery of ELPs and have to date worked
with more than 6,000 business leaders. The quests take place over an average of 2 to 3 days but
can be for as long as a week and take place all over the world. In terms of the aims of the pro-
gramme, the LQ website (https://leadersquest.org/about) states, “We develop wise, compassion-
ate and adept leaders—people who are capable of leading in fast-changing, disrupted environments
with competing priorities and interconnected challenges.”

BITC have two connected programmes with experiential components. BITC’s Seeing is
Believing (SIB) aims, according to their website, to close the gap between the boardroom and the
community by giving senior business leaders a unique experiential learning opportunity: “The
visits are designed to encourage participants to think strategically about the implications for their
own business and the practical actions that can be taken in response, leading to meaningful and
sustained impact for both business and communities” (https://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/
princes-seeing-believing/about-programme#Works). More than 8,000 business leaders have par-
ticipated in SIB. The programme consists of a half-day field trip to locations predominantly in
the United Kingdom—for example, prisons, homeless shelters, and inner-city areas. The visits
are led by a CEO already committed to the issue, supported by the SIB team. BITC’s Business
Connectors programme was referenced several times during interviews with participants from
SIB, leading us to extend interviews to participants of Business Connectors as well. The pro-
gramme is aimed at mid-level managers who work on secondment full time within local com-
munities for 12 to 18 months.

In addition, we conducted a further seven interviews with participants and organizers of two
multinationals who have developed bespoke training programmes with strong experiential ele-
ments. The Consumer Goods multinational uses extensive experiential training as a means of
implementing its sustainability initiatives. The Mining multinational has a programme aimed at
senior managers that aims to improve their competencies in engaging with host communities,
that is, the communities that live close to mining areas where the multinational is active.

For the LQ programme, we interviewed the programme director and manager as well as four
programme participants from different industries. For the BITC programmes, we interviewed the
director of SIB and seven programme participants (both SIB and Business Connectors) from dif-
ferent industries. In total, from all four programmes, we conducted 20 interviews. Table 1 pro-
vides an overview of the interviewees for each programme. All of the interviewees had been on
a programme in the previous 12 months, so the experience was relatively recent. The participants
were chosen through snowball sampling, starting with the programme organizers and then pro-
gramme participants. Some of those interviewed also attended the programmes that one of the
authors participated in, which allowed for a combination of interview data and observations.

The interviews were semi-structured and lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. They were con-
ducted between October 2013 and July 2014. The questions focused on asking the participants to
describe their participation in the experiential learning programme, to reflect on what they
learned, and to talk about how they felt during the programme. For programme organizers, the
questions focused on the programme goals and their assessment of the impacts on leaders’ sus-
tainability leadership competencies.

All of these programmes reflect the three dimensions that characterize ELPs as articulated by
Illeris (2007): content, incentive, and social. The approach common to all the programmes stud-
ied of taking business leaders outside their comfort zones to provide “first-hand experiences”

https://leadersquest.org/about

https://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/princes-seeing-believing/about-programme#Works

162 Organization & Environment 33(2)

(SIB) or “a deep immersion in different environments and cultures” (LQ), aiming to give partici-
pants a deep and embodied understanding of sustainability challenges (content), while also moti-
vating them to contribute to addressing these challenges (incentive). The opportunities for
interaction with community and business leaders already working to make a difference also con-
tribute to inspiring participants to take action themselves (incentive) as well as to connecting
them with potential collaborators and partners (social).

The second main source of data is from one of the authors’ participation in two ELPs. Zoë
participated in a LQ trip in May 2014 to Israel and Palestine, and in an SIB visit to Brixton Prison
in March 2014. She took personal field notes of her experiences and conducted informal inter-
views with participants during both programmes. We use these observations and informal inter-
views as a means of clarifying some of the insights from the interviews with programme
participants and organizers.

Data Analysis

We analyzed the interview data in two stages, taking an inductive approach. First, we identified
the learning outcomes of the ELPs, as experienced and described by the participants themselves,
with an emphasis on the noncognitive aspects that have received limited empirical attention to
date, variously described in the literature as changes in attitudes, motives, values, ethics, frames,
mind-sets, and paradigms. Second, we identified through the experiences of participants how
these learning outcomes were supported by different aspects of the programmes.

Limitations

There are several limitations of our study. First, our exploration of what participants on these
programmes learned and how they learned is based on self-reported accounts and memories,

Table 1. Overview of Interviewees.

Programme Industry Position Abbreviation

BITC Retail Operations Director BITC 1
ICT HR Manager BITC 2a

Retail Manager BITC 3a

Utilities/Finance Nonexecutive Director BITC 4
Construction CSO BITC 5
Retail CSR Director BITC 6
Organizer Programme Manager BITC 7
LQ Automotive Director of Leadership Programmes LQ 1
Consumer goods CSO LQ 2
Consulting Director of Global Operations LQ 3
Media Global CEO LQ 4
Consumer goods Leadership Development Manager CG 1
Global VP, HR CG 2
Global Director, Communications CG 3
Global Director, Sustainability CG 4
Mining NGO Country Director M 1
Mining General Manager M 2
Mining Head of Government and Social Affairs M 3

Note. BITC = Business in the Community; LQ = Leaders’ Quest.
aParticipants were part of the business connectors programme.

Haney et al. 163

which may not be entirely accurate. While in some cases interviewees had completed their ELP
very recently, in others there was a considerable time lag between the programme and the time
the interviews were undertaken. Second, we have not attempted to determine whether or not the
perceived learnings actually translate in the business context to competencies that support action
for sustainability. This would require a separate follow-up study. Third, we focus only on pro-
grammes run by organizations based in the United Kingdom, which may limit the applicability
of our findings to other cultural contexts. Further research on ELPs in other countries would be
useful as a means of comparison. Finally, the participants who agreed to be interviewed tended
to have a positive view of ELPs. Not everyone who attends the programmes, however, has such
a view. Our focus on those who had positive experiences allows us to understand the learning
outcomes for those who were engaged in the programme but does not allow us to assess the suc-
cess of the programmes per se. We acknowledge that there are weaknesses of ELPs including, for
example, the difficulty of translating the experience from the programmes back into day-to-day
activities. We encourage future research that assesses these weaknesses and compares ELPs with
other forms of learning for sustainability leaders.

Results

Our results from the first stage of the data analysis are summarized in Table 2. In the following
sections, we describe each of the three categories of learning outcomes. We then describe how
features of the ELPs supported each of these three categories.

Learning Outcomes

The three main categories of learning outcomes we derived inductively from our data are under-
standing, personal connection, and empowerment to act.

Understanding is the most prominent of the three categories and is focused on participants
making sense of sustainability. At the most general level, the programmes offered an opportunity
for participants to think about the connections between different aspects of sustainability, for
example, the social and the environmental, reflecting the systems thinking competency that fea-
tures prominently in the literature (e.g., UNESCO, 2017; Wesselink et al., 2015; Wiek et al.,
2011). Other, more profound, kinds of understanding also developed. For example, several par-
ticipants talked about how the programme helped them think about the connection between their
own role and leadership in their organizations, and sustainability issues. For instance, one of the
participants on the Consumer Goods programme described how “this is the first time I have made
the link between sustainability and my leadership” (CG 1). Linked to this is improved under-
standing of the role of participants’ organizations in tackling sustainability challenges. As one of
the SIB programme organizers explained, part of the learning experience is for participants to
“see practically how they can help” (BITC 7). For some participants, this involved going beyond
thinking about philanthropy as a way for their organization to get involved in the community or
reprioritizing the community and environment in their projects. Beyond their own businesses,
participants were given a chance to understand what matters to different stakeholders including
the community, customers, and the environment through interaction with these groups (the social
component of the ELPs).

The second category, personal connection, manifests in participants feeling connected to their
sense of self, to others in their organization, or to certain sustainability issues. This personal con-
nection allows participants to engage with sustainability in a deeper way than just understanding
or even seeing the issues. Two of the LQ participants describe their experience of reconnecting
with themselves through their participation in the programme. As one of the participants
describes, “You tend to put layers of skin and protection and armor on yourself because the

164

T
a
b

le
2

.
O

ve
rv

ie
w

o
f
R

es
ul

ts
: L

ea
rn

in
g

O
ut

o
m

es
.

Ill
us

tr
at

iv
e

qu
o
te

s
Su

bc
at

eg
o
ri

es
Le

ar
ni

ng
o

ut
co

m
es

D
es

cr
ip

ti
o
n

“T
hi

s
is

t
he

f
ir

st
t

m
e

I
ha

ve
m

ad
e

th
e

in
k

be
tw

ee
n

su
st

ai
na

bi
lit

y
an

d
m

y
le

ad
er

sh
ip

.”
(

C
G

1
)

U
nd

er
st

an
di

ng
m

y
ro

le
U

nd
er

st
an

di
ng

A
t

le
ve

ls
o

di
vi

du
al

,
o
rg

an
iz

at
io

n,
a

su
st
ai
na
bi
lit

y
is

su
es

—
m

ak
in

g
co

nn
ec

o
ns

w
ee

es
e

“W
ha

t
w

as
p

he
no

m
en

al
w

as
t

he
s

hi
ft

in
2

4
ho

ur
s.

I
t

w
as

n’
t

w
e

o
na

te
m

o
ne

y
to

o
pe

ra
c

o
m

pa
ni

es
; i

t
w

w
e

co
ul

d
re

de
si

gn
o

ur
b

ra
nc

he
s

o
t

ha
t

th
ey

b
ec

o
m

e
co

m
m

un
it
y

ce
nt

re
s;

w
e

co
ul
d
m

ak
e

pc
s

av
ai

la
bl

r
co

m
m
un
it
y

tr
ai

ni
ng

. A
c

o
m

pl
et

e
sh

ift
a

o
ut

t
he

ir
r

o
le

.”
(

LQ
3

)
U
nd
er
st
an
di

ng
t

ro
le

o
f
bu

si
ne

“I
f
ee

t
ha

t
no

w
t

ha
t
I
ha

ve
b

ee
n

in
c

o
nt

ro
l.

I’v
e

o
t

th
e

fir
st

ha
nd

e
xp

er
ie

nc
e

f
w

ha
t,
o

f
w
ha
t

m
at

te
rs

t
o

o
pl

e
an

d
w

t’
s

im
po

rt
an

t.
”

(B
IT

C
2

)
U

nd
er
st
an
di
ng

w
ha

t
m

at
te

rs
t

o
d

iff
er

en
t

st
ak

eh
o
ld

er
s

“I
h

ad
a

g
o
o
d

at
ti
tu

de
b

ut
m

y
vi

ew
s

w
er

e
yo

u
ha

d
so

ci
al

a
nd

e
nv

o
a

nd
t

he
y

w
er

e
2

di
st

in
ct

vi
ro

nm
en

ts
t

ha
t

ne
ed

t
o
b

e
m

an
ag

ed
d

iff
er

en
tl
y

. .
.

I’m
m

o
re

s
en

si
ti
ve

o
w

t
o
w

ha
t

I
do

a
nd

h
o
w

do
it

a
nd

t
hi

nk
in

g
ab

o
ut

m
y

im
pa

ct
”

(M
2

)
U
nd
er
st
an
di

in
te

gr
at

ed
n

at
ur

e
o
f

su
st
ai
na
bi
lit
y

“O
ne

o
f
th

e
th

in
gs

I
’v

e
be

en
s

ee
ki

ng
t
o
d

o
is

t
o
r

o
ve

t
he

g
ap

b
et

w
ee

n
pe

rs
o
na

l a
nd

p
ro

fe
ss

io
na

l a
nd

r
m

e
co

ns
is

te
nt

ly
, n

o
t

o
n

ev
er

y
si

ng
le

c
as

e
bu

t
co

ns
is
te
nt

ly
w

ha
t
th
e

Q
ue

st
h

av
e

be
en

a
bl

e
to

d
o
f

o
r

m
e

is
g

iv
e
m
e

a
fa

nt
as

ti
c

pe
rc

h
in

to
s

ee
in

g
si

tu
at

io
ns

w
he

re
o

th
er

le
ad

er
s

ha
ve

s
uc

ce
ss

fu
lly

r
em

o
ve

d
th

at
b

o
un

da
ry

b
et
w
ee
n
th

e
tw

o
. T

he
y

ar
e

o
ne
a
nd
t
he

s
am

e.
T

he
y
ar
e

liv
in

g
th

ei
r

pa
ss

io
n,

t
he

ir
id

ea
ls

a
w

ay
t

ha
t’
s
su
st
ai
na

bl
e.

”
(L

Q
4

)

In
te

gr
at
in
g

pe
rs

o
na

l
an

d
pr

o
fe

ss
io

na
l

Pe
rs

o
na

l c

o
nn

ec
ti
o
n

A
t
le
ve
ls
o

f
in

di
vi
du
al
,
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n,
a
nd

is
su

e—
fe

el
in

g
co
nn
ec

te
d

pe
rs
o
na

lly

in
s

o
m

e
w

ay
“S

o
, i

t
is

r
ea

ly
a

bo
ut

a
ir

in
g

so
m

e
o
f
th

o
se

c
o
nv

er
sa

ti
o
ns
t
ha

t
pe

o
pl

e
ar

e
re

lu
ct

an
t

o
h

av
e
o
r

no
t

ye
t

fe
el

in
g
th
e

co
nf

id
en

ce
t

o
h
av
e

it
in

a
s

im
ul

at
ed

e
nv

ir
o
nm

en
t

w
hi

ch
is

o
bv

io
us

ly
a

m
uc

h
sa

fe
r

pl
ac

e
to

d
o

it
.”

(
C

G
1

)

Fe
el

in
g

sa
fe

t
o
e

xp
lo

“S
o
t

ha
t
w
as
r
ea

lly
b

ri
lli

an
t

be
ca

us
e

I
th

in
k
w
ha
t
w

e
di

d
th

en
w

as
m

ad
e

it
p

er
so

na
l t

o
t

he
m

, t
he

R
a

nd
D

ys
, s

aw
w

ha
t
th
e

va
lu

e
w

as
a

nd
t

he
t

an
gi

bl
e

o
ut

pu
t

o
f
th

e
pr

em
iu

m
[

00
:1

0:
14

]
Fa

ir
T

ra
de

. I
t

hi
nk

m
ad

e
th

em
m

o
re

c
o
m

m
it
te

d.
(

C
G

4
)

Fe
el
in
g

co
nn

ec
te

“I
k

no
w

o
ne

p
ro

je
ct

t
ha

t
th

e
pr

o
je

ct
m

an
ag

er
c

o
m
pl
et

ed
a

nd
t

he
n

ca
m

e
ba

ck
a

nd
r

ew
ro

te
h

is
p

ro
je

bu
dg

et
f
o
r

ne
xt

y
ea

r
be

ca
us

e
o
f
it
. H

e
re

al
iz

ed
h

e
w
as
p

ut
ti
ng

r
es

o
ur

ce
s

in
t

he
w

ro
ng

p
la

ce
.”

(
M

3
)

A
ct

io
n

Em
po

w
er
m
en

t
to

a
ct

In
di

vi
du

al
a

ct
io

n
an

d
ac

ti
o
n

w
it
hi

n
th

e
o
rg

an
iz
at
io

n
“M

y
be

lie
fs

d
id

n’
t

pa
rt

ic
ul

ar
ly

c
ha

ng
e

m
uc

h.
W

ha
t

di
d

ch
an

ge
w

as
it

w
as

a
r

ea
l c

al
l t

o
a
ct
io

n
fo

r
m
e
to

g
et

o
ff

m
y

ba
ck

si
de

a
nd

d
o
s

o
m

et
hi

ng
a

bo
ut

, s
ee

in
g
th
e
im
pa

ct
w

it
h

in
di

vi
du

al
s

ca
us

ed
m

e
to

g
o
b

ac
k,

lo
o
k

at
m

y
bu

dg
et

s,
t

al
k

to
m

y
bo

ar
d

co
lle

ag
ue

s
an

d
fin

d
th
e
m
o
ne

y
fo

r
th

e
bu
si
ne

ss
c

o
nn

ec
to

rs
.”

(
B

IT
C

1
)

C
al

l t
o
a

ct
io

“S
o
, i

t’
s

qu
it
e

lib
er

at
in

g.
I
t

hi
nk

p
re

vi
o
us

ly
p

er
ha

ps
it

w
as
b
ec

au
se

o
f
m

y
ro

le
o

r
pe

rh
ap

s
it
w

as
t

he
b

lo
ck

at
I
’d

p
ut

t
he
p
la

ce
in

I
d

o
n’

t
kn

o
w

. I
f
el

t
so

c
o
ns

tr
ai

ne
d

an
d

ac
tu

al
ly

y
o
u

kn
o
w

a
ny

th
in

g
is

p
o
ss

ib
le

.”

(B
IT
C
2
)

En
ab

le
d

to
a

N
ot

e.
B

IT
C

=
B

us
in

es
s

in
t

he
C

o
m

m
un

it
y;

L
Q

=
L

ea
de

rs
’ Q

ue
st

; C
G

=
c

o
ns

um
er

g
o
o
ds

; M
=

m
in

in
g.

Haney et al. 165

notion of what you think is needed in business, which is profit and management . . . are somehow
unrelated to these things” (LQ 4). The other refers to “the fragmentation between the professional
person and the private person and some people are really struggling with this” (LQ 1). Both par-
ticipants describe how the programme in some way allowed them to reconsider how the person
they are in private, for instance, with their families, relates to the person they are in business.
These reported experiences suggest a degree of profound personal transformation and reimagin-
ing of self, along the lines described by Sterling (2011). Others experienced the opportunity
through the programmes to have a safe environment in order to explore and discuss issues with
colleagues that may not be otherwise possible. In a simulated exercise, for instance, one of the
organizers of the consumer goods’ experiential programme describes how the opportunity to
engage in difficult conversations gave participants confidence and a feeling of safety through
personal engagement with others. Finally, a theme across all programmes was the opportunity to
connect in a personal way with sustainability issues, for instance, by seeing and in some way
relating to the impacts of business on communities and on the environment.

The third category, empowerment to act, builds on the first two categories and encompasses
specific instances when participants identified their commitment and/or ability to act for sustain-
ability having changed as a result of the programme. There are instances when the actions
described are directly related to the individual’s role in the business—for example, reallocating
resources to communities or delisting products due to realizing and seeing their social impacts.
These resulted from experiences on the programmes that were connected to the person’s role or
their product in the organization. One of the LQ participants talks about how personally connect-
ing with sustainability issues led him to use his role in his organization to influence others:

Coming out of that I really started pushing. I felt personally passionate and because of my role I could
influence. We began to focus our pro bono efforts, other things that were all passions of mine. We put
in a reverse mentoring programme—I needed to translate that passion of my youngest people to my
most senior people – on technology, on how they are living their lives. (LQ 3).

This is a clear example of an ethical imperative, (Sinatra et al., 2012) or ‘moral emotion’
(Ferdig, 2007; Sekerka & Stimel, 2012) to act for sustainability, which has been developed or
triggered through participation in the ELP.

There are also examples of programme participants taking action or feeling enabled to take
action in their personal lives. Two participants on the BITC programmes describe how they
found themselves in situations where they were able to help unemployed people, where previ-
ously they would have felt unable or unwilling to do so.

How the ELPs Promoted the Learning Outcomes

Each of the three learning outcomes was shaped by different elements of the ELPs. We describe
these in turn before summarizing and discussing the connections between the learning
outcomes.

Understanding. Understanding was supported by offering participants opportunities to hear real
people and their personal stories, and to actually see people struggling for example with issues
such as water scarcity. The experience breaks down a barrier and allows for engagement with
people who may not have been accessible before. As one participant from the Consumer Goods
company explains “I think the other thing we have learned is that particularly for these issues,
consumers are thinking . . . we think this is our product shampoo. They are thinking about the
shower. So, it is about elevating those things in terms of creating a different immersive experi-
ence as a consequence of this and looking differently because there are things you want to observe

166 Organization & Environment 33(2)

in the home, a Mumbai home, which is they have three taps and they are all cold but they all come
from different water sources [cross talk] and at least see it. You do not understand. People will
tell you they have a water problem. You go into their house and you see these things and you ask
them questions and you say, “Oh right.” (CG 4).

One of the features of the programmes that differs markedly is the extent to which the sustain-
ability issues in focus are connected with the participants’ businesses. One of the SIB organizers
explicitly describes their aim of getting leaders to look “at issues more broadly” in order to
develop “holistic responsible leadership.” On the other hand, however, one of the SIB partici-
pants described how “people get almost lost in all the good things they could do” (BITC 5) and
how as a result there was a need to focus on issues relevant to the business. At the same time, a
participant from the mining company describes how the opportunity to engage with people in the
community and to see how they live, work, and set up businesses near the mine

opened up a different world. There was an openness around thinking I mean to say the bottom of the
pyramid how do we generate in these different social environments . . . how do we generate smaller
businesses . . . because it wasn’t mining related, it made me think differently (M1).

Personal Connection. Showing participants how the experience related to them and to their work
supported the development of a personal connection with sustainability issues. This was achieved
in different ways by the ELPs we studied. Participants were given the opportunity to reflect on
their own roles through seeing examples of other leaders in business and the community bringing
their passions to their work. Providing participants with not only role models but also the space
to reflect on what that means for their own life and work supported this development. One of the
LQ participants describes how they visited the world’s largest supplier of orthopedic limbs. The
supplier offers free custom orthopedic limbs to those who have been crippled by diseases such as
polio or through landmine explosions. Programme participants were talking to the founder, and
as part of the discussion, he was asked about what he personally gains from the initiative. The
participant explains,

He stopped, and he reflected for a while and he said—he smiled, and he said, “priceless because I’m
doing this because this is what I want to do, and this is what’s driving me, it’s motivating me, and I’m
doing it for me.” I think that for me was very much a revelation. I sort of had a glimpse of that but in
some ways it’s a little selfish, but you have to do these things because they’re what you want to do
for you . . . It’s about nourishing yourself. It sounds at one level horribly selfish, right? (LQ 4)

This combination of a positive and a negative feeling about the experience features in other
participants’ descriptions too. Some level of discomfort in combination with a sense of interest
and anticipation is common and is often connected to the development of a personal connection
with sustainability issues. For instance, several mention the “emotional connection” they devel-
oped, through, for instance, being able to see someone “the same age as their kids” in a difficult
social situation. The fact that the participants can in some way relate to the situation and feel
discomfort simultaneously helps them develop a connection. Zoë also observed this combination
of discomfort and interest of participants as they went into Brixton Prison to meet offenders as
part of the SIB programme. Many of the participants commented that their only experience of
prison was through films and that they felt vulnerable walking in through the barbed wire-topped
prison gates with nothing but a pen and a notebook. Zoë also felt this mixture of discomfort and
interest or anticipation herself. Nearly 3 years on from the experience, she still has strong memo-
ries of the visit and can recount stories she heard from offenders about how difficult it is to find
work. She and the other participants on the visit often compared the people they encountered
with people in their own families—for instance, children or other relatives of a similar age. This
helped them develop a strong connection with the issue and, as Zoë experienced, for the visit to
have a lasting impact.

Haney et al. 167

A personal connection was also found to be the result of creating a link between the experi-
ence and the person’s role in their organization. One of the organizers of the Consumer Goods
programme described how they were able to overcome the resistance of the research and devel-
opment (R&D) team to the company’s Fair Trade initiative by “getting the whole team out to the
Dominican Republic so they also had the experience of seeing the Fair Trade project in action.”
It wasn’t just the opportunity to see the Fair Trade project but also the fact that the experience was
tied to an R&D initiative, making it personal to the team in the sense that they could see the value
“and the tangible output of the premium” (CG 4).

Not everyone was affected in the same way by these opportunities to engage and connect with
passionate business leaders or with people in the community. One of the LQ participants, how-
ever, explained that the length of the programme is another important element in allowing people
to connect personally with what they are experiencing. As he says, “If you have a week together,
it’s easier to get worn away a bit” (LQ 3). This resonates with the metaphor used by another LQ
participant of in some way stripping off the armour.

Empowerment to Act. Many of the participants referred to actions they either felt enabled and
committed to carry out or actually carried out as a result of the ELPs. The importance of seeing
practical solutions was emphasized by several participants as central to developing this compe-
tency. For example, seeing new, potentially more meaningful ways to contribute to society,
beyond simply donating money (BITC 3) or providing sponsorships (LQ 3) was helpful to par-
ticipants in providing a sense that they could do something different from what they or their
organizations previously had done. Whereas understanding was primarily developed through
participants seeing sustainability problems in new ways, empowering action was connected to
seeing the solutions or, as one of the participants from the SIB programme describes, knowing
“how to see it through” (BITC 2).

When participants described feeling empowered to act or having been in a situation where they
acted differently, they often referred to parts of the programmes that made them feel hopeful or posi-
tive through seeing something in action. For example, one of the LQ participants described his
encounter with an organization in India run by the Hare Krishnas to deliver midday meals for free to
children in government schools. He described the process and the mission of the project and explains
what attracts him to the whole idea and approach of the monks: “You just look at it and as I said,
simplicity—real simple business model, that’s all they do—impact, massive impact when you think
about children and discipline . . . the only thing you can say is what can I do to help?” (LQ 4).

Translating the solutions that participants saw into action, however, is somewhat dependent
on one’s role in the organization. So, for instance, having the “ability to influence or break some
rules or access budgets” (BITC 1) when participants go back to their work was identified by
organizers and participants on the programmes alike as central to enabling action. Many of the
examples of actions undertaken after the programme require participants to be at a certain level
of seniority in their organizations in order to be able to authorize changes. At the Consumer
Goods company, for example, one of the organizers explained how the Chief Procurement Officer
decided to commit to sustainable sourcing of all materials after the experience of visiting palm
oil plantations. At the same time, however, integrating sustainability within an entire function
such as R&D is not something that can be achieved by only focusing on the most senior members
of the team, and in the case of the Consumer Goods company, the focus on the entire team was
critical to motivating commitment to sustainability.

Connections Between Learning Outcomes. Figure 1 summarizes the learning outcomes and the ele-
ments of the ELPs that influenced their development, highlighting the connections between them.
For each of the learning outcomes, we found a combination of elements focused on the individual
participant and those focused on more general aspects. This interplay between an individual actor
and the organization and/or system was a recurring theme across all outcome areas. Although not

168 Organization & Environment 33(2)

all of the participants went from developing understanding to personally connecting and then feel-
ing empowered to act, we do find evidence of this sequence in many of the participants we inter-
viewed. Some entered with a well-developed understanding but needed the personal connection to
enable or at least motivate action. Some participants went from developing understanding to per-
sonally connecting in some way but not necessarily feeling enabled to act.

Discussion

Our results provide three main contributions for the literature on corporate sustainability.
First, we provide insights into the learning outcomes of ELPs for sustainability. Through

our inductive approach, we identified that the programmes promoted understanding, personal
connection, and empowerment to act for sustainability. This is interesting, because these learn-
ing outcomes, particularly “personal connection” and “empowerment to act” (which has a
strong motivational component), align strongly with the “softer” side of sustainability compe-
tencies required for sustainability leadership. The literature recognizes the importance of val-
ues, attitudes, ethics, motivations, and beliefs, but these are less clearly articulated in the
literature on sustainability competencies than other dimensions (Osagie et al., 2016). We con-
tribute to the literature by building on previous conceptualizations of sustainability competen-
cies and refining empirical understanding of the “softer” side. We found very little evidence of
cognitive learning (the exception being some mention of systems thinking concepts), and even
less functional learning (which is not surprising because any strategic competency developed
by individuals (Wiek et al., 2011) is likely to only become apparent in the organizational con-
text, which was not the subject of our research). While we would need to conduct a follow-up
study to determine the extent to which these newly developed competencies are successfully
employed within an organizational context, the anecdotes shared by the interviewees relating
to their time back in the workplace would suggest that these softer dimensions may be the most
important of all in driving change for sustainability. Given their role in developing this per-
sonal connection, this suggests that ELPs have an important role to play, alongside other forms
of learning focused on the cognitive and functional dimensions, in developing sustainability
leaders.

Second, the importance of making sustainability personal to participants is a central finding
of our research. The personal is present in all learning outcomes and is a central component of
personal connection that links understanding with action. Allowing individuals to see and to
feel the connections between themselves and particular sustainability issues (understanding
and personal connection), and between potential solutions to sustainability problems and their

Figure 1. Experiential learning and sustainability leadership.

Haney et al. 169

roles (empowerment to act), is crucial. Most of the examples in the programmes we studied
where the personal was activated in all learning outcomes were related to social sustainability.
The personal was present in some of the environmental examples too, such as seeing the effects
of water scarcity on communities. An interesting area for future research would be to examine
how effective ELPs are in developing personal connections with different types of sustainabil-
ity issues, and even how combining social and environmental dimensions as in the water scar-
city example might be more effective than a focus on the environment in isolation. Our results
suggest that a focus on the personal may be an important mechanism in helping leaders in
business navigate some of the tensions associated with sustainability. This focus on making it
personal also connects to recent calls in the management education literature to bring passion
for sustainability into teaching by using a more holistic pedagogy, integrating physical, emo-
tional, and cognitive learning (Shrivastava, 2010). It also connects with the “attitude-behavior
gap” that is discussed in the literature in relation to the sustainable behavior of individuals.
Often applied to consumer behavior, the attitude-behavior gap reflects the fact that despite
consumers having sufficient knowledge and even intentions to choose more sustainable goods
and services, they often do not. Studies of this phenomenon highlight the importance of emo-
tional involvement and moral obligation in closing the gap (Antimova, Nawijn, & Peeters,
2012; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). We suggest that this is likely to also be true when applied
to sustainability leadership action in a business context. The implications for ELPs and other
approaches to sustainability education are to consider integrating personal approaches into
learning rather than thinking about a sequence that starts with content before progressing to a
personal experience. Incorporating a personal dimension could, for example, include allowing
opportunities for personal reflection or developing simulation exercises to complement in-
person experiences.

Third, we provide initial insights into how ELPs contribute to learning outcomes. Our find-
ings confirm the importance of creating situations with a certain level of discomfort or cognitive
dissonance as is discussed in the experiential and transformative learning literature (Fay, 1975;
Laws & Rein, 2003; Sinclair & Diduck, 2001; van der Knaap, 1995). We find that combinations
of positive and negative feelings (interest and discomfort) are particularly important in develop-
ing a personal connection with sustainability. At the same time, we identify through our study
that a positive, solutions-oriented focus is important in encouraging leaders to feel enabled to act.
The positive focus supports the development of new thinking into action, and particularly in
providing motivation for leaders to do something and to see that action is possible. Our findings
support recent calls in the corporate sustainability literature for more attention to the antecedents
and consequences of ambivalent interpretations of sustainability issues (Hahn et al., 2014), and
in particular a focus on emotions, which has been lacking to date (Friedrich & Wustenhagen,
2015). In particular, we identify that ambivalent feelings may be productive as a means of engag-
ing participants personally but not so productive in encouraging action. Future research on the
role of emotions—for instance, the effects of positive and negative or ambivalent emotional
responses on different aspects of sustainability leadership—is warranted.

We also find that the choice of issues in focus during the ELPs and the fit of these issues with
a participant’s role in their organization affect the development of competencies for understanding
and enabling action. These factors highlight several tensions facing organizations and ELP provid-
ers. On one hand, there is a tendency to encourage leaders in business to think more broadly about
sustainability in order to encourage more holistic forms of sustainability leadership (Hahn et al.
2014; Hahn & Figge, 2011). On the other hand, action is more likely if the issues are in some way
related to the participant’s organization and even more specifically to their role within the organi-
zation. In fact, this is very much in keeping with recent advances in corporate sustainability where
sustainability is integrated with strategy and within the organization’s processes (Amini &
Bienstock, 2014; Eccles, Ioannou, & Serafeim, 2014). Further research that explores these

170 Organization & Environment 33(2)

tensions and the effects on various aspects of sustainability leadership would be worthwhile. For
instance, when can a broad understanding of sustainability be helpful? How can broad and narrow
understandings support one another? For programmes, our results suggest that the role of partici-
pants in their organizations should be carefully considered. For example, some programme ele-
ments could be tailored for different functions or positions. Finally, although most of the ELPs
focus exclusively on senior managers, our findings particularly from bespoke programmes sug-
gest that they may be a powerful way by which to engage with entire teams and thereby integrate
sustainability within an entire function. Further research could support the design of ELPs in dif-
ferent ways to support senior versus middle managers versus front-line employees.

Conclusion

Developing sustainability leaders requires not just new knowledge and skills but also new ways
of thinking and ultimately an underlying motivation to act. Our study of the phenomenon of
experiential learning provides a window into better understanding how individuals can be sup-
ported in learning to become sustainability leaders. We find that the main learning outcomes of
ELPs are associated with the softer, more personal dimensions of sustainability competencies,
such as values, motivation, and ethical imperative to act for sustainability. Making sustainability
personal for individual leaders is a thread that runs through all of the learning outcomes we
observed and creates a foundation for individual leaders to feel committed to, and empowered to
act for, sustainability in their organizations.

We provide three main contributions for the literature on corporate sustainability. First, we
build on previous literature highlighting the importance of the soft side of sustainability com-
petencies as a complement to cognitive and functional dimensions. We do this by providing
an empirically grounded study that operationalizes the learning outcomes associated with
sustainability competencies. Second, we identify the importance of personal connection as a
link between leaders understanding sustainability and then feeling empowered to act, remi-
niscent of the attitude–behaviour gap in research on sustainable behaviour. Importantly, we
also find the personal dimension to be important in all learning outcomes rather than some-
thing that can be compartmentalized. Third, we highlight several factors that are important in
supporting leaders to learn and that are worthy of future research and consideration for pro-
gramme design. These include the role of emotions (both positive and negative), the choice
of issues covered in the programmes, and the fit of these issues with the participant’s role in
their organization.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Aoife Brophy Haney https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2407-2490

Note

1. Numerous subsequent authors have built on this seminal work to attempt to distinguish a third level of
triple-loop learning. However, as explained in detail by Tosey et al. (2012), this term was never used
by Argyris and Schön (1996) and is lacking in a clear conceptual foundation.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2407-2490

Haney et al. 171

References

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A
review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932-968.

Allen, S., Marshall, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2015). Living with contradictions. Organization &
Environment, 28, 328-348.

Amini, M., & Bienstock, C. C. (2014). Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework
to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 12-19.

Antimova, R., Nawijn, J., & Peeters, P. (2012). The awareness/attitude-gap in sustainable tourism: A theo-
retical perspective. Tourism Review, 67(3), 7-16.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Baden, D., & Parkes, C. (2013). Experiential learning: Inspiring the business leaders of tomorrow. Journal
of Management Development, 32, 295-308.

Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M., & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sus-
tainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
8, 416-430.

Barth, M., & Michelsen, G. (2013). Learning for change: An educational contribution to sustainability sci-
ence. Sustainability Science, 8, 103-119.

Benner, M. J., & Tripsas, M. (2012). The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent indus-
tries: The evolution of digital cameras. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 277-302.

Bondy, K., Moon, J., & Matten, D. (2012). An institution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multi-
national corporations (MNCs): Form and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 281-299.

Butcher, J. (2007). Keep the green moral agenda off campus. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/keep-the-green-moral-agenda-off-campus/310853.arti-
cle

Coleman, G. (2013). Sustainability as a learning challenge. Journal of Management Development, 32, 258-
267.

Dieleman, H., & Huisingh, D. (2006). Games by which to learn and teach about sustainable development:
Exploring the relevance of games and experiential learning for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 14, 837-847.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational
processes and performance. Management Science, 60, 2835-2857.

Eccles, R. G., & Perkins, K. (2012). How to become a sustainable company. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 53(4), 43-50.

Fay, B. (1975). Social theory and political practice. London, England: Allen & Unwin.
Ferdig, M. A. (2007). Sustainability leadership: Co-creating a sustainable future. Journal of Change

Management, 7, 25-35.
Friedrich, E., & Wustenhagen, R. (2017). Leading organizations through the stages of grief: The develop-

ment of negative emotions over environmental change. Business & Society, 56, 186-213.
Frisk, E., & Larson, K. L. (2011). Educating for sustainability: Competencies & practices for transformative

action. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2, 1-20.
Gitsham, M. (2012). Experiential learning for leadership and sustainability at IBM and HSBC. Journal of

Management Development, 31, 298-307.
Glasbergen, P. (1996). Learning to manage the environment. In W. M. Lafferty & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.),

Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects (pp. 175-193). Cheltenham, England:
Edward Elgar.

Gloet, M. (2006). Knowledge management and the links to HRM: Developing leadership and management
capabilities to support sustainability. Management Research News, 29, 402-413.

Goleman, D., & Lueneburger, C. (2010). The change leadership sustainability demands. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 51(4), 49-55.

Hahn, T., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2015). Toward cognitive plurality on corporate sustainability in organi-
zations. Organization & Environment, 28, 255-263.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/keep-the-green-moral-agenda-off-campus/310853.article

172 Organization & Environment 33(2)

Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainabil-
ity research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 1-21.
doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0911-0.

Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial
sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39, 463-
487.

Hesselbarth, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Educating change agents for sustainability: Learnings from the
first sustainability management master of business administration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62,
24-36.

Hull, R. B., Kimmel, C., Robertson, D. P., & Mortimer, M. (2016). International field experiences promote
professional development for sustainability leaders. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 17, 86-104.

Illeris, K. (2007). What do we actually mean by experiential learning? Human Resource Development
Review, 6, 84-95.

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Journal of trans-
formative education, 6, 104-123.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces : Enhancing experiential learning in
higher education. Management Learning, 4, 193-212.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239-260.

Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2014). Learning apart and together: Towards an integrated competence
framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62,
37-47.

Laws, D., & Rein, M. (2003). Reframing practice. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative
policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 172-206). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.

Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal
of world business, 45(4), 357-366.

MacVaugh, J., & Norton, M. (2012). Introducing sustainability into business education contexts using
active learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13, 72-87.

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward.
Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57-125.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.

Martin, A., & Ernst, C. (2005). Exploring leadership in times of paradox and complexity. Corporate
Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3), 82-94.

Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering critical reflec-
tion in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 1-20). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 1997(74), 5-12.

Osagie, E. R., Wesselink, R., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Mulder, M. (2016). Individual competencies for cor-
porate social responsibility: A literature and practice perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 135,
233-252.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of moti-
vational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of
Educational Research, 63, 167-199.

Ploum, L., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Omta, O. (2017). Toward a validated competence framework for sustain-
able entrepreneurship. Organization & Environment, 31, 113-132.

Quinn, F. (2000). The principles and practice of nurse education. Cheltenham, England: Nelson Thornes.
Quinn, L., & Dalton, M. (2009). Leading for sustainability: Implementing the tasks of leadership (E. Van

Velsor, Ed.). Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, 9, 21-38.

Haney et al. 173

Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered
through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44, 127-135.

Savage, E., Tapics, T., Evarts, J., Wilson, J., & Tirone, S. (2015). Experiential learning for sustainability
leadership in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16, 692-
705.

Scharmer, C. O., & Senge, P. M. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Sekerka, L. E., & Stimel, D. (2012). Environmental sustainability decision-making: Clearing a path to
change. Journal of Public Affairs, 12, 195-205.

Sharma, S., & Hart, S. L. (2014). Beyond “Saddle Bag” sustainability for business education. Organization
& Environment, 27, 10-15.

Shrivastava, P. (2010). Pedagogy of passion for sustainability. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 9, 443-455.

Sinatra, G. M., Kardash, C. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2012). Promoting attitude change and
expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students. Instructional Science,
40(1), 1-17.

Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2001). Public involvement in EA in Canada: A transformative learning
perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 113-136.

Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging
head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9, 68-86.

Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2012). A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses
to climate change. Organization Studies, 33, 1537-1563.

Sterling, S. (2011). Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the conceptual ground. Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education, 5(11), 17-33.

Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Teaching sustainability to business students: Shifting mindsets.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9, 206-221.

Svanström, M., Lozano-García, F. J., & Rowe, D. (2008). Learning outcomes for sustainable development
in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9, 339-351.

Tosey, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, M. N. (2012). The origins and conceptualizations of “triple-loop” learn-
ing: A critical review. Management Learning, 43, 291-307.

Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging.
Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147-1161.

UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Paris, France:
Author.

van der Knaap, P. (1995). Policy evaluation and learning. Evaluation, 1, 189-216.
van Lawick van Pabst, J. A., & Visser, W. (2012, February). Theory U and CSR 2.0: Alignment of two con-

ceptual approaches to create profound innovation and transformative change in corporate sustainabil-
ity and responsibility (SSRN Working Paper Series). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2009341

Visser, W., & Courtice, P. (2011, October). Sustainability leadership: Linking theory and practice (SSRN
Working Paper Series). Retrieved from https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/resources/sustainability-leader-
ship/sustainability-leadership-linking-theory-and-practice

Visser, W., & Crane, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and the individual: Understanding what drives
sustainability professionals as change agents. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1559087

Wals, A. E. (2011). Learning our way to sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development,
5, 177-186.

Wals, A. E., & Corcoran, P. B. (2006). Sustainability as an outcome of transformative learning. In J.
Holmberg & B. E. Samuelsson (Eds.), Drivers and barriers for implementing sustainable development
in higher education (pp. 103-125). Paris, France: UNESCO.

Wesselink, R., Blok, V., van Leur, S., Lans, T., & Dentoni, D. (2015). Individual competencies for manag-
ers engaged in corporate sustainable management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106(Suppl.
C), 497-506. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.093

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference
framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6, 203-218. doi:10.1007/
s11625-011-0132-6

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2009341

https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/resources/sustainability-leadership/sustainability-leadership-linking-theory-and-practice

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1559087

174 Organization & Environment 33(2)

Author Biographies

Aoife Brophy Haney is a senior researcher at the Group for Sustainability and Technology at ETH Zurich.
She has also recently joined the University of Oxford as lecturer in Innovation and Enterprise, based at the
Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment and Saïd Business School.

Jenny Pope is senior lecturer in environmental management and sustainability at Edith Cowan University
in Australia, and also holds active academic positions at North-West University in South Africa and the
University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership in the UK. In addition, she is director of
Western Australian consulting firm Integral Sustainability, which provides advice to business and govern-
ment on the integration of sustainability principles into decision-making processes.

Zoë Arden is associate director at the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership
(CISL). She is convenor and head tutor of CISL’s online High Impact Leadership course and teaches story-
telling on all CISL’s graduate programmes. She has contributed to recent CISL reports including Building
Leaders for Long-term Business Performance and Rewiring Leadership.

German Journal of
Human Resource Management

2016, Vol. 30(3-4) 225 –245
© The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/2397002216649855
gjh.sagepub.com

Ethical leadership’s
potential and boundaries
in organizational change:
A moderated mediation
model of employee silence

Kai C Bormann
TU Dortmund University, Germany

Jens Rowold
TU Dortmund University, Germany

Abstract
In this present study, we develop a model in which four forms of employee silence (acquiescent,
quiescent, prosocial and opportunistic silence) mediate the relationship between ethical
leadership and affective commitment to chang

We argue that ethical leadership lowers all
four forms which in turn influence employees’ commitment to change initiatives. We also
examine the role of politics perceptions and personal change impact as moderators. The
sample consisted of 263 employees from different organizations and occupations in Germany
all facing organizational changes. Our results indicate that ethical leadership lowers only
acquiescent silence, which in turn predicts affective commitment change. However, the effect
diminished with high levels of politics perceptions and high levels of personal change impact.
We discuss implications for theory, future research and organizational practice.

Keywords
Affective change commitment, employee silence, ethical leadership, politics

Introduction

In today’s business world, the ability to adapt to change is becoming increasingly
important. With the advancement of globalization and shortened technology life cycles,

Corresponding author:
Kai C Bormann, TU Dortmund University, Center for Higher Education, Hohe Straße 141, D – 44139
Dortmund, Germany.
Email: kai.bormann@tu-dortmund.de

649855GJH0010.1177/2397002216649855German Journal of Human Resource ManagementBormann and Rowold
research-article2016

Article

mailto:kai.bormann@tu-dortmund.de

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F2397002216649855&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-08-24

226 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

continually developing environments leave an imprint on most organizational lives. How
organizations’ employees perceive those changes and react to them has been found to be
a crucial determinant of change success (Oreg et al., 2011). Due to their influential posi-
tion, much academic attention has been paid to organizational leaders and how they can
guide followers towards attitudes and behaviours that support change initiatives. Only
recently, the role of leadership ethicality was introduced to the change literature (Burnes
and By, 2012; Sharif and Scandura, 2014). Ethical leadership stresses the normative
appropriateness of leadership conduct and the reinforcement of such behaviours among
followers (Brown et al., 2005). Sharif and Scandura (2014) argued that ethical leadership
is especially important in times of organizational change, as ethical leaders increase
employees’ trust and reduce uncertainty. They also showed that ethical leadership fos-
ters organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), job satisfaction and performance in
times of change. While Sharif and Scandura provided preliminary empirical insights,
several avenues for ethical leadership research during change remain uncharted. Most
notably, change literature stresses the importance of applying change-related criteria as
well as providing support for underlying psychological processes (Meyer and Hamilton,
2013; Oreg et al., 2011). Therefore, the present study further develops the application of
ethical leadership through the use of a more change-related criterion, namely affective
commitment to change (ACC) (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002). Existing research indi-
cates that ACC is a crucial predictor of change success (Meyer and Hamilton, 2013).

In order to elucidate the process of how ethical leadership furthers employees’ ACC,
we explore the role of the emerging construct of employee silence as a potential media-
tor. Employee silence (Knoll and van Dick, 2013) refers to the organizational phenome-
non of withholding concerns and opinions about work-related issues. Employees do so
because of feelings of resignation (Acquiescent Silence), fear (Quiescent Silence), altru-
istic goals (Prosocial Silence) or self-serving goals (Opportunistic Silence). Past research
has shown the organizational relevance of silence. It is, for example, negatively related
to employee well-being and positively related to perceived strain (Knoll and van Dick,
2013). Silence is also of particular importance for understanding barriers to change as it
reduces the potential range of input and critical feedback necessary for change success
(Morrison and Milliken, 2000). While the leadership–voice relationship has been
addressed repeatedly (Avey et al., 2012; Wegge et al., 2010), the effects of (ethical) lead-
ership on different motives of employee silence add a new, unmapped perspective
(Frömmer et al., 2014). Discretionary behaviours such as voice are drivers for change
success (Meyer and Hamilton, 2013). The primary aim of our study is, therefore, to
examine the effect of ethical leadership on ACC through the mediating effect of reducing
employees’ desire to withhold opinions.

The secondary aim of this article is to explore the potential boundaries of ethical
leadership impact. We expect that the proposed indirect effect varies as a function of
organizational climate and individual change impact. Following this rationale, we
develop a model in which politics perceptions (Ferris and Judge, 1991) and the impact
of change initiatives on an individual’s job (Fedor et al., 2006) attenuate the indirect
effect of ethical leadership on ACC based on the shifted focus and cognitive demands
each factor entails. We argue that these factors diminish the potential for ethical leader-
ship behaviour. Figure 1 shows the proposed research model.

Bormann and Rowold 227

This study contributes to existing literature in several ways. For the first time,
employee silence is introduced as the tying link between ethical leadership and follow-
ers’ ACC. This further develops the application of ethical leadership and employee
silence to organizational change. In doing so, we also provide additional support for the
beneficial impact of both leadership and silence on an organization. Furthermore, by
linking ethical leadership to employee silence, this study is one of the first to examine
antecedents of silence. Lastly, by considering potential moderators we add to the grow-
ing but still small body of research on conditions of ethical leadership impact as well as
silence emergence and impact.

Ethical leadership, employee silence and affective change
commitment

Ethical leadership, as defined by Brown et al. (2005: 120), is ‘the demonstration
of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal rela-
tionships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way commu-
nication, reinforcement, and decision-making’. The normative appropriateness of
personal actions and interpersonal relationships refers to leader attributes such as
dependability, honesty and integrity. Exceeding simple altruistic characteristics, an
ethical leader promotes the ethical conduct of followers by, for instance, rewarding
ethical and disciplining inappropriate behaviour. Past research has shown ethical
leadership to be related to a plethora of organizational outcomes (Bedi et al., in press;
Ng and Feldman, 2015).

According to Brown et al. (2005: 120), one beneficial effect of ethical leadership is
that through conveying high moral standards ethical leaders ‘provide followers with
voice’. They involve followers in transparent decision-making and appreciate their opin-
ions. Consequently, different studies found a positive relationship between ethical lead-
ership and measures of employee voice (Avey et al., 2012; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck,
2009). However, there may be instances where employees observe violations of personal
standards (e.g. inefficacy or harassment), but fail to raise these issues. Withholding opin-
ions and concerns is discussed in the literature under the headings of organizational
(Morrison and Milliken, 2000) and, more recently, employee silence (Brinsfield, 2013;
Knoll and van Dick, 2013). For several reasons, employees decide not to invest their
resources in improving organizational procedures. Following the conception by Knoll

Figure 1. Research model.

228 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

and van Dick (2013), we differentiate between four forms. Silence can result from feel-
ings of resignation that an opinion is neither wanted nor valued by superiors (acquiescent
silence). The second form of silence (quiescent silence) refers to protective motives.
Employees withhold their opinions as they fear that speaking up might lead to unpleasant
consequences. Withholding concerns might also occur as a result of prosocial motives
(prosocial silence). Employees remain silent in order to help and benefit others. Lastly,
silence can stem from egoistic motives (opportunistic silence). Employees withhold
opinions and information to serve their own interests by disguising or misleading others.
Despite the fact that there may be a connection between employee silence and voice,
van Dyne et al. (2003) established that both constructs are not polar opposites but dif-
ferent and unique constructs. More precisely, compared to voice, silence provides fewer
behavioural cues and is more ambiguous to observe, its motives are more likely to be
misattributed, and it has more incongruent outcomes. Based on these findings and a
dearth of related studies, we see an inevitable need to expand research on the ethical
leadership–discretionary support relationship with regard to employee silence.

Linking ethical leadership to different forms of employee silence, we draw on social
learning theory (SLT) (Bandura, 1977, 1991) as a theoretical framework. According to
this theory, employees emulate a leader whose behaviour serves as an attractive role
model. Consequently, with regards to an ethical leader, employees receive just and car-
ing treatment and are urged to display responsible and thoughtful behaviours them-
selves. Employees reporting to an ethical leader should, for example, have less incentive
to withhold opinions and concerns out of a feeling of resignation (acquiescent silence).
They enjoy more work-related latitude compared to employees of less ethical leaders
(Piccolo et al., 2010), which should result in them having a certain amount of influence
on workplace practices themselves. Furthermore, they experience fair decision-making
(Brown and Trevino, 2006), which gives rise to the probability that concerns are raised
with the leader in the belief that they will address these issues properly. Besides silence
out of a feeling of resignation, we expect ethical leadership to reduce silence out of fear
of potential consequences (quiescent silence). On the one hand, ethical leaders instil
trust in their followers by strengthening self-efficacy in challenging situations (Ng and
Feldman, 2015). On the other hand, ethical leaders enhance followers’ perceived sense
of accountability: it is everybody’s duty to speak up when violations of personal stand-
ards are observed (Brown et al., 2005). Similarly, we draw on followers’ enhanced sense
of responsibility to propose a negative relationship between ethical leadership and
prosocial silence. Reporting colleagues’ errors might be perceived negatively as a form
of betrayal or whistleblowing. In contrast, ethical leaders strive to do the right thing,
basing actions on higher moral principles. They urge their followers to do the same.
Therefore, we expect followers to be more open to reporting colleagues’ violations of
work-related standards (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Ethical leaders lower potential
thresholds for breaking prosocial silence as employees are assured that colleagues
whose errors they reveal will be treated with care and not be exposed to excessive pun-
ishment (Brown et al., 2005). With regard to opportunistic silence, we also expect a
buffering effect of ethical leadership. Ethical leaders promote altruistic values at the
workplace and, according to SLT, these motivational patterns trickle down to employ-
ees who also exhibit more altruistic thinking and actions (Schaubroeck et al., 2012).

Bormann and Rowold 22

Accordingly, employees’ motives for remaining silent due to egoistic motives should be
at least partly reduced.

Morrison and Milliken (2000) argued that silence may lead to less effective organiza-
tional change processes due to a reduced range of input and critical feedback. The
intriguing idea about examining motivated non-behaviour such as different forms of
silence is that it sheds light on what wittingly or unwittingly guides individuals in their
decision making. In other words, individuals may have different work-related targets or
foci they relate to in their attitudes and behaviours. Based on the examination of these
motivational patterns we argue that it is also possible to draw inferences about individu-
als’ propensity to be emotionally tied to change initiatives at work. The latter aspect has
been discussed in the literature as a part of commitment to change (Herscovitch and
Meyer, 2002). Based on the three-component model of organizational commitment
(Allen & Meyer, 1990), Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) illustrated that employees
develop different kinds of bonds with change initiatives (affective, normative and con-
tinuance commitment to change). While all three components have been shown to be
unique and relevant to an organization, affective commitment to change has emerged as
the strongest correlate to important change-related outcomes such as discretionary sup-
port and coping with change, and turnover intentions (Cunningham, 2006; Herscovitch
and Meyer, 2002). Affective commitment to change is defined as ‘a desire to provide
support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits’ (Herscovitch and Meyer,
2002: 475). Although the four silence motives capture different aspects and do not neces-
sarily coincide (van Dyne et al., 2003), we expect the ‘bottom-line’ effect regarding
affective attitudes towards change initiatives to stay the same. If employees have reason-
able motivation to withhold their opinions regarding work-related issues, their emotional
bond with change initiatives will be weak.

If employees show acquiescent silence, resignation has spread. This may go as far as
giving up on organizations. Past experiences have led employees to conclude that their
opinion is neither wanted nor valued (Knoll and van Dick, 2013). Accordingly, striving
for self-protection may deter employees from investing any further personal resources
for the sake of the organization (Hanisch and Hulin, 1990). However, additional personal
investment would certainly be necessary to overcome change challenges (Meyer and
Hamilton, 2013). Hence, it is very unlikely that employees exhibiting high levels of
acquiescent silence have the willingness to develop emotional ties to change initiatives.
For the relationship between quiescent silence and affective commitment to change, the
motive for self-protection may play an even larger role. When individuals remain silent
out of fear of the consequences, this presents a high degree of self-protective impetus.
Such individuals have the incentive to avoid situations of uncertainty which challenge
the status quo. Change, however, might cause such uncertainty, which again could bring
negative consequences like change of routines or loss of resources. Accordingly, if
employees exhibit quiescent silence it is highly unlikely for them to embrace change and
develop high levels of affective change commitment. Prosocial silence highlights an
individual’s affiliative or cooperative motivation. When individuals fail to report col-
leagues’ negative behaviour they signal that they value affiliation or the maintenance of
social capital over their contribution to organizational goals (Knoll and van Dick, 2013).
We expect that this cue is also important for understanding the emergence of affective

230 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

change commitment. Consequences of change initiatives (such as altered routines of col-
laborating with colleagues) likely collide with an individual’s interest in maintaining
social capital. Accordingly, prosocial motives for (non-)behaviour deter individuals from
developing high levels of affective change commitment. Lastly, remaining silent due to
opportunistic motives signals that an individual places egoistic goals above organiza-
tional ones. Individuals guided by opportunistic motives tend to develop informal ties to
promote their self-centred, hidden agenda (Ferris and Judge, 1991). This includes, for
instance, forming alliances to influence resource or task allocation. Here, change comes
as a threat as established routines and schemes might be broken up. It appears very
unlikely that individuals guided by opportunistic motives will develop emotional ties to
change initiatives. While a psychological tie to change initiatives seems possible when
that change also serves egoistic goals, we argue that such commitment would be more
calculative than emotional (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002).

In conclusion, we expect ethical leadership to reduce all four silence motives, which
are all detrimental to employees’ affective commitment towards change initiatives.
Given previous findings supporting other mediators with regard to ethical leadership
impact, such as trust in the leader (Ng and Feldman, 2015), we propose partial mediation
with regard to the present study:

Hypothesis 1: Employee silence (1a: acquiescent silence; 1b:, quiescent silence; 1c: prosocial
silence; 1d: opportunistic silence) partially mediates the relationship between ethical leadership
and affective change commitment.

Moderating influences of politics perceptions and personal
change impact

Organizational research indicates that employee attitudes and behaviours are largely
dependent on the social context in which they are embedded (Kuenzi and Schminke,
2009; Rosen et al., 2009). An important aspect of social context is the climate governing
practices, policies and procedures within an organization. These climates can take differ-
ent shapes and affective tones. One such embodiment is the extent of organizational poli-
tics. According to Ferris and Judge (1991), organizational politics include behaviours by
organizational actors that are intended to promote and protect self-interest. A climate of
politics is characterized by behaviours such as forming informal alliances, using power
to influence decision-making, or fostering a personal agenda at the expense of legitimate
organizational goals (Ferris and Judge, 1991; Hochwarter et al., 2003). Past empirical
research has shown that politics perceptions have detrimental effects on employees’ job
satisfaction, commitment, strain and turnover intention (Chang et al., 2009; Miller et al.,
2008). There are preliminary insights that ethical leadership and politics perceptions are
also related constructs (Kacmar et al., 2011, 2013).

We propose that politics perceptions moderate the relationship between ethical leader-
ship and employee silence so that the buffering effect of ethical leadership is disrupted by
high levels and enhanced by low levels of politics perceptions. Organizations character-
ized by self-serving politicking signal to employees that egoistic behaviours (e.g. with-
holding information to protect their own resources or forming informal coalitions) are

Bormann and Rowold 231

encouraged and required for success at work. In such a context, promoting altruistic
behaviours through ethical leadership appears less promising as a means of making
employees speak up as compared to a context where politics are less apparent. Accordingly,
politicking represents an extraneous cognitive demand that impairs the information-
processing act of perceiving leadership (Maurer and Lord, 1991). An environment with
political activity blurs the perceived performance–reward relationship, effectively ques-
tioning the fairness and appropriateness of decision making, which in turn may signal to
employees that management and ethical leaders in particular are not offering proper
levels of guidance (Hochwarter et al., 1999). Ethical leaders may emerge in such a con-
text. However, their potential to reinforce ethical behaviour of followers is likely to be at
least partly overruled by informal structures favouring self-serving and pondering think-
ing. Alternatively, if a working context is characterized by low levels of politics percep-
tions, the opportunity for ethical leaders to influence followers is much more favourable
and less challenging. In sum, we propose the following moderating hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The indirect effect of ethical leadership on affective change commitment through
reducing employee silence (2a: acquiescent silence; 2b: quiescent silence; 2c: prosocial silence;
2d: opportunistic silence) is moderated by politics perceptions so that the relationship between
ethical leadership and employee silence is weaker when politics perceptions are high, attenuating
the indirect effect.

In environments with high levels of politics perceptions, ethical leaders are unlikely
to promote employees’ affective change commitment through reducing silence motives,
as followers are less amenable to altruistic leader behaviours. Ethical leadership should
be more promising in situations with low levels of politics. However, we argue that this
effect is also contingent on the impact the change initiative has on the individual. More
precisely, we expect that the impact of the change on the individual’s job (Fedor et al.,
2006; Herold et al., 2008) moderates the second stage of our mediation relationship
between ethical leadership, employee silence and ACC so that the relationship between
silence and ACC is weaker when the impact of change is high. We expect silence to
reduce emotional commitment to change initiatives. When an individual is highly
impacted by change he or she faces major challenges (a) to accept the loss of estab-
lished routines and resources that shaped an individual’s social identity, and (b) to
adjust to a new and uncertain environment. In such instances, an individual is focused
on coping with these challenges (Oreg, 2003) and is less capable and less likely to
assist the change by breaking silence on critical matters. In other words, coping with
high-impact change ties available psychological resources and superimposes other
work-related motivational cues such as self-protective, prosocial or self-serving
motives. In line with this rationale, Fedor et al. (2006) showed that employees were
most committed to high levels of change, which they viewed as valuable, only when
the implications for their own jobs were low. In a similar vein, despite the fact that
alternative leadership styles are concerned, the results from Herold et al. (2008) indi-
cate that the significant positive main effects of transformational and change leader-
ship tend to wane when the level of individual change impact increases. Therefore, we
hypothesize the following:

232 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

Hypothesis 3: The magnitude of the indirect effect of ethical leadership on affective change
commitment through reducing employee silence varies by politics perceptions (stage 1) and
change impact for the individual (stage 2) so that the indirect effect is (a) weaker when politics
perceptions are high regardless of the degree of change impact, (b) weaker when politics
perceptions are low and change impact is high, and (c) stronger when both moderators are low.

Method

Participants and procedure

Data for this study were obtained from employees from different organizations in
Germany. Respondents were contacted via email and informed about the research
project. As it was our goal to investigate the leadership process during organizational
change, a prerequisite for respondents to participate was the occurrence of a change
initiative at the time of the enquiry or shortly beforehand. To reduce common method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012), the survey was carried out in two waves. In the first
wave, respondents rated their line manager’s leadership behaviour. About two weeks
after the first survey, participants were again contacted and asked to answer a second
questionnaire. This questionnaire covered questions regarding perception of politics,
silence motives, nature of organizational changes, respondents’ affective commitment
to those initiatives and the control variable of cynicism. Responses to both question-
naires were matched using an individualized coding scheme.

The final sample consisted of 263 respondents. Fifty percent of the respondents were
male and the average age was 32 years (SD = 12). The respondents mainly worked in
profit-orientated (73%) organizations. Out of the rated leaders, 73% were male. Nineteen
percent belonged to lower-level management, 43% to middle-, and 38% to upper-level
management. On average the respondents had worked for their immediate leader for
three years (SD = 2), and the majority of respondents (53.1%) spent less than six hours
per week in direct contact with this leader. Reported changes referred to organizational
restructuring (e.g. new team or organizational structure), work processes (e.g. new rou-
tines or clients) and technological advances (e.g. new software).

Measures

Ethical leadership. Ethical leadership was captured using Brown and colleagues’ ethical
leadership scale (ELS) (2005) in its German validated version by Rowold and colleagues
(2009). The scale comprises nine items to be answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is ‘The leader I
rate listens to what employees have to say’.

Employee silence. For the assessment of the four different silence motives, we used Knoll
and van Dick’s (2013) measure. Each motive of employee silence was captured using
three items (sample item for acquiescent silence: ‘I remained silent at work because
nothing will change anyway’; quiescent silence: ‘I remained silent at work because of
fear of negative consequences’; prosocial silence: ‘I remained silent at work because I do
not want others to get into trouble’; opportunistic silence: ‘I remained silent at work so

Bormann and Rowold 233

as not to give away my knowledge advantage’). A 7-point Likert-type scale was used
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Affective change commitment. ACC was measured using six items from Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) in a German version that had been used in previous studies (e.g.
Abrell-Vogel and Rowold, 2014). Sample items included ‘I believe in the value of the
change’ or ‘This change serves an important purpose’. The questionnaire was answered
on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Perceptions of politics. We assessed politics perceptions using a six-item scale developed
by Hochwarter et al. (2003) in a German translation, which was carried out using the
translation–back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980). Sample items were ‘There is a lot
of self-serving behaviour going on’ and ‘People are working behind the scenes to ensure
that they get their piece of the pie’. A 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was applied.

Change impact. We captured the impact of change on the individual with a single item
measure based on work by Herold et al. (2008) and Caldwell et al., (2004). Specifically,
we asked employees how the change initiative influenced their daily working routines.
The answering scheme ranged from 1 (not affected at all) to 5 (very strongly affected).

Controls. We controlled for the effects of transformational and transactional leadership
(measured in wave 1), as well as employee cynicism (measured in wave 2) on all mediat-
ing and dependent variables, to rule out an alternative explanation for the results (Bernerth
and Aguinis, 2016). Past research linking transformational and transactional leadership
to change-related attitudes suggests that heightened levels of ACC might also be due to
leaders inspiring followers through a compelling future vision (Abrell-Vogel and Rowold,
2014) or not relying on a contingent reward approach that cannot be maintained through
change (Conway and Monks, 2008). Additionally, both leadership styles have been noted
to show overlaps with ethical leadership (Brown and Trevino, 2006). We measured these
leadership styles using the 26-item Transformational Leadership Inventory (Podsakoff
et al., 1990) in its German validated version (Heinitz and Rowold, 2007; Krüger et al.,
2011) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). In addition, we also controlled for effects of employee cynicism on the silence
motives and ACC. As change disrupts job routines and inevitably entails uncertainty and
fear of loss, members of an organization often react sceptically and cynically to given
change initiatives (Reichers et al., 1997). As a result, especially low levels of silence and
ACC might be explained by higher levels of cynicism. Cynicism was captured with
seven items developed by Cole et al. (2006) to be answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Analytical procedure

Our hypothesized model of moderated mediation was tested using Haye’s SPSS macro
PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). We estimated the direct effects of ethical leadership on the

234 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

different silence motives and on ACC, the direct effects of the silence motives on ACC,
the indirect effects of ethical leadership on ACC, as well as the interaction effects regard-
ing the two moderators. To account for the influence of our control variables, we simul-
taneously estimated the effects of transformational leadership, transactional leadership
and cynicism on the silences motives and on ACC. In order to avoid biasing effects
resulting from multicolinearity when examining interaction effects, we standardized all
predicting variables prior to entering them into our model (Cohen et al., 2003).

Results

Factor structure, descriptive statistics and reliability

Prior to testing our hypotheses, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to
determine the distinctiveness of our measures. Our target model consisted of 10 factors
(ethical leadership, four silence variables, ACC, politics perceptions, and the control
variables of transactional and transformational leadership as well as employee cynicism)
with all items loading on the intended factor. To reduce the number of items in our model
as regards transformational leadership, we first built the six facets according to Podsakoff
et al. (1990) and used them as indicators of the higher-order construct. With regard to
generally accepted cut-off values for model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999), the CFA revealed
a satisfactory fit of our model (χ² = 2,130.34, p < .01; df = 1,083; Δχ² = 4,117.87, p < .01; Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) = 36,234.07; ΔAIC = 4,029.57; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .05, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .07) and superior fit compared to the baseline model where all items loaded on a single factor (χ² = 6,248.21, p < .01; df = 1,127; AIC = 40,263.64; RMSEA = .13, SRMR = .16).

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations and reliability
scores for the variables studied.

Hypotheses test

All direct and indirect effects are depicted in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. As posited in
Hypothesis 1, ethical leadership was positively related to ACC through the mediating
effect of reducing employees’ silence. However, ethical leadership was only significantly
related to acquiescent silence (β = −.21, p < .05). Acquiescent silence was also signifi- cantly related to ACC (β = −.39, p < .01). Accordingly, the indirect effect of ethical leadership through acquiescent silence on ACC was significant and in the intended direc- tion (estimate = .09, p < .01). As ethical leadership did not significantly predict the three remaining silence motives, none of the remaining indirect effects was significant. In sum, only Hypothesis 1a could be supported. As ethical leadership still had a significant effect on ACC (β = .23, p < .01) in the presence of the four silence motives, our results indicate partial mediation.

In Hypothesis 2, we expected politics perceptions to moderate stage 1 of the media-
tion between ethical leadership, employee silence and ACC. As shown in Table 2, the
interaction between ethical leadership and politics perceptions on acquiescent silence

Bormann and Rowold 235

T
a
b

le
1

.
M

ea
ns

, s
ta

nd
ar

d
de

vi
at

io
ns

, r
el

ia
bi

lit
ie

s
an

d
co

rr
el

at
io

ns
.

C
o
ns

tr
uc

t
M

SD
1

2
3

4
5

6
7

8
9

10
11

1
. C

yn
ic

is
m

3.
07

1.
09

.8
0

. T
ra

ns
fo

rm
at

io
na

l l
ea

de
rs

hi
p

3.
48

0.
72

−
.3

4*
*

.9
4

. T
ra

ns
ac

ti
o
na

l l
ea
de
rs
hi
p

3.
66

1.
03

−
.2

9*
*

.7
5*

*
.8

4
. P

o
lit

ic
s

pe
rc

ep
ti
o
ns

2.
56

0.
96

.6
7*

*
−

.1
4*

−
.1

5*
.9

5
. P

er
so

na
l c

ha
ng

e
im

pa
ct

3.
45

1.
38

−
.0

8
.0

5
−

.0
2

−
.0

6
. E

th
ic

al
le

ad
er

sh
ip

3.
58

0.
80

−
.3

1*
*

.7
7*

*
.6

4*
*
−
.1

7*
*

.0
2

.8
9

. A
cq

ui
es

ce
nt

s
ile

nc
e

3.
30

1.
67

.4
0*

*
−

.3
6*

*
−

.3
1*

*
.3

1*
*
−
.0

6
−

.3
8*

*
.8

8
. Q

ui
es
ce
nt
s
ile
nc
e

3.
13

1.
35

.2
8*

*
−

.0
6

−
.1

0
.3

4*
*
.0
2
−
.1

1
.5

2*
*

.8
7

. P
ro

so
ci

al
s

ile
nc

e
3.

83
1.

68
.1

0
−

.0
3

−
.0

5
.1

3*
.0

2
.0

1
.3

1*
*

.4
9*

*
.8

10
. O

pp
o
rt

un
is

ti
c

si
le

nc
e

2.
46

1.
25

.3
5*

*
−

.0
5

−
.0

6
.3

5*
*

−
.0

3
−

.1
0

.5
0*

*
.5

5*
*

.3
9*

*
.7

11
. A

ffe
ct

iv
e

ch
an

ge
c

o
m

m
it
m

en
t

3.
63

0.
95

−
.1
7*
*

.1
3*

.1
0
−
.1
3*
.0

5
.2

3*
*

−
.4

1*
*
−
.1
9*
*
−
.1

4*
−

.1
6*

*
.8
9

N
=

2
63

. C
ro

nb
ac

h’
s
α

a
re

in
di

ca
te

d
in

it
al

ic
s.

*p
<

.0
5;

*
*p

< .0

1;
t

w
o
-t

ai
le

d
te

st
s

o
f
si

gn
ifi

ca
nc

236 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

was significant (β = .14, p < .01). We plotted the interaction and conducted simple slope analyses to interpret the effect. As indicated in Figure 2, ethical leadership had a negative relationship with acquiescent silence only when perceptions of politics were low (β = −.34, p < .01); the effect was insignificant when perceptions of politics were high (β = −.07, ns). None of the interaction effects regarding the three remaining silence motives was significant, leading to the rejection of Hypotheses 2b–2d. Our moderated mediation analyses (see Table 3) revealed that the indirect effect of ethical leadership on ACC through acquiescent silence was positive and significant when per- ceptions of politics were low (–1 SD; estimate = .14, p < .01). The indirect effect was no longer significant when perceptions of politics were high (+1 SD; estimate = .03, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was supported.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the indirect effect of ethical leadership on ACC through
employee silence is dependent on both politics perceptions (stage 1) and personal
change impact (stage 2). We first tested whether change impact moderated the silence–
ACC relationship. As shown in Table 2, the interaction between acquiescent silence
and change impact was marginally significant (β = .13, p = .06). The interaction is
plotted in Figure 3. As expected, the negative relationship between acquiescent
silence and ACC was stronger when change impact was low (β = −.52, p < .01) as

Table 2. Bootstrapping results.

AS QS PS OS ACC

Controls
Cynicism .25** .09 .02 .25** −.04
Transformational

leadership
−.08 .12 −.04 .10 −.16

Transactional leadership −.02 −.08 −.06 .01 −.07
Politics perceptions (PP) .11 .28** .12 .20*
Change impact (CI) .04
Independent variable
Ethical leadership (EL) −.21* −.08 .10 −.07 .23**
Mediators
Acquiescent silence (AS) −.39**
Quiescent silence (QS) .04
Prosocial silence (PS) −.09
Opportunistic silence (OS) .07
Moderators
EL x PP .14** −.05 .00 .06
AS x CI .13†

QS x CI −.15*
PS x CI −.06
OS x CI .09
R² .26 .13 .02 .16 .22

N = 263; ACC: affective change commitment; SD: standard deviation.
**p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .10; two-tailed tests of significance.

Bormann and Rowold 237

opposed to high (β = −.27, p < .01).1 Next, we estimated the conditional indirect effect of ethical leadership through acquiescent silence at specific values of the moderators. In line with our argumentation, when politics perceptions were high, the effect of ethical leadership on ACC through reducing acquiescent silence was insignificant at all levels of change impact (–1 SD; estimate = .04, ns; +1 SD; estimate = .02, ns). In contrast, when perceptions of politics were low, the indirect effect was stronger when change impact was low (–1 SD; estimate = .18, p < .01) as opposed to high (+1 SD; estimate = .09, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3a was supported.

Discussion

Changing environments present some of the most frequent challenges to organizational
success. Accordingly, research is needed to understand how employees’ reactions to
change evolve. This present research addressed this call and examined how ethical
leaders can strengthen employees’ ACC through reducing employee silence, and how
this process is influenced by politics perceptions and change impact on the individual.
Our results revealed that ethical leadership reduced employees’ motives to remain
silent because of feelings of resignation, which, in turn, predicted ACC. However, we
also revealed important boundaries of this effect. As politics perceptions increased,
the effect diminished. Even when politics perceptions were low, high levels of change
impact on the individual reduced the magnitude of the indirect effect of ethical leader-
ship on ACC.

Table 3. Bootstrap analyses of the conditional indirect effects of ethical leadership on affective
change commitment.

Indirect effects through Acquiescent Silence

PE SE CaL95 CaU95

Unconditional
indirect effects

.09** .04 .01 .17

Low PP (–1 SD) .14** .05 .05 .26
Medium PP .08** .04 .02 .19
High PP (+1 SD) .03 .04 −.04 .13
Low PP (–1 SD)
Low CI (–1 SD) .18** .07 .07 .34
Medium CI .14** .05 .06 .26
High CI (+1 SD) .09* .05 .02 .23
High PP (+1 SD)
Low CI (–1 SD) .04 .05 −.08 .15
Medium CI .03 .04 −.06 .12
High CI (+1 SD) .02 .03 −.03 .11

PP: politics perceptions; CI: change impact; PE: point estimate; SE: standard error; CaL95: 95% confidence
interval lower limit; CaU95: 95% confidence interval upper limit.
**p < .01, *p < .05; two-tailed tests of significance.

238 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

Implications for organizational literature

This study provides important insights into the beneficial impact of ethical leadership
during organizational change. To our knowledge, this is only the second study to inves-
tigate ethical leadership impact in a change context. While Sharif and Scandura (2014)
showed that employees’ job satisfaction, OCB and performance can be furthered

Figure 2. Interaction effect of ethical leadership and politics perceptions on acquiescent
silence.
PP: politics perceptions.

Figure 3. Interaction effect of acquiescent silence and change impact on affective commitment
to change (ACC).
CI: change impact.

Bormann and Rowold 239

through exhibiting ethical leadership, we extend findings by incorporating a change-
related outcome in ACC. If leaders display honest, just and caring leadership behav-
iours, they are capable of strengthening followers’ emotional bond with change
initiatives. Our study also reveals important insights into the tenets underlying this pro-
cess. Sharif and Scandura (2014) attributed the beneficial impact to increased trust and
reduced uncertainty. Our results indicate that it is also the reduction of employee silence
due to feelings of resignation that drives the beneficial impact. That ethical leadership
is effective in change also corroborates findings from past research highlighting the role
of perceptions of justice. Several studies, including quasi-experimental approaches,
have established a causal link between fair management practices and employees’ atti-
tudes to change (Oreg and van Dam, 2009). Transferring this justice perspective to the
role of organizational leaders, we have shown that ethical leadership behaviour which
highlights just and balanced decision-making lowers employees’ motives to remain
silent and encourages them to commit to change initiatives. Further strengthening our
proposed role of ethical leadership during change, we also controlled for the related
leadership styles of transformational and transactional leadership. Consequently, ethi-
cal leadership’s beneficial impact came above and beyond the influences of those
related leadership constructs. With this, we address recent calls (Bedi et al., 2015) to
provide empirical evidence to contrast ethical leadership’s effects with those of other
leadership styles (e.g. Brown and Trevino, 2006).

Our analyses revealed that not all four forms of employee silence are equally impor-
tant. More precisely, only acquiescent silence was significantly influenced by ethical
leadership and predicted ACC. The remaining three forms of silence were not correlated
with either independent or dependent variables in our regression models. This demands
some further consideration. Most importantly, we found strong support for the crucial
role of acquiescent silence. When employees work for leaders who show ethical leader-
ship, they are less likely to withhold concerns because of feelings of resignation com-
pared to employees who work for less ethical leaders. We attribute this to experienced
work-related latitude (Piccolo et al., 2010) and fair decision-making (Brown and Trevino,
2006), which suggests that concerns are raised with the leader in the belief that they will
address these issues properly. The negative effect of acquiescent silence on ACC is also
in line with previous findings linking negative affective attitudes with lower levels of
change success (Reichers et al., 1997). Our findings regarding the different motives for
employee silence corroborate those of Knoll and van Dick (2013). In their study, out of
all four silence motives, acquiescent silence was the strongest correlate regarding job
satisfaction, organizational identification and turnover intentions. However, it was still
unexpected that in our study ethical leadership was unrelated to quiescent, prosocial and
opportunistic silence. A possible explanation could be that the effect of ethical leadership
is less proximal and more distal. For instance, with regard to opportunistic silence, we
hypothesized that ethical leaders who set an example of fair and altruistic behaviour
should directly reduce followers’ opportunistic motives for (non-)behaviour via social
learning. While we found no support for this assumption, follower cynicism and percep-
tions of politics did positively predict opportunistic silence. The more the social climate
within a work unit is characterized by cynical thinking and politicking, the more an
individual’s behaviour or non-behaviour is guided by opportunistic motives. As ethical

240 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

leadership was also negatively related to cynicism and politics, it is possible that ethical
leadership negatively impacts opportunistic silence in an indirect manner. In other words,
ethical leadership influences the social context in which followers are embedded (Kuenzi
and Schminke, 2009). They shape team climates of reduced cynicism and politics which,
in turn, trigger individual silence motives. Alternatively, it may be possible that the rela-
tionship between ethical leadership and silence is more conditional and that there are
moderators masking any direct association. Possible avenues following this path will be
discussed in the context of the implications for future research.

There is a growing but still thin body of research on moderators of the ethical leader-
ship–outcome relationship. Our results indicate that with increasing levels of politics
within teams, ethical leaders appear to be losing their grip on their employees. The
reducing effect of ethical leadership on acquiescent silence is absorbed. We attribute this
effect to the self-serving nature of political environments, where employees come to
believe that the altruism an ethical leader demonstrates is not the kind of behaviour to
mimic in terms of achieving goals within an organization. Kacmar et al. (2011) used an
organizational politics perspective to argue why ethical leadership’s effect on OCB
increases with higher levels of politics perceptions. They interpreted OCB as an embodi-
ment of political behaviour serving egoistic goals. Their results confirmed this proposed
effect for men only. Our study had a different approach as we elucidated motives behind
behaviours such as (not) speaking up. Our study, therefore, extends insights into the ethi-
cal leadership–OCB relationship by showing that, when considering motives underlying
(non-)behaviour, effects can be identified for women and men alike.

Another boundary of ethical leadership effects was the impact of changes on the indi-
vidual’s job. Our results indicated that with increasing levels of personal impact of the
change the beneficial effect of ethical leadership on ACC through acquiescent silence
decreased. This echoes past research which argued that organizational members approach
other-induced change initiatives with scepticism and refusal (Meyer and Hamilton, 2013).
A possible explanation is the role of cognitive overloads during change (Maurer and Lord,
1991). Individuals tend to be self-absorbed when coping with these challenges (Oreg
et al., 2011; Reichers et al., 1997) and therefore may be less amenable to leadership.

Limitations and directions for future research

There are several limitations in our research design with implications for future work.
First of all, we relied on cross-sectional data which prohibits any causal claims to be
made. To strengthen causal claims, researchers are recommended to pursue experimental
approaches to address this limitation in the future. Although we used multiple measure-
ment waves to reduce common method bias, a second limitation is the reliance on
employee ratings only. Thirdly, we gathered data on employees from different organiza-
tions with different forms and magnitudes of change initiatives. Hence, insights into
specific forms of change and their implications for leadership and employee silence
could not be gained. As this limitation also holds for the study of Sharif and Scandura
(2014), future work that examines the impact of ethical leadership during change within
single organizations with specific changes is urgently needed. A fourth limitation refers
to the measurement of the stage 2 moderator of change impact. This aspect was measured

Bormann and Rowold 241

with a single item due to the length of the questionnaire, and the interaction with acqui-
escent silence was only marginally significant. As personal change impact has been
measured on multi-item scales in the past (Caldwell et al., 2004; Herold et al., 2008), we
encourage researchers to replicate our interaction effect using validated measures.

Based on our results, we confirmed partial mediation regarding ethical leadership,
employee silence and ACC, meaning that there are other mechanisms whereby ethical
leadership fosters ACC. Future work could investigate mediating variables apart from
employee silence. For instance, Sharif and Scandura (2014) proposed enriched trust
and reduced uncertainty as mediating mechanisms, which to date still needs empirical
validation.

With regard to the emerging construct of employee silence, our study also presents
some intriguing avenues for future work. Comparing all four forms of silence, the results
indicated that acquiescent silence is, by a large margin, the most important one. With the
strongest correlations with our remaining focal variables we found similar relational pat-
terns to those of Knoll and van Dick (2013). Considering these results, two different
conclusions can be drawn. On the one hand, acquiescent silence could be the most rele-
vant form of silence to organizations. On the other hand, as more of a methodological
argument, it might simply be the most accessible motive. Confessing feelings of resigna-
tion might be more socially acceptable than betraying highly valued colleagues or reveal-
ing egoistic motives. Here, future work is needed to disentangle methodological from
content-driven arguments. As indicated earlier, the insignificant relationships between
ethical leadership and quiescent, prosocial and opportunistic silence might also be due to
moderators. As our results have shown that cynicism and perception of politics were
related to several forms of silence, it is possible that there are further aspects of the social
context (Rosen et al., 2009) that influence the aforementioned relationships. Climates
with different affective tones such as a focus on idea generation (Ekvall, 1996) or safety
practices (Zohar, 2000) could be tested in upcoming work. Such moderators could also
have been the reason for the insignificant relationships between affective change com-
mitment and quiescent, prosocial, as well as opportunistic silence. Alternatively, other
change-related criteria – possibly with a stronger focus on supportive behaviours
(Bouckenooghe, Schwarz and Minbashian, 2014) – could be applied in future work to
further examine the role of silence in change contexts.

Lastly, the role of organizational leadership could be examined further. For instance,
shared (Pearce et al., 2010) or instrumental (Rowold, 2014) leadership could be tested as
predictors for employee silence. Shared leadership highlights the emergence of informal
leaders among peers without formal leadership responsibilities. It is potentially fruitful
as its informal and team-bound nature should foster a team climate of mutual trust, which
lowers perceived barriers to raising voice on critical matters. Alternatively, instrumental
leadership captures contents of strategic leadership and work facilitation. Especially the
latter aspect, which builds on classic path–goal leadership theory, could be relevant to
silence. One the one hand, if leaders point out to followers what needs to be done to
achieve given goals and what each individual’s responsibilities are, a climate of obliga-
tion to raise voice on critical matters could develop. On the other hand, with its strong
focus on task orientation, close or intimate leader–follower relationships are less likely
to evolve, which could bolster opportunistic and reduce prosocial motives.

242 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

Implications for practitioners

As organizational change poses a major challenge to today’s corporate world, organiza-
tions are in need of dedicated and committed employees. Ethical leadership has been
shown in this study to be a crucial driver for change success. Accordingly, organizations
should be eager to further the display of ethical leadership among leaders. One way of
doing this could be a stronger focus on ethical leadership during leader selection processes.
For instance, the potential for ethical leadership could be assessed in the course of assess-
ment centres where ethical challenges could be simulated in role play, job interviews or
case studies. It is important that organizations also foster the development of current lead-
ers. Ethical leadership could be the topic of leadership training. Past research on the train-
ability of leadership behaviours showed promising results (Abrell et al., 2011). As our
analyses have revealed, ethical leadership had a unique impact above and beyond the
effects of transformational and transactional leadership, and training programmes need to
be developed that focus explicitly on the display of ethical leadership behaviours.

Another way of getting employees committed to change initiatives is by reducing
their incentives to remain silent because of feelings of resignation. While this study has
shown that ethical leadership is one way of achieving reduced acquiescent silence, there
may be other possible approaches. Organizations should have an incentive to establish
structures that ensure appropriate and transparent communication of decisions. In this
way, employees should have a better understanding for the higher-order reasons for cer-
tain possibly unpleasant decisions and their consequences. Possessing that knowledge
should then lead to reduced cynicism, which was also positively related to acquiescent
silence in this study. Preventing employees from remaining silent because of feelings of
resignation should also come from an organizational culture that is characterized by trust
and appreciation. When employees experience that raising their voice regarding critical
issues is valued highly by management and does indeed lead to positive changes within
task structures, there should be much less incentive for acquiescent silence, and vice
versa: A management’s inability to appreciate and take advantage of employees’ input
fosters a culture of mistrust and resignation.

Note

1. We also found a significant interaction effect regarding quiescent silence and change concern
(see Table 2; β = −.15, p < .05). However, as Hypothesis 3b proposed an indirect effect of ethical leadership through quiescent silence on ACC, and as neither the direct effect of ethical leadership on quiescent silence nor the indirect effect on ACC through quiescent silence was significant, we decided not to include the plot in this article.

References

Abrell C, Rowold J, Weibler J, et al. (2011) Evaluation of a long-term transformational leadership
development program. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 25: 205–224.

Abrell-Vogel C and Rowold J (2014) Leaders’ commitment to change and their effectiveness in change
– a multilevel investigation. Journal of Organizational Change Management 27(6): 900–921.

Allen NJ and Meyer JP (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18.

Bormann and Rowold 243

Avey JB, Wernsing TS and Palanski ME (2012) Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The
mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics
107(1): 21–34.

Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura A (1991) Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes 50(2): 248–287.
Bedi A, Alpaslan CM and Green S (2015) A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes

and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2625-1.
Bernerth JB and Aguinis H (2015) A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control

variable usage. Personnel Psychology 69(1): 229–283.
Bouckenooghe D, Schwarz G and Minbashian A (2014) Herscovitch and Meyer’s three-compo-

nent model of commitment to change: Meta-analytic findings. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 24(4): 578–595.

Brinsfield CT (2013) Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development
of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(5): 671–697.

Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis HC
and Berry JW (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol. 2: Methodology. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon, 349–444.

Brown ME and Trevino LK (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 595–616.

Brown ME, Trevino LK and Harrison DA (2005) Ethical leadership: A social learning perspec-
tive for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 97: 117–134.

Burnes B and By RT (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal
of Business Ethics 108(2): 239–252.

Caldwell SD, Herold DM and Fedor DB (2004) Toward an understanding of the relationships
among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person–environment fit:
A cross-level study. The Journal of Applied Psychology 89(5): 868–882.

Chang C-H, Rosen CC and Levy PE (2009) The relationship between perceptions of organiza-
tional politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination.
Academy of Management Journal 52(4): 779–801.

Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, et al. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for
the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cole MS, Bruch H and Vogel B (2006) Emotion as mediators of the relations between per-
ceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 27(4): 463–484.

Conway E and Monks K (2008) HR practices and commitment to change: An employee-level
analysis. Human Resource Management Journal 18(1): 72–89.

Cunningham GB (2006) The relationships among commitment to change, coping with change,
and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15(1):
29–45.

Ekvall G (1996) Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 5(1): 105–123.

Fedor DB, Caldwell S and Herold DM (2006) The effects of organizational changes on employee
commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology 59(1): 1–29.

Ferris GR and Judge TA (1991) Personnel/Human resources management: A political influence
perspective. Journal of Management 17(2): 447–488.

Frömmer D, Wegge J and Strobel A (2014) Risiko durch Verschlossenheit? Das Zusammenspiel
von Führung, Mitarbeiterschweigen und Managerversagen. Wirtschaftspsychologie 3: 39–44.

244 German Journal of Human Resource Management 30(3-4)

Hanisch KA and Hulin CL (1990) Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of
retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior 37(1):
60–78.

Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis:
A Regression-based Approach. (Methodology in the Social Sciences series). New York:
Guilford Press.

Heinitz K and Rowold J (2007) Gütekriterien einer deutschen Adaptation des Transfor-
mational Leadership Inventory (TLI) von Podsakoff. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie A&O 51(1): 1–15.

Herold DM, Fedor DB, Caldwell S, et al. (2008) The effects of transformational and change lead-
ership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevel study. The Journal of Applied
Psychology 93(2): 346–357.

Herscovitch L and Meyer JP (2002) Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-
component model. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(3): 474–487.

Hochwarter WA, Kacmar C, Perrewé PL, et al. (2003) Perceived organizational support as a
mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 63(3): 438–456.

Hochwarter WA, Perrewé PL, Ferris GR, et al. (1999) Commitment as an antidote to the tension
and turnover consequences of organizational politics. Journal of Vocational Behavior 55(3):
277–297.

Hu L and Bentler P (1999) Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy-
sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

Kacmar KM, Andrews MC, Harris KJ, et al. (2013) Ethical leadership and subordinate outcomes:
The mediating role of organizational politics and the moderating role of political skill. Journal
of Business Ethics 115(1): 33–44.

Kacmar KM, Bachrach DG, Harris KJ and 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.

Knoll M and van Dick R (2013) Do I hear the whistle … ? A first attempt to measure four forms of
employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics 113(2): 349–362.

Krüger C, Rowold J, Borgmann L, et al. (2011) The discriminant validity of transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Personnel Psychology 10(2): 49–60.

Kuenzi M and Schminke M (2009) Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and pro-
posed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management
35(3): 634–717.

Maurer TJ and Lord RG (1991) An exploration of cognitive demands in group interaction as
a moderator of information processing variables in perceptions of leadership. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 21(10): 821–839.

Meyer JP and Hamilton L K (2013) Commitment to organizational change: Theory, research,
principles, and practice. In: Oreg S, Michel A and By RT (eds) The Psychology of
Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employee’s Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–64.

Miller BK, Rutherford MA and Kolodinsky RW (2008) Perceptions of organizational politics: A
meta-analysis of outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology 22(3): 209–222.

Morrison EW and Milliken FJ (2000) Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development
in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25(4): 706–725.

Ng TWH and Feldman DC (2015) Ethical leadership: Meta-analytic evidence of criterion-related
and incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(3): 948–965.

Bormann and Rowold 245

Oreg S (2003) Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology 88(4): 680–693.

Oreg S and van Dam K (2009) Organisational justice in the context of organisational change.
Netherlands Journal of Psychology 65(4): 127–135.

Oreg S, Vakola M and Armenakis A (2011) Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change:
A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(4):
461–524.

Pearce CL, Hoch JE, Jeppesen HJ, et al. (2010) New forms of management: Shared and distrib-
uted leadership in organizations. Journal of Personnel Psychology 9(4): 151–153.

Piccolo RF, Greenbaum R, Den Hartog DN, et al. (2010) The relationship between ethical leadership
and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(2–3): 259–278.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH, et al. (1990) Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behav-
iors. The Leadership Quarterly 1(2): 107–142.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Podsakoff NP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63(1):
539–569.

Reichers AE, Wanous JP and Austin JT (1997) Understanding and managing cynicism about
organizational change. Academy of Management Perspectives 11(1): 48–59.

Rosen CC, Chang CH, Johnson RE and Levy PE (2009) Perceptions of the organizational con-
text and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing perspectives. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108(2): 202–217.

Rowold J (2014) Instrumental leadership: Extending the transformational–transactional leadership
paradigm. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 28(3): 367–390.

Rowold J, Borgmann L and Heinitz K (2009) Ethische Führung – Gütekriterien einer deutschen
Adaptation der Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS-D) von Brown et al. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-
und Organisationspsychologie 53(2): 57–69.

Schaubroeck JM, Hannah ST, Avolio BJ, et al. (2012) Embedding ethical leadership within and
across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal 55(5): 1053–1078.

Sharif MM and Scandura TA (2014) Do perceptions of ethical conduct matter during organi-
zational change? Ethical leadership and employee involvement. Journal of Business Ethics
124(2): 185–196.

van Dyne L, Ang S and Botero IC (2003) Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice
as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies 40(6): 1359–1392.

Walumbwa FO and Schaubroeck J (2009) Leader personality traits and employee voice behav-
ior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of
Applied Psychology 94(5): 1275–1286.

Wegge J, Jeppesen HJ, Weber WG, et al. (2010). Promoting work motivation in organizations.
Journal of Personnel Psychology 9(4): 154–171.

Zohar D (2000) A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on
microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(4): 587–596.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ transformational leadership and knowledge and knowledge sharing within an organization ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order