Ethical Leadership: Brown and Trevino, Moral Behavior, Trust, Power, and Accountability
Updated: 2 days ago
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 25, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Ethical leadership is a research construct about how leaders model, communicate, reinforce, and make decisions around standards of appropriate conduct. The most influential social-scientific formulation comes from Michael E. Brown, Linda K. Treviño, and David A. Harrison. Their 2005 work defined ethical leadership through observable leader conduct and the active promotion of ethical conduct to followers, then developed the Ethical Leadership Scale to study the construct empirically (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005).
The idea is broader than personal honesty. In the Brown–Treviño tradition, ethical leadership combines being a credible moral example with being an active moral manager: a leader communicates standards, invites two-way discussion, uses rewards and discipline, and makes decisions in ways that signal what conduct is expected. Earlier qualitative work described this distinction as the difference between a moral person and a moral manager (Treviño, Hartman, & Brown, 2000).
Research links ethical leadership ratings with trust, job attitudes, organizational citizenship behavior, lower counterproductive behavior, employee voice, and several performance-related outcomes. Yet the evidence is much less simple than the popular claim that ethical leaders automatically create ethical organizations. Much of the literature is correlational, often relies on followers rating both the leader and outcomes, overlaps with other favorable leadership constructs, and does not by itself establish that an ethical-leadership score causes an outcome (Banks et al., 2021).
This article explains the construct historically and scientifically: what Brown and Treviño meant, how ethical leadership is measured, what meta-analyses show, how trust and power enter the model, why accountability matters, where causal evidence is stronger or weaker, and how ethical leadership differs from transformational, authentic, servant, charismatic, destructive, and managerial leadership. For the broader map of leadership constructs, see Leadership Psychology: Styles, Traits, Power, Followership, and Leadership Effectiveness.
Ethical Leadership: The Short Answer
Ethical leadership is best understood as a family of leader behaviors and follower perceptions organized around two linked functions. First, leaders demonstrate conduct that others perceive as morally appropriate in their personal actions, relationships, and decisions. Second, leaders actively shape the ethical environment by communicating standards, discussing ethical issues, rewarding appropriate conduct, responding to violations, and making ethically consequential decisions in visible ways.
This makes ethical leadership different from a trait such as conscientiousness, a formal role such as manager, a source of social rank such as status, a legal right to command such as authority, or a broad capacity to affect outcomes such as power. A person can possess formal authority without being perceived as ethically exemplary; a respected expert can have status without managerial authority; and a leader can have substantial power while using it in ways that followers judge as fair, arbitrary, self-serving, protective, or coercive. The distinctions matter because research on power and leadership asks different questions from research on ethical leadership.
The construct also does not mean that researchers have solved moral philosophy. The phrase normatively appropriate, central to the classic definition, leaves open the question of which norms should count and how conflicts among fairness, loyalty, care, rights, rules, welfare, and stakeholder interests should be resolved. Ethical leadership research usually studies perceptions and consequences of leadership behavior in organizations; it does not provide a universal algorithm for deciding what is morally right.
Where the Modern Ethical Leadership Construct Came From
The moral person and moral manager distinction
Before the modern scale-based literature, Treviño, Hartman, and Brown examined how senior executives develop reputations for ethical leadership. Their moral person–moral manager framework argued that personal character alone may be insufficient for a leader to be recognized as ethically influential. Followers also need visible signals that ethics is part of how the organization is managed: leaders talk about ethics, set expectations, make fair decisions, and use rewards and sanctions consistently (Treviño, Hartman, & Brown, 2000).
The distinction remains useful because it prevents two common simplifications. A privately principled leader can be ethically silent as a manager, leaving followers uncertain about standards. Conversely, a leader can communicate rules and punish violations while lacking credibility because personal conduct contradicts the message. Ethical leadership, in this tradition, therefore depends on the alignment between example and management practice.
Brown, Treviño, and Harrison: social learning and construct development
Brown, Treviño, and Harrison turned the idea into a measurable organizational-behavior construct in 2005. Their social-learning account treats leaders as salient models whose behavior can attract attention, be imitated, and become associated with consequences. The original research used seven linked studies to develop and test the Ethical Leadership Scale and to place ethical leadership in a nomological network with constructs such as consideration, honesty, interactional fairness, trust, socialized charismatic leadership, and abusive supervision (Brown et al., 2005).
Their findings supported distinctiveness, but not isolation. Ethical leadership was related to other desirable forms of leadership and interpersonal treatment. That pattern became a central issue for later research: is ethical leadership a genuinely distinct construct, a useful combination of existing behaviors, or partly a favorable halo attached to leaders whom followers already like and trust? This question is still active.
Brown and Treviño's 2006 review
Brown and Treviño's 2006 review consolidated social learning as the dominant theoretical explanation, proposed antecedents and outcomes, and compared ethical leadership with spiritual, authentic, and transformational leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Since then, the field has expanded rapidly. A recent integrative review of 124 empirical articles published from 2020 through 2024 found that social learning remained the most frequently used framework, followed by social exchange theory, while quantitative designs dominated the literature (Chaiyasat et al., 2026).
Is Ethical Leadership a Style, a Theory, a Trait, or a Behavior?
In popular writing, ethical leadership is often called a leadership style. In research, that label can obscure important distinctions. A leadership style usually refers to a relatively recognizable pattern of behavior. A leadership theory specifies relationships among constructs and explains why particular processes should produce particular outcomes. A trait is a relatively enduring characteristic of the person. A behavior is an action or pattern of action. A perception is an observer's evaluation of what the leader does or is.
The Brown–Treviño tradition contains all of these layers. It describes behavior, explains effects through social learning and social exchange, and is usually measured through followers' judgments of a leader. Some items or later measures also touch values, fairness, integrity, people orientation, role clarification, power sharing, and sustainability. That breadth is one reason ethical leadership became influential and one reason construct boundaries became difficult.
Banks and colleagues' concept-cleanup review made this problem explicit. They argued that much of the literature blends leader behavior with followers' evaluations of traits, values, and cognitions, and that common study designs make causal inference difficult. They proposed a more behavior-focused concept of ethical leadership behavior centered on enacted prosocial values and expressed moral emotions (Banks et al., 2021). Their proposal has not erased the older construct, but it is an important warning: a high follower rating is evidence about perceived leadership, not direct access to a leader's inner moral character.
The same discipline applies across the major leadership theories. Transformational leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, leader–member exchange, contingency theories, traits, emergence, and effectiveness answer different questions. Ethical leadership should not become a catch-all term for every favorable leader characteristic.
What Ethical Leadership Actually Includes
Visible moral conduct
Ethical leadership begins with behavior that observers can connect to standards of fairness, honesty, care, integrity, responsibility, or respect. Visibility matters. Followers learn little from values they cannot observe in decisions, resource allocation, interpersonal treatment, conflict handling, and responses to wrongdoing. The leader's conduct functions as information about what the organization truly rewards.
Two-way communication
The classic construct includes communication rather than one-way moral instruction. Two-way communication matters because ethical dilemmas are often ambiguous: people need to know what standards apply, why a decision was made, where uncertainty remains, and whether raising a concern will trigger retaliation. The communication component therefore overlaps with voice, fairness, and trust, while remaining conceptually distinct from each.
Reinforcement and consequences
Ethical leadership includes what leaders do after standards are stated. Rewards, recognition, corrective feedback, sanctions, promotion decisions, and tolerance of misconduct teach followers whether the stated rule is real. Inconsistent reinforcement can undermine an otherwise persuasive ethical message. A leader who publicly praises integrity but rewards results obtained through misconduct sends a stronger behavioral signal than the speech.
Decision-making
Decision-making is where moral language meets consequential control. Leaders allocate resources, define priorities, choose whose interests receive weight, interpret policies, and decide when exceptions are justified. Ethical leadership research is therefore closely connected with the psychology of power and responsibility and with evidence on how power can affect moral attention and self-interest in power and morality. The constructs remain distinct: power is capacity for influence or control, while ethical leadership concerns how leadership conduct and moral standards are enacted and perceived.
Accountability
Accountability is not a separate item that automatically makes a leader ethical. It is a structural principle that makes ethical claims testable. Leaders who can explain decisions, disclose conflicts, accept review, correct errors, and apply standards to themselves reduce the gap between stated values and actual governance. Accountability also limits a common failure mode of moral leadership rhetoric: demanding ethical behavior from followers while exempting the leader from equivalent scrutiny.
How Ethical Leadership Is Measured
The Ethical Leadership Scale
The most influential measure is the Ethical Leadership Scale developed by Brown and colleagues. It is a 10-item follower-report scale designed as a unidimensional measure. Respondents judge behaviors such as listening, fairness, discipline for ethical violations, decision-making, trustworthiness, discussion of ethics, example-setting, attention to consequences, and doing what is right (Brown et al., 2005).
A scale score is not a diagnosis, a certification of moral character, or a direct measure of objective ethical outcomes. It is a structured summary of respondents' perceptions. Those perceptions can be informative because followers experience leadership directly, but they can also contain halo effects, relationship quality, shared stereotypes about good leaders, social desirability, and context-specific norms.
The Ethical Leadership at Work questionnaire
Kalshoven, Den Hartog, and De Hoogh developed the multidimensional Ethical Leadership at Work questionnaire to capture seven behavior domains: fairness, integrity, ethical guidance, people orientation, power sharing, role clarification, and concern for sustainability. Their validation studies found a differentiated factor structure and evidence of relationships with trust, citizenship behavior, and effectiveness (Kalshoven et al., 2011).
The advantage of a multidimensional measure is diagnostic precision at the construct level: two leaders can receive similar global evaluations for different behavioral reasons. The cost is conceptual expansion. Once ethical leadership includes fairness, power sharing, people orientation, role clarification, sustainability, and integrity, overlap with justice, empowering leadership, consideration, management quality, and other established constructs becomes harder to avoid.
The Ethical Leadership Questionnaire
Yukl, Mahsud, Hassan, and Prussia developed another measure intended to focus more directly on essential ethical-leadership behavior while reducing contamination from unrelated leadership behaviors. Their study found a small but significant incremental contribution in explaining leader–member exchange and managerial effectiveness (Yukl et al., 2013). This is an important reminder that measurement is part of the theory: changing the items changes what the construct means in practice.
Psychometric limits
Three measurement problems deserve special attention. First, common-source measurement can inflate associations when the same follower rates both leadership and outcomes. Second, favorable leadership constructs often correlate strongly, making discriminant validity difficult. Third, a measure can be reliable without being conceptually pure: internal consistency shows that items move together, not that they represent a unique causal phenomenon.
For this reason, ethical-leadership assessment is strongest when follower reports are combined with behaviorally specific evidence, multiple raters, independent outcome measures, longitudinal or experimental designs where feasible, and explicit attention to the normative standard being applied. A questionnaire is a research instrument, not a moral verdict.
What Does the Evidence Show?
Meta-analytic evidence on outcomes
The most influential quantitative synthesis is Ng and Feldman's meta-analysis of 101 samples with 29,620 participants. Ethical leadership showed meaningful relationships with job attitudes, job performance, and evaluations of leaders. Trust in the leader statistically mediated relationships with job attitudes and performance. Ethical leadership also showed incremental prediction of task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior after controls for several neighboring leadership constructs, although some incremental effects were weak (Ng & Feldman, 2015).
Bedi, Alpaslan, and Green's meta-analysis likewise found positive relationships with multiple follower outcomes, including interactional fairness and ethical behavior, while documenting substantial associations with transformational leadership and contingent reward. The analysis also found moderation across geographical locations and some stronger relationships in public-sector samples, with mixed evidence concerning publication bias (Bedi et al., 2016).
These meta-analyses support criterion-related validity: people who rate leaders as more ethical also tend to report or display a range of favorable outcomes. They do not establish that every relationship is causal, nor do they show that ethical leadership is the strongest possible predictor for every outcome.
Ethical behavior, deviance, and organizational citizenship behavior
Mayer and colleagues tested a trickle-down model in 195 departments involving 904 employees and 195 managers. Top-management and supervisory ethical leadership were associated with lower group deviance and higher organizational citizenship behavior, with supervisory ethical leadership statistically mediating part of the top-management relationship (Mayer et al., 2009). Because this was field research rather than random assignment, mediation is consistent with a process model but is not equivalent to proof of causation.
A larger multilevel study of 2,572 U.S. Army soldiers found only limited support for a simple top-down cascade and broader support for a model in which ethical leadership operates together with unit ethical culture across organizational levels (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). This is theoretically important: organizations do not become ethical through leader personality alone. Shared practices, local norms, incentives, peer behavior, and institutional systems shape what followers actually do.
Peng and Kim's meta-analytic structural-equation analysis integrated 301 independent samples with 103,354 participants. Leader–member exchange was the strongest modeled pathway to task performance, while ethical culture was especially important for counterproductive behavior; several pathways contributed to organizational citizenship behavior (Peng & Kim, 2020). Again, meta-analytic mediation clarifies statistical pathways but does not convert nonexperimental studies into randomized causal evidence.
Voice, psychological safety, and performance
Walumbwa and Schaubroeck studied 894 employees and 222 supervisors and found that agreeableness and conscientiousness were associated with ethical-leadership ratings, ethical leadership was related to employee voice, and work-group psychological safety partially mediated that relationship (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Psychological safety here should remain conceptually separate from trust, engagement, inclusion, job satisfaction, and general climate. It concerns perceived interpersonal risk in speaking and acting within the group.
Piccolo and colleagues found that task significance and effort statistically mediated relationships between ethical leadership and subordinate performance in a coworker-pair field design (Piccolo et al., 2010). The study supports a plausible work-design mechanism, while the design remains observational. Ethical leadership can correlate with job performance without implying that moral conduct alone produces technical competence.
Causal evidence is thinner and more mixed
Banks and colleagues' review emphasized that much of the ethical-leadership literature cannot support strong causal claims because of design limitations (Banks et al., 2021). A later integrative review of 2020–2024 research found that 121 of 124 reviewed studies used quantitative methods, illustrating the field's continued dependence on survey-based designs (Chaiyasat et al., 2026).
Experiments exist, but they do not justify a universal causal claim. Belle and Cantarelli combined laboratory and field-experimental approaches in public-administration contexts. Ethical messages and visibility reduced dishonesty in one laboratory task, while effects were absent or conditional in other tasks and in the field-choice experiment (Belle & Cantarelli, 2019). The practical conclusion is disciplined rather than disappointing: ethical leadership is a plausible influence on conduct, but effects depend on the behavior, incentives, context, and research design.
Trust: A Mechanism, an Outcome, and a Source of Confusion
Trust is one of the most consistent concepts in ethical-leadership research. Followers are more willing to accept vulnerability when they expect a leader to act competently, predictably, benevolently, or with integrity. Ethical leadership can contribute to those expectations because fair decisions, truthful communication, consistency, and accountable use of power provide evidence about future behavior.
Yet trust and ethical leadership are not synonyms. A follower can trust a technically competent leader to deliver results without judging that leader morally exemplary. A follower can also judge a leader's intentions as ethical while distrusting the leader's competence. Ng and Feldman's meta-analysis found trust in the leader to be an important statistical mediator between ethical leadership and both attitudes and performance (Ng & Feldman, 2015), but the mediated relationship should not be read as proof that trust is the only or universal mechanism.
This distinction is also why a broad question such as what makes a good leader cannot be answered by ethical leadership alone. Leadership effectiveness, moral conduct, follower trust, technical judgment, decision quality, coordination, and role performance overlap but remain separable criteria.
Ethical Leadership, Power, Authority, Status, Dominance, and Prestige
Ethical leadership becomes psychologically important partly because leaders often control outcomes that matter to others. That control can come from formal authority, control over rewards and sanctions, expertise, access to information, social connections, prestige, or the ability to coordinate collective action. These are sources and consequences of influence, not components of one undifferentiated thing.
Power is a capacity to influence outcomes or others' behavior. Authority is a socially or institutionally recognized right to direct action. Status is socially conferred rank or respect. Dominance obtains deference through threat, force, or intimidation; prestige obtains deference through valued competence or knowledge. Leadership can draw on any combination of these, but ethical leadership asks how moral standards enter conduct, communication, reinforcement, and decisions.
The difference has practical consequences. An ethical leader may use authority firmly, impose a justified sanction, or make an unpopular decision. Avoiding power is not the definition of ethical leadership. The relevant questions concern the legitimacy of the decision process, the moral standard applied, proportionality, consistency, stakeholder consequences, openness to challenge, and accountability. For the broader distinction, see Power and Leadership: Influence, Status, Authority, and Followership.
Power also expands the consequences of error and self-interest. That is why the bridge between ethical leadership and Power and Responsibility: Leadership, Moral Obligation, and the Burden of Control is substantive rather than decorative. The more consequential the leader's discretion, the more important review, transparency, conflict-of-interest controls, and meaningful channels for dissent become.
Ethical Leadership Compared With Neighboring Leadership Constructs
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership concerns influence processes such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Ethical content can appear within transformational leadership, especially in idealized influence, but transformation is not identical to ethics. A leader can motivate change effectively while the goals or methods remain morally contested.
Meta-analytic evidence shows strong overlap. Hoch and colleagues found high correlations of ethical and authentic leadership with transformational leadership and relatively little incremental variance across several outcomes, raising construct-redundancy concerns (Hoch et al., 2018). Ng and Feldman nevertheless found some incremental prediction by ethical leadership after controlling for transformational and transactional dimensions (Ng & Feldman, 2015). Both findings can be true because incremental validity depends on the criterion, measure, samples, and controls. See the dedicated Transformational Leadership article for the separate theory and evidence base.
Authentic leadership
Authentic leadership emphasizes self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and an internalized moral perspective in its best-known academic model. Ethical leadership emphasizes normatively appropriate conduct and moral management. They overlap because both contain moral and relational content, but authenticity introduces self-related processes that are not central to Brown's ethical-leadership definition. The constructs should therefore be compared rather than merged. See Authentic Leadership.
Servant leadership
Servant leadership begins from service to followers and stakeholders and has been operationalized through dimensions such as empowerment, humility, stewardship, helping followers grow, and putting followers first. Ethical behavior is often built into servant-leadership measures, creating predictable overlap. Lemoine, Hartnell, and Leroy's integrative review argued that ethical, authentic, and servant leadership can be differentiated partly by their underlying moral emphases while acknowledging significant theoretical and empirical redundancy (Lemoine et al., 2019). See Servant Leadership.
Charismatic leadership
Charisma concerns attributed exceptional qualities and influence, not moral validity. A leader can be perceived as charismatic without behaving ethically, and an ethical leader can be low in charisma. The same separation applies to effectiveness: perceived charisma can predict attraction, identification, and influence without proving that decisions are accurate, sustainable, or morally defensible. See Charismatic Leadership for the distinction between charisma as an attribution and leadership outcomes.
Responsible leadership
Responsible leadership typically broadens the unit of analysis beyond the leader–follower dyad toward responsibilities to multiple stakeholders. Ethical leadership can overlap substantially with this orientation, especially when decisions affect customers, communities, or institutions, but the constructs come from different literatures and emphasize different relationships. Treating them as interchangeable erases those theoretical differences.
Leadership and management
Ethical leadership and ethical management also need separation. Management concerns planning, coordination, staffing, monitoring, budgeting, role design, and formal organizational control; leadership concerns influence processes that can occur with or without a managerial title. A manager can create ethically important systems without being an emergent leader, while an informal leader can shape ethical norms without formal managerial authority. The full distinction is developed in Leadership vs Management.
Ethical Leadership Is Not the Opposite of Every Harmful Leadership Construct
A low ethical-leadership score does not automatically identify toxic leadership, destructive leadership, abusive supervision, or incompetence. These are different constructs. Destructive leadership is a broad research family concerning sustained leader behavior that harms followers, organizations, or both. Abusive supervision is a more specific follower perception of sustained hostile verbal or nonverbal supervisory behavior, excluding physical contact. Toxic leadership is used inconsistently across academic and popular literatures and often combines harmful behavior, personality assumptions, and organizational outcomes.
Simple incompetence is different again. A well-intentioned leader can make poor decisions because of weak expertise, flawed forecasting, bad coordination, or inadequate supervision. Ethical conduct does not guarantee strategic accuracy. Conversely, an effective operator can produce short-term results through coercive, deceptive, or exploitative practices. Leadership effectiveness and ethical leadership therefore require separate outcome criteria.
The strongest research practice is behaviorally specific. Instead of calling a disliked boss toxic, describe what occurred: humiliation, threats, arbitrary punishment, deception, retaliation against voice, favoritism, unsafe demands, resource withholding, or chronic nonresponse. Then identify the construct that actually matches the evidence. This protects scientific precision and avoids turning organizational psychology into informal diagnosis.
What Ethical Leadership Can and Cannot Tell Us About Personality
Personality can predict tendencies relevant to leadership, but a personality trait is not a leadership behavior. Walumbwa and Schaubroeck found agreeableness and conscientiousness associated with ethical-leadership ratings in their sample (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Mayer and colleagues also linked moral identity to ethical leadership in work units (Mayer et al., 2012). These findings concern probabilistic associations, not moral destiny.
Narcissistic traits are dimensional personality characteristics studied in nonclinical populations. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a clinical diagnosis requiring professional assessment and specific diagnostic criteria. Psychopathy is likewise used in several research traditions and measurement systems and should not be converted casually into a clinical label. Ethical-leadership ratings cannot diagnose either condition.
The same applies to the Dark Triad. Research constructs such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy can be studied as trait dimensions, but their presence or absence does not mechanically determine a leader's ethical conduct. Behavior emerges from traits, incentives, norms, opportunities, accountability structures, follower responses, and situational pressures. Scientific leadership analysis should therefore describe measured traits and observed behavior separately.
The Normative Problem: What Counts as Ethical?
The phrase normatively appropriate is useful because it recognizes that ethical leadership refers to standards rather than mere popularity. It is also incomplete because standards can conflict. A decision may improve aggregate welfare while violating a rule; honor a promise while imposing costs on third parties; protect confidentiality while reducing transparency; or treat everyone identically while ignoring unequal circumstances.
Lemoine, Hartnell, and Leroy showed that moral leadership theories can be connected to different philosophical emphases, which helps explain why apparently similar positive-leadership constructs are not identical (Lemoine et al., 2019). Ethical leadership research therefore benefits from naming the normative basis of a decision instead of treating the word ethical as self-validating.
Cross-cultural research adds another layer. Resick and colleagues found broad endorsement across cultures of several ethical-leadership characteristics, including character and integrity, altruism, collective motivation, and encouragement, while also identifying significant cultural variation in the degree of endorsement (Resick et al., 2006). Broad agreement on valued characteristics does not imply that all moral norms, communication styles, authority expectations, or acceptable sanctions are culturally identical.
Recent reviews continue to call for stronger cultural and methodological precision. The practical implication is straightforward: organizations should define standards explicitly, connect them to defensible principles and stakeholder obligations, and examine how those standards operate across contexts rather than assuming that a favorable leadership label settles the ethical question.
Followership and Ethical Culture: Why Leaders Are Not the Whole System
Leadership is relational. Followers interpret leaders, reward or resist them, copy behavior, provide or withhold information, enforce peer norms, and decide whether speaking up is safe. Ethical leadership therefore cannot be reduced to a leader transmitting morality downward to passive recipients.
The trickle-down studies are useful precisely because their results are more complicated than a slogan. Mayer and colleagues found evidence consistent with supervisory mediation between top-management ethical leadership and group outcomes (Mayer et al., 2009). Schaubroeck and colleagues found that ethical culture at multiple levels helped explain how influence moved through a large organization, with limited support for a simple cascade (Schaubroeck et al., 2012).
An ethical organization therefore requires more than a virtuous individual at the top. Recruitment, incentives, workload, reporting systems, conflict-of-interest rules, investigation procedures, promotion standards, data transparency, peer norms, and protection for dissent can all strengthen or weaken the behavioral signal sent by leaders. Ethical leadership works inside an institutional ecology.
Ethical Leadership and Accountability in Practice
Make standards operational
Values such as integrity, respect, fairness, and responsibility become useful when they are translated into decision rules, examples, escalation routes, and boundaries. A standard that cannot guide a difficult decision functions more like branding than governance.
Explain consequential decisions
Leaders do not need to disclose every confidential detail, but they can usually explain the relevant criteria, constraints, tradeoffs, and review process. Explanations support procedural fairness and allow followers to distinguish a principled disagreement from arbitrary power.
Create real two-way communication
Two-way communication means that followers can ask questions, challenge reasoning, identify risks, and report misconduct without the conversation itself becoming evidence of disloyalty. Listening is therefore behavior, not a personality compliment. If voice carries predictable punishment, the formal invitation to speak has little psychological value.
Align incentives with stated ethics
A system that rewards only speed, revenue, output, or target attainment can teach people to treat ethical safeguards as obstacles. Leaders strengthen ethical signals when performance systems include how results are achieved, not only whether numerical targets were reached.
Apply standards upward as well as downward
Ethical leadership loses credibility when rules bind followers but not leaders. Conflict-of-interest disclosure, independent review, documentation, recusal, auditability, and correction procedures are especially important when leaders exercise discretionary power. This is where ethical leadership meets the psychology of power and responsibility.
Measure behavior and outcomes separately
Organizations should avoid a single halo score. Measure perceived ethical leadership, actual incidents, reporting behavior, retention, voice, fairness, safety, decision quality, and performance with different data sources where possible. A favorable climate score does not prove the absence of misconduct, and a low number of reports can mean either few problems or fear of reporting.
Can Ethical Leadership Be Developed?
The construct includes learnable behaviors: communicating standards, explaining decisions, recognizing conflicts, responding consistently to misconduct, inviting voice, and accepting accountability. That makes development plausible. What the literature does not justify is a promise that a short workshop will reliably transform moral character or produce durable organizational outcomes.
The stronger development model is behavioral and systemic. Leaders can practice difficult conversations, structured ethical decision processes, transparent reasoning, fair reinforcement, and responses to dissent. Organizations can redesign incentives and reporting structures so that leaders are not rewarded for violating the standards they are asked to teach.
Development should also distinguish knowledge from behavior. Knowing a code, recognizing a dilemma, intending to act ethically, and actually behaving ethically under pressure are different outcomes. Research designs should measure them separately and, where possible, follow behavior over time rather than relying only on immediate self-report.
How to Evaluate Ethical Leadership Without Creating a Pseudodiagnostic Test
A scientifically responsible evaluation asks several kinds of questions rather than assigning a moral type. What does the leader actually do when interests conflict? Are standards communicated before problems occur? Are rewards and sanctions consistent? Can followers challenge decisions safely? Does the leader explain tradeoffs? Are conflicts of interest disclosed? Are similar cases treated similarly? Are errors corrected? Do independent outcomes support the favorable perception?
Validated scales such as the ELS, ELW, and later questionnaires can help researchers and organizations quantify perceptions, but interpretation should remain tied to the instrument's construct and evidence. A score is not a certificate that someone is a good person, an effective leader, or free from harmful behavior. It is one measurement within a broader assessment architecture.
Common Myths About Ethical Leadership
Myth: Ethical leaders are always nice
Ethical leadership can require refusing a request, enforcing a rule, reporting misconduct, changing incentives, or imposing a proportionate sanction. Interpersonal warmth and moral justification are different dimensions.
Myth: Ethical leaders are automatically effective
Ethical conduct can support trust and cooperation, but effectiveness also depends on competence, task design, resources, strategy, timing, follower capabilities, and context. Ethical leadership and leadership effectiveness correlate in some studies but remain distinct constructs.
Myth: Popular leaders are ethical leaders
Popularity is a social evaluation. Ethical leadership concerns conduct and moral management. Followers can admire charisma, competence, similarity, or status without having strong evidence about ethical behavior.
Myth: Compliance is the same as ethics
Rules matter, but ethical decisions can involve gaps, conflicts, discretionary choices, and stakeholder effects that compliance systems do not resolve. A leader who merely follows minimum legal requirements is not thereby demonstrating the full ethical-leadership construct.
Myth: A high ethical-leadership score proves causation
Most studies estimate associations. Even longitudinal evidence can leave unmeasured confounding, selection, reciprocal influence, and changing context. Mediation models identify statistically consistent pathways; they do not automatically prove the underlying causal sequence.
Myth: One universal leadership style solves ethical problems
Ethical leadership is not a universal recipe for all leadership tasks. Crisis coordination, technical decision-making, innovation, routine supervision, expert teams, and high-reliability environments impose different demands. The moral quality of leadership must be considered alongside task and situational requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is ethical leadership in psychology?
In organizational and leadership psychology, ethical leadership is a research construct describing leaders' normatively appropriate conduct and their active promotion of ethical conduct through communication, reinforcement, and decision-making. The most influential empirical model was developed by Brown, Treviño, and Harrison in 2005 (Brown et al., 2005).
Who developed ethical leadership theory?
The modern empirical construct is associated especially with Michael E. Brown and Linda K. Treviño, with David A. Harrison as coauthor of the foundational 2005 construct-development paper. Earlier work by Treviño, Laura Pincus Hartman, and Brown developed the moral person–moral manager distinction. Ethical questions in leadership are much older than this research program, so Brown and Treviño should be credited for a specific modern social-scientific construct, not for inventing the idea that leaders should act morally.
What are the main characteristics of ethical leadership?
Across the Brown–Treviño tradition and later measures, recurring elements include fair and honest conduct, credible example-setting, ethical communication, consistent reinforcement, attention to consequences, integrity, and accountable decision-making. Different instruments organize these elements differently, which is why characteristics should be tied to a named measure rather than presented as one universal checklist.
Why is ethical leadership important?
Meta-analyses associate ethical leadership with trust, favorable job attitudes, citizenship behavior, lower counterproductive behavior, and several performance-related outcomes (Ng & Feldman, 2015). Its importance also comes from leaders' ability to shape incentives, norms, and consequences. The strength of the evidence varies by outcome and design.
How is ethical leadership measured?
The best-known measure is Brown and colleagues' 10-item Ethical Leadership Scale. Other instruments include the multidimensional Ethical Leadership at Work questionnaire and Yukl and colleagues' Ethical Leadership Questionnaire. They measure related but not perfectly identical constructs, so scores should not be treated as interchangeable.
Is ethical leadership the same as transformational leadership?
No. They overlap strongly, especially around idealized influence and favorable follower perceptions, but transformational leadership focuses on motivation and transformation while ethical leadership foregrounds moral conduct and moral management. Meta-analytic work finds both substantial overlap and some criterion-specific incremental validity (Hoch et al., 2018).
Is ethical leadership the same as servant leadership?
No. Servant leadership centers service, follower development, stewardship, and putting followers first; ethical leadership centers normative conduct and its promotion. Measures overlap because both include moral and relational behaviors. The comparison is discussed in depth in Servant Leadership.
Does ethical leadership improve performance?
Ethical leadership is positively associated with several performance measures, but effect sizes and mechanisms vary. Trust, leader–member exchange, task significance, effort, identification, and ethical culture have all been studied as pathways. Because much of the evidence is nonexperimental, the safest conclusion is that ethical leadership is a meaningful correlate and plausible contributor to performance, not a guaranteed causal lever.
Can ethical leadership reduce unethical behavior?
Field and meta-analytic studies link ethical leadership with lower deviance and counterproductive behavior, while experiments show context-dependent effects. Ethical leadership can shape modeling, expectations, incentives, and perceived consequences, but misconduct also depends on opportunity, pressure, peer norms, rewards, monitoring, and institutional safeguards.
Does ethical leadership mean leaders should avoid power?
No. Leadership often requires using power. Ethical leadership concerns how influence and consequential control are exercised. Power can be used to protect, coordinate, allocate, sanction, or enable, and each use creates questions of legitimacy, proportionality, fairness, and accountability. See Power and Leadership and Power and Morality.
Can a leader be ethical but ineffective?
Yes. Ethical leadership does not guarantee technical expertise, strategy, forecasting, execution, or coordination. Conversely, a leader can achieve some performance outcomes through methods that followers judge unethical. Moral conduct and effectiveness are related criteria, not the same criterion.
What is the strongest criticism of ethical leadership research?
The strongest criticism is not that ethics is irrelevant. It is that the research construct often mixes behavior with favorable follower evaluations, overlaps with neighboring positive-leadership constructs, and relies heavily on designs that cannot establish causation. The concept-cleanup agenda developed by Banks and colleagues is the clearest modern statement of this problem (Banks et al., 2021).
Conclusion
Ethical leadership is one of the most influential moral-leadership constructs in contemporary organizational psychology. Its strength is that it treats ethics as something leaders enact and manage through visible behavior, communication, reinforcement, and decisions rather than as an invisible private virtue. The Brown–Treviño tradition made that idea measurable and generated a large empirical literature.
The evidence supports meaningful associations with trust, attitudes, citizenship behavior, lower counterproductive behavior, voice, and performance-related outcomes. It also supports a more demanding scientific conclusion: ethical leadership is entangled with transformational leadership, fairness, trust, leader–member exchange, culture, and other favorable evaluations; causal evidence is thinner than the correlational literature; and measurement choices change what researchers are actually studying.
The most useful application therefore combines moral clarity with methodological clarity. Define the standard. Observe behavior. Separate traits from actions, leadership from management, power from ethics, and emergence from effectiveness. Measure perceptions and outcomes independently where possible. Build accountability into the use of authority. Treat followers and organizational systems as active parts of the ethical environment. That approach preserves what is valuable in ethical-leadership research without turning the label into corporate mythology.
Related Articles
References
Banks, G. C., Fischer, T., Gooty, J., & Stock, G. (2021). Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(2), 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101471
Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2625-1
Belle, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2019). Do ethical leadership, visibility, external regulation, and prosocial impact affect unethical behavior? Evidence from a laboratory and a field experiment. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(3), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17721301
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
Chaiyasat, C., Petchsawang, P., Simha, A., & Williamson, P. (2026). An integrative literature review of ethical leadership studies and future research agenda: Insights from empirical research between 2020–2024. Public Integrity, 28(3), 494–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2025.2525727
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.007
Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148–187. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0121
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R. L., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0276
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). Ethical leadership: Meta-analytic evidence of criterion-related and incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 948–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038246
Peng, A. C., & Kim, D. (2020). A meta-analytic test of the differential pathways linking ethical leadership to normative conduct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(4), 348–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2427
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.627
Pletz, V., Tiberius, V., & Meyer, N. (2025). Ethical leadership: A bibliometric review and research framework with methodological implications. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 34, 2173–2186. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12754
Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-3242-1
Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., Dimotakis, N., & Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1053–1078. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0064
Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166057
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015848
Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811429352