Journal of Business Ethics

April 2014, Volume 121, Issue  1, pp 135–146

The Effects of Ethical Leadership and Abusive Supervision on Job Search

Behaviors in the Turnover Process

Abstract
Drawing upon the unfolding model of turnover and the dual-process theory of information
processing, we examined the roles which ethical leadership and abusive supervision play in the
turnover process. The central conclusion of this study is that ethical leadership influences job
satisfaction, which then influences intentions to quit, which then impacts job search behaviors.
Conversely, abusive supervision, which is the conceptual opposite of ethical leadership, has a
negative influence on job satisfaction with corresponding impacts on intentions to quit and job
search behavior. But, unlike ethical leadership, which does not directly lead to job search
behavior, abusive supervision can also directly make people so upset that they initiate job search
behaviors. Moreover, findings indicate that even low levels of abusive supervision can neutralize
high levels of ethical leadership. Implications for research and practice in human resource
management are discussed.

Keywords
LeadershipAbusive supervisionTurnoverJob satisfactionJob withdrawal

Introduction
Despite the general increase in the labor supply in recent years, most human resource managers are still faced with the unique
challenge of cutting costs while simultaneously increasing innovation. As such, understanding the causes of voluntary employee
turnover remains an important topic, as the exit of a single employee could represent costs in the range of one and a half times the
employee’s annual salary (Cleveland 2005). Costs of recruiting and retraining a replacement, as well as the costs associated with
the lost productivity of the employee, all contribute to the total cost of voluntary turnover.

Because of these costs, drivers of voluntary turnover and their interrelationship to one another represent variables of interest for
scholars and practitioners (Benson et al. 2004). While research has examined the relationship of unemployment rates
(Trevor 2001), attitudes toward money (Tang et al. 2000), gender (Lyness and Judiesch 2001), racial composition (Zatzick et
al. 2003), and the use of realistic job previews (Phillips 1998) with respect to voluntary turnover, other research has shown that
employee attitudes regarding their jobs (Mitchell et al. 2001; Freund 2005; Griffeth et al. 2000; Harter et al. 2002) and their
leaders (Dupre and Day 2007; Spreitzer and Mishra 2002) are key variables of interest in understanding voluntary turnover.

Although the role of leadership is well established in turnover research (see Holtom et al. 2008), most of the research has focused
upon general supervisory support (Griffeth et al. 2000). Research in leadership, though, has advanced well beyond supervisory
support behaviors (Bass and Bass 2008), and examining the impact of newer leadership theories on the turnover process may lead
to additional insights into this important topic. For example, one question might be the following: Do newer approaches to
leadership function in the same way as traditional supervisory support? One way to answer such questions is by examining the
impact of two or more leadership approaches simultaneously. In this paper, we examine the joint impact of ethical leadership
(Brown et al. 2005) and abusive supervision (Tepper 2000) on the turnover process. We investigated these two leadership
constructs because in some ways they represent “important, but conceptually opposite” leadership styles, as ethical leadership
emphasizes normatively appropriate behavior which has been shown to have positive outcomes, while abusive supervision
emphasizes normatively inappropriate behavior which has been shown to have negative outcomes. While these two constructs may
indeed be conceptual opposites, we suspect that they are not empirical opposites and, as such, may affect the turnover process in
different ways. Our suspicion is informed by research in social psychology (e.g., Rozin and Royzman 2001) which demonstrates
that humans tend to give greater weight to negative events (in this case, abusive supervision) than to positive events (in this case,
ethical leadership).

We begin the paper by briefly reviewing the extant literature on voluntary turnover, focusing on the traditional, job satisfaction-
based linkage model (Holtom et al. 2008) and the unfolding model (Lee and Mitchell 1994). We then review the research about
 ethical leadership and abusive supervision with a particular emphasis on how they are functionally similar (i.e., both affecting job
satisfaction) and different (i.e., low levels of abusive behavior may be much more influential than even high levels of ethical
leadership) with respect to the turnover process. We test the hypotheses with data from 939 employees across multiple
organizations. We conclude with a discussion of the results, limitations, and implications for research and practice.

Theoretic Framework
Turnover Cognitions and Behaviors
Much of the historic research concerning voluntary turnover has centered on the role of job satisfaction and job alternatives as key
antecedents along with a variety of moderators (cf., Griffeth et al. 2000; Holtom et al. 2008; Lee and Mitchell 1994). Indeed, as
Holtom et al. (2008) pointed out in their review article, the study of job satisfaction provides the primary grounding for most
approaches to understanding turnover. Holtom et al. (2008) also pointed out that most traditional research has posited, and
subsequently supported, a model of turnover in which individual differences (such as personality), contextual variables (such as
the nature of the job and organizational culture), and attitudes (such as job satisfaction) initiate a series of events which result in
actual voluntary turnover. Specifically, individual differences, contextual variables, and attitudes lead to withdrawal cognitions
(including turnover intentions), which in turn lead to withdrawal behaviors (including searching for another job), which in turn
lead to withdrawal (including absenteeism and lateness) and finally turnover (actually leaving the job) (see Holtom et al. 2008, for
a complete description). The current investigation extends this theory by focusing on two contextual variables (ethical leadership
and abusive supervision) which lead to one attitude (job satisfaction), which leads to withdrawal cognition (turnover intentions),
which leads to withdrawal behavior (searching for other jobs).

Lee et al. (1999) pointed out that most turnover studies have been conducted by first observing employees’ attitudes and
cognitions (i.e., job satisfaction and alternatives consideration) at Time 1, followed by recording those people who leave at Time 2.
Researchers then perform statistical analysis comparing the leavers and stayers to draw conclusions. However, these same authors
suggest further that “far less knowledge is gained about the reasons and processes involved with leaving” through this research
design (Lee et al. 1999, p. 450).

As an alternative to this sequential linkage approach, Lee and Mitchell (1994) proposed the unfolding model of voluntary turnover.
The theory puts forward the notion that leavers appear to follow one of five psychologic and behavioral paths (or decision paths)
when quitting. Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) model is one of the best known and studied attempts to explain the ways employees may
arrive at a decision to leave. The major components of the unfolding model are a shock (a particular event, such as an unsolicited
job offer or a company merger, which jars an employee to reconsider his or her job), a script (a preset response to a possible
shock), an image violation (a violation of the self-image that one desires with respect to the job), an evaluation of job satisfaction,
and a search for alternatives. The five decision paths are briefly described as follows (Lee et al. 1999):
 Decision Path 1: A shock triggers the script which is the preexisting action plan. An individual who has encountered the
shock leaves immediately without searching or consideration of alternatives in accordance with the script. For example, an
accountant has promised herself that if she is ever asked to falsify information, she will quit immediately. One day, her boss asks
her to falsify information. Remembering her promise to herself, the accountant resigns on the spot.
 Decision Path 2: A shock leads to image violation which triggers an individual to reevaluate the current job and his/her
organizational attachment. The individual then quits without searching or consideration of alternatives. For example, a recent
college graduate decides to accept a job with a particular company because of its environmentally conscious reputation. One day
the company announces that it will no longer use renewable energy for its vehicles because of cost increases. The recent graduate
does not wish to be associated with such a company and quits.
 Decision Path 3: A shock leads to image violation which triggers an individual to not only reevaluate the current job and
his/her organizational attachment but also initiate the search and evaluation of alternatives. Continuing with the previous
example, the recent graduate begins to think that he may not like being associated with a company which would change its policies
so abruptly and decides to begin looking for a new job.
 Decision Path 4a: Rather than a shock, low job satisfaction level is the trigger that leads the individual to leave without
searching for alternatives. For example, an employee wakes up one morning, decides that he is not happy in his job, and quits
immediately.
 Decision Path 4b: Rather than a shock, low job satisfaction level is the trigger that leads an individual to reevaluate the
current job and his/her organizational attachment, but he or she also initiates the search and evaluation of alternatives. For
example, an employee sits through yet another useless meeting, returns to her office, and begins to search online for a new job.

Note that the level of job satisfaction is irrelevant in Paths 1 and 2 and partially relevant in Path 3.

As an extension of the traditional, job satisfaction-based models of turnover, Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) unfolding model has
proven to be quite robust in explaining how turnover occurs. Holtom et al. (2008) reported that the unfolding model did an
excellent job in describing the experiences of over 90 % of people in published studies. Recent research, though, has proven to be
somewhat less robust and has demonstrated the need to examine other possible paths as part of the unfolding model (Holt et
al. 2007; Niederman et al. 2007). Perhaps one reason for these somewhat mixed results is that the model and its subsequent
research have not addressed the issue of why these paths unfold as they do. For example, in a study of Information Technology
professionals, Niederman et al. (2007) found that 59 % of the 124 people studied followed one of two decision paths which are
almost identical to one another with the only difference being the presence (44 %) or absence (15 %) of a shock. This finding
prompted Niederman et al. (2007) to call for more research as to the nature of shocks themselves. In other words, what is it about
a shock which sometimes initiates a script enactment (as in Path 1) or an image violation (as in Path 2) which leads to the (more or
less) immediate decision to quit, while at other times it initiates a period of evaluation and reflection (as in Path 3)? Moreover, are
there events other than a shock which can initiate a particular path? We believe that psychologic research about dual-process
theories of information processing can help to answer these questions.

Dual-Process Information Processing

Dual-process theories of information processing (Cameron and Leventhal 2003; Chaiken and Trope 1999; Sloman 1996) suggest
that information can be processed under two modes of thinking. Epstein (1994, p. 710) provides a concise definition, noting, “…
people apprehend reality in two fundamentally different ways, one variously labeled intuitive, automatic, natural, nonverbal,
narrative, and experiential, and the other analytical, deliberative, verbal, and rational.” According to Slovic et al. (2005), intuitive
decision making can be described as a relatively effortless system that relies on prior knowledge, judgmental heuristics, immediate
experience, and affect in order to quickly assess the decision choices. In essence, intuitive decision making is “going with a gut
instinct.” Non-intuitive decision making, on the other hand, is a slower, effortful, resource-dependent, rule-based system that
monitors and updates intuitive assessments in light of information that the intuition neglected to consider. In essence, non-
intuitive decision making is “deliberately weighing the pros and cons.” A point worth noting here is that these systems are not
mutually exclusive. To some extent, people may use elements of both systems in parallel.

The dual-process theory may be used to help explain why persons experience events according to a particular path in the unfolding
model. We surmise that in Paths 1 and 2 of the unfolding model, shocks which cause almost immediate turnover do so because
they trigger an intuitive decision, whether via acquiring new knowledge (such as “my boss would ask me to do something illegal”),
as described in Path 1, or via heuristic (such as “I will not work for a company which does not share my values”), as described in
Path 2. Slovic et al. (2005) suggested that the level of affective salience (the degree to which an event prompts an emotional
response) of the information will also predict the system used to process the information. Specifically, information with high
affective salience tends to trigger the intuitive system. In their review of over 1,200 “leavers,” Holtom et al. (2008) found that
shocks overwhelmingly had an emotional valence (either positive or negative, as opposed to neutral) associated with them; in
other words, shocks are events which are high in affective salience. Thus, the intrinsic affective salience of the shocks in Paths 1
and 2 is also likely to cause an intuitive decision. In contrast, Slovic et al. (2005) suggested that information with low affective
salience should trigger the non-intuitive system. Thus, in Path 4b (in which there is no shock and hence low affective salience), low
job satisfaction initiates a non-intuitive decision: a slow, deliberate, rational search for alternatives (e.g., for other job
opportunities). Path 3, in which there is both a (high affective salience) shock and (low affective salience) job dissatisfaction, likely
initiates both the intuitive and non-intuitive systems.

Based on the insights from the dual-process theory and the importance of affective salience, it is conceivable that events with high
affective salience are the actual triggers for Paths 1, 2, and 3, and events with low affective significance are the triggers for Path 4.
To be sure, shocks are prime examples of events with high affective salience. However, it might also be possible that other
phenomena with high affective salience might initiate one of the “shock” paths in the unfolding model. In particular, in the
following section, we investigate the potential role that opposite types of leadership (i.e., ethical and abusive) might play in the
turnover process by examining their potential affective salience.

Leadership
As employees spend a significant portion of their organizational lives with their supervisors and supervisors have a direct impact
on their day-to-day work (Oldham and Cummings 1996), it is of little surprise that strong relationships have been found between
employee attitudes regarding their supervisor and voluntary turnover (Griffeth et al. 2000; Aquino et al. 1997; DeConinck and
Stilwell 1997). Previous research has shown that “positive” forms of leadership such as high leader–member exchange (Graen et
al. 1982) can lead to lower voluntary turnover. Similarly, supervisors can be integral to the success of employees in completing
their tasks effectively (Greenhaus et al. 1990) and therefore decrease employee frustration and desire to seek other employment.
Often, the effects of supportive leadership on the turnover process are fully mediated by job satisfaction (e.g., Dupre and
Day 2007). In contrast, Tepper (2000) found evidence that a negative form of leadership, abusive supervision, was positively
related to intentions to quit. To our knowledge, though, no prior research has examined positive and negative forms of leadership
simultaneously with respect to the turnover process. We do so below by focusing on ethical leadership and abusive supervision.

Ethical Leadership
Brown et al. (2005) proposed the construct of ethical leadership, defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate
conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-
way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown et al. 2005, p. 120). This definition includes both traits and
behaviors of the leader (i.e., being honest, caring, and principled individuals who make balanced decisions), dubbed the moral
person aspect, and proactive behaviors that encourage follower ethical behavior (i.e., discussing ethical standards with followers
and offering appropriate rewards and punishments of ethical/unethical behavior), dubbed the moral manager aspect by Brown
and Treviño (2006). Ethical leadership shares several important characteristics with other leadership constructs (e.g., integrity—
see Palanski and Yammarino 2009), but ethical leadership’s moral manager aspect differentiates it from other approaches by
making it more transactional in nature (Brown and Treviño 2006).
Although the construct and its accompanying scale (Brown et al. 2005) are relatively new, emerging research (e.g., De Hoogh and
Den Hartog 2008; Detert et al. 2007; Mayer et al. 2009; Neubert et al. 2009; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009) is beginning to
demonstrate the usefulness of the ethical leadership construct for research and application. For example, Brown et al. (2005)
found that ethical leadership was correlated with leader consideration, interactional fairness, leader honesty, and idealized
influence. Perhaps, more importantly, Brown et al. (2005) also found evidence that ethical leadership predicts important follower
outcomes including follower satisfaction with the leader, perceived leader effectiveness, follower willingness to exert extra effort
on the job, and follower willingness to report problems to management. Further, Neubert et al. (2009) demonstrated that ethical
leadership interacts with interactional justice to foster individual follower perceptions of a more ethical climate.

To our knowledge, no research has examined the relationship between ethical leadership and turnover cognitions or behaviors.
However, given its conceptual similarity to other positive leadership constructs (e.g., leader–member exchange) which have been
shown to have an effect on the turnover process, we would expect that ethical leadership too would have an effect on the process.
Moreover, nascent research has established positive relationships between ethical leadership and well-known antecedents to
turnover cognitions, including follower job satisfaction (r = .44, p < .01) (Neubert et al. 2009).

An interesting aspect of ethical behavior and, by extension, ethical leadership is that a certain level of ethical behavior is expected.
For example, the research on psychologic contracts (Rousseau 1995) shows that ethical conduct is expected implicitly in most
relationships. As a result, much of the time ethical behavior goes relatively unnoticed until an unethical event of some sort
prompts an evaluation. To put it another way, most people do not get excited because their boss acts ethically. As such, ethical
leadership is arguably low in affective salience and turnover-related cognitions, and behaviors which are driven by ethical
leadership are likely to be rational and function according to the rational, non-intuitive system. Thus, we would expect ethical
leadership to function according to the traditional linkage model (i.e., leadership → attitude → withdrawal
cognitions → withdrawal behaviors). In the unfolding model of leadership, we would expect ethical leadership to initiate Path 4
(which encompasses the traditional model). Specifically, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1
Ethical leadership is negatively related to job search behaviors, and this effect is fully mediated by job satisfaction followed by
turnover intentions.

Abusive Supervision
In contrast to research which focuses on positive, effective forms of leadership (e.g., ethical leadership), a body of research has
emerged over the last 20 years which examines the dark or destructive side of leadership. Most of the work in this stream of
research has centered on the concept of abusive supervision, which encompasses “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which
their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact”
(Tepper 2000, p. 178). In his review article, Tepper (2007) notes that abusive supervision is an important topic of study, as
evidenced by its effect on estimated 13.6 % of U.S. workers and its cost to U.S. corporations of over $23 billion per year.

In many ways, abusive supervision is a converse construct to ethical leadership. While ethical leadership and abusive supervision
both involve a sustained pattern of behavior, ethical leadership concerns normatively appropriate conduct, while abusive
supervision involves normatively inappropriate conduct. This intuitive relationship has been supported empirically as Brown et al.
(2005) demonstrated a negative correlation (r = −.61, p < .001) between ethical leadership and abusive supervision. From an
associative standpoint, ethical leadership has been shown to have a positive association with follower citizenship behaviors (Brown
et al. 2005), follower organizational commitment (Walumbwa et al. 2008), and follower job satisfaction (Neubert et al. 2009),
while abusive leadership has been shown to have a negative relationship with follower citizenship behaviors (Zellars et al. 2002),
follower organizational commitment (Schat et al. 2006), and follower job satisfaction (r = −.27, p < .01) (Tepper et al. 2004).

Previous research has demonstrated that abusive supervision is positively related to intentions to quit (Schat et al.  2006;
Tepper 2000), but this research has not investigated how it does so. Because of its central role in driving intentions to quit, job
(dis)satisfaction may mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and intentions to quit, especially since prior research
has already demonstrated that abusive supervision negatively impacts job satisfaction (Tepper et al. 2004). By extension, we would
also expect that abusive supervision may impact job search behaviors via mediation through job satisfaction and subsequent
intentions to quit (in other words, following the traditional path).

In addition to a mediated impact though, we suspect that abusive supervision may also directly impact job search behaviors.
Previous research has demonstrated that abusive supervision can cause emotional distress which results in psychologic distress
(Tepper 2000), somatic health complaints (Duffy et al. 2002), job strain (Harris et al. 2005), problem drinking (Bamberger and
Bacharach 2006), lack of affective commitment (Aryee et al. 2007), and emotional exhaustion (Grandey et al. 2007). Thus, there is
evidence that abusive supervision is associated with high affective salience. This affective salience may trigger an emotional,
intuitive response which might cause a person to bypass the evaluation of job satisfaction and cognitions about quitting and
instead focus on finding another job as soon as possible. Taken together, the effect on job satisfaction coupled with the direct effect
on turnover intentions would indicate that both the intuitive and non-intuitive decision-making systems are activated by abusive
supervision. In Lee et al.’s (1999) revised unfolding model, this situation (an affective event followed immediately by a search for
other jobs) would represent Path 3 of the model in which a shock initiates a reevaluation of the current job as well as a search for
alternatives. Thus, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2
Abusive supervision is positively related to job search behaviors, but this effect is only partially mediated by job satisfaction
followed by turnover intentions such that there remains a direct effect of abusive supervision on job search behaviors.

Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Abusive Supervision

Thus far, we have surmised that ethical leadership and abusive supervision function in much the same way, but with opposite signs
(with the caveat that abusive supervision may also have a direct effect on job search behaviors due to its high affective salience).
However, the high affective salience of abusive supervision may have an additional effect beyond providing a shock which prompts
a person to begin looking for a new job. More specifically, abusive supervision causes emotions which have a high negative valence,
and research in social psychology (Rozin and Royzman 2001) has suggested that humans have a negativity bias which causes us to
give greater weight to negative entities (events, personal actions, or traits). In other words, negative events can have consequences
which far outweigh the consequences resulting from positive events of the same magnitude.

Based on this insight, the relationship between ethical leadership and abusive supervision might be more complex than simply
being “equal, but opposite.” One way to examine this relationship is by considering possible combinations of the two constructs, as
one would in a 2 × 2 matrix (high and low ethical leadership and high and low abusive supervision, respectively), as we do in the
following paragraphs.

First, the combination of low ethical leadership and low abusive supervision is relatively straightforward. For example, a very
directive, task-oriented manager may display neither ethical conduct nor abusive behavior, while still performing effectively.
Similarly, by definition, a laissez-faire leader would display neither ethical nor abusive behavior. Still, given that leadership is
fundamentally about interpersonal relationships, over the long term, it is somewhat difficult to imagine a leader displaying no
ethical or abusive conduct of any sort. Thus, we would expect such cases to be few in number and of relatively little practical
importance.

Second, the combination of low ethical leadership and high abusive supervision is also relatively straightforward. Given that
ethical leadership consists of normatively appropriate conduct while abusive supervision consists of normatively inappropriate
conduct, it would be very consistent for a leader to be very abusive and not very ethical. This combination of behaviors is further
supported by the aforementioned correlation between the two constructs (r = −.61) in the Brown et al. (2005) studies, as well as
the aforementioned opposite effects on follower citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. As we
have hypothesized above (Hypothesis 2), in such cases, we would expect that the high abusive supervision would drive both low
job satisfaction as well as more immediate direct actions, such as searching for a new job.

Third, the combination of high ethical leadership and low abusive supervision is potentially very interesting. At first glance, one
might make a case that this combination could exist for the same reasons as outlined above for the low ethical leadership/high
abusive supervision condition (i.e., that such a combination would be consistent). However, as Tepper (2007) pointed out, even
low levels of abusive supervision can have serious consequences. These findings, coupled with the aforementioned social
psychology research which demonstrates the inordinate power of negative events, may indicate that abusive supervision should
not be considered in terms of high or low, but rather in terms of presence or absence. Specifically, with respect to leadership,
perhaps even a single instance of abusive action (i.e., abusive supervision) can have consequences which far outweigh multiple
instances of positive action (i.e., ethical leadership). If this reasoning holds, then even high levels of ethical leadership will be
overshadowed by very low levels of abusive supervision. Further, if such is the case, the fourth combination (high ethical
leadership and high abusive supervision) would likely follow the same pattern because abusive behavior is present.

The potential that even a small amount of abusive behavior could have such large effects would be a further indication that abusive
supervision can act as a shock. Thus, with respect to the turnover process, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 3a
Even low levels of abusive supervision neutralize the effects of high levels of ethical leadership on job search behaviors as mediated
through job satisfaction followed by intentions to quit.

Hypothesis 3b
These same low levels of abusive supervision are positively related to job search behaviors, both directly and indirectly through job
satisfaction followed by intentions to quit.
Method
Sample and Procedure
Alumni of a large Midwestern United States university who were business owners, senior managers, or partners in larger firms
were recruited for research on leadership and organizational behavior. Those who participated agreed to provide email addresses
to and allow researchers to disseminate the instruments electronically to employees in their firms. Based on these contacts, 1,845
people were invited to participate, and 1,319 completed the initial survey for a response rate of 71.46 %. Requirements for
participation were being age 18 or older, working full time, and working under a direct manager/supervisor. Given the reliance on
validated survey instruments for data collection, those who consented to participate in the study were sampled twice. Specifically,
data collection was separated into two time sessions separated by 7–14 days to help reduce common method bias as recommended
by Podsakoff et al. (2003). At Time 1, participants completed the predictor and demographic variable instruments (ethical
leadership, abusive supervision, and demographics). At Time 2, they completed the criterion portion of the study which included
job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and job search behaviors. Time 1 and Time 2 data were matched with the participants’ email
address and a randomly generated seven digit passcode. Following this procedure, all identifying information (e.g., email) was
deleted from the dataset, consistent with the informed consent form which committed to confidentiality in responses. There was
an 18 % mortality rate for participants between Time 1 and Time 2 with a total of 939 participants completing all instruments.
Overall, the age of the sample ranged from 20 to 81 years with a mean of 40.7 (SD 13.9). Tenure with the current job held ranged
from 1 to 45 years with a mean of 8.62 (SD 9.4). There were 533 males, 404 females, and two did not indicate gender. The sample
included all ethnicities, but was mostly comprised of White and Asian individuals. Participants ranged in level in their organization
with the largest groups comprised of professional/administrative (19 %), mid-level management (12 %), customer service (8 %),
skilled trades (6 %), and clerical (6 %).

Measures
Perceptions of ethical leadership were measured by Brown et al.’s (2005) ten-item instrument (Time 1). Participants completed
instruments with their immediate supervisor as the referent. Example items are “My supervisor discusses business ethics or values
with employees,” “My supervisor sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics”, and “My supervisor
determines success not just by results but by the way they are attained.” This instrument demonstrated adequate internal
reliability (α = .94).

Abusive supervision was measured by Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision scale (Time 1). Items begin with the phrase “My boss”
and include stems such as “Ridicules me,” “Gives me the silent treatment,” “Invades my privacy,” and “Breaks promises he/she
makes” (α = .90). All leadership items are on a frequency scale of 1–5 with 1 being “hardly ever, if ever” and 5 being “frequently, if
not always.” This anchoring is consistent with other leadership instruments rating behaviors.

Three criterion variables were measured in the second wave of data collection using established instruments. The attitudinal
instruments were measured on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The job satisfaction
instrument used three items from Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job diagnostic survey previously used by Judge and Bono (2001)
(Time 2). A sample item from this instrument is ‘‘Generally speaking, I am satisfied with my job” (α = .88). Turnover intentions
(α = .94) (Time 2) were measured with a five-item scale (Crossley et al. 2002) that was designed to avoid content overlap with
measures of job search behaviors and job attitudes (Tett and Meyer 1993). Participants responded to the following items: “I intend
to leave this organization soon,” “I plan to leave this organization in the next little while,” “I will quit this organization as soon as
possible,” “I do not plan on leaving this organization soon” (reverse scored), and “I may leave this organization before too long.”

While previous research has typically assessed cognitive aspects of job search intentions, often at the same time as cognitive
ratings of intentions to quit, the present study assessed behavioral manifestations of search intention via the six-item preparatory
job search scale developed by Blau (1994) (Time 2). Participants were asked to indicate how much time they had spent on job
search activities, such as revising their resume, applying to other jobs, and interviewing (α = .89) on a scale from 1 to 5 ranging
from 1 (hardly ever, if ever) to 5 (frequently, if not always).

All items were analyzed with a confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood techniques in Mplus software. Each item
was fit to its respective latent variable (e.g., all ethical leadership items fit to a latent ethical leadership variable). Analysis revealed
a good fit to the data for the measurement model (χ2 = 2,158 (df = 698), p < .01, CFI = .98, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04). Based on
this fit, we proceeded to test the hypotheses using the full measurement and path model in structural equation modeling (SEM).

Analysis
To conduct hypothesis tests, basic SEM using maximum likelihood techniques was used. SEM was appropriate in this case as both
measurement properties (e.g., confirmatory factor analysis) could be conducted at the same time as the structural paths. Further,
each of the paths (e.g., hypothesis tests) can be conducted simultaneously rather than stepwise in regression analyses.
To derive the structural equation model, all items were entered into Mplus SEM software. Each of the items was set to be reflective
of the appropriate latent variable. For example, the ethical leadership items were set to be reflective of an underlying latent ethical
leadership construct. This process was conducted for each latent variable. Next, the structure of the model was set to be consistent
with the hypotheses in order to ascertain the extent to which the data fit the model (e.g., was the structure of the model and
hypotheses consistent with what the actual data demonstrated). In this model, all items significantly loaded on their respective
latent factor at .6 or greater. We tested Hypotheses 1 and 2 using the full usable sample (n = 939). For the tests of Hypotheses 3a
and 3b, in order to focus on high ethical leadership, we identified those cases in which ethical leadership was rated at a 4 or better
(on a scale of 1–5). To test the assertion that even low levels of abusive supervision could have an impact, we further divided this
subset of leaders who displayed high ethical leadership into cases (n = 215) in which the leaders also displayed no abusive
supervision at all (in other words, their score for abusive supervision = 1) and into cases (n = 155) in which the leaders also
displayed a low level of abusive supervision (the score for abusive supervision was greater than one, but less than or equal to two
on a scale of 1–5).

Results
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for the entire usable sample can be seen in Table 1. Results from the
structural equation model can be seen in Fig. 1. Generally speaking, correlations were consistent with hypotheses in the
hypothesized direction. The structural equation model fit the data well according to Hu and Bentler’s (1999) cutoff criteria with a
CFI = .94; SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04, (χ2 = 2404.27, p < .01). Further, the variance predicted in the criterion variables was as
follows: R2 job satisfaction = .19; R2 turnover intentions = .50; R2 job search behaviors = .43; all statistically significant at p < .001.
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of study variables

  Mea SD 1 2 3 4 5
n .
1. Ethical 3.69 .79 (.94        
leadership )
2. Abusive 1.50 .68 −.61 (.90      
supervisio )
n
3. 4.01 .78 .37 −.33 (.88    
Satisfactio )
n
4. 2.49 1.4 −.32 .27 −.65 (.94  
Turnover 5 )
intentions
5. Job 1.97 .79 −.23 .27 −.44 .61 (.88
search )
behaviors
N = 939
Correlations significant at p < .001
Fig. 1
Structural equation model. N = 939, all numbered paths significant at p < .01, R  job satisfaction = .19, turnover intentions = .50,
2

job search behaviors = .43, χ  = 2404.269 (df = 702), p < .01, CFI = .94, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04

2

Hypothesis 1 predicted that a path between ethical leadership and job search behaviors would be fully mediated by job satisfaction
and turnover intentions. As hypothesized, ethical leadership is significantly related to job satisfaction (β = .31, p < .01), job
satisfaction is significantly related to turnover intentions (β = −.61, p < .01), and turnover intentions are significantly related to job
search behaviors (β = .68, p < .01). Thus, consistent with Lee et al. (1999), decision Path 4, and as hypothesized, we found full
support for Hypothesis 1. The effect of ethical leadership on job search behaviors appears to be manifest through job satisfaction
and turnover intentions.

Hypothesis 2 with abusive supervision was similar to Hypothesis 1 in that it predicted a relationship between abusive supervision
and job search behaviors, but through the mechanisms of job satisfaction (or rather, dissatisfaction) and turnover intentions.
However, it departs from Hypothesis 1 in that in Hypothesis 2, there remains a direct path from abusive supervision to job search
behaviors. As seen in Fig. 1, abusive supervision is related to job satisfaction (β = −.21, p < .01), as previously stated job
satisfaction is related to turnover intentions (β = −.61, p < .01) and turnover intentions are related to job search behaviors
(β = .60, p < .01). However, what is unique in the case of abusive supervision is that there remains a direct path to job search
behaviors (β = .22, p < .01). Thus, we found full support for Hypothesis 2.

In order to better determine the fit of the hypothesized model to the data, a series of model comparisons were done using
χ2 difference tests and a qualitative assessment of the fit indices. Four comparison models were compared to the hypothesized
model, each model addressing a separate potentially problematic issue with the data. First, we tested the hypothesized model, but
included paths which were supposed to be non-significant in order to provide a more complete test (specifically, we also included
ethical leadership → intentions to quit, ethical leadership → job search behaviors, job satisfaction → job search behaviors, and
abusive supervision → intentions to quit). Although this model is more fully saturated, results revealed no better model fit than the
hypothesized model. Second, in order to examine in greater detail the role of common method variance, we set a model where all
items at Time 1 loaded on to a “Time 1” factor and likewise for Time 2 items. As seen in Table 2, the hypothesized model performed
better than the common method (and time) model. Third, a model with an overall “leadership” factor comprised of ethical and
abusive leadership predicting the criterion variables was used. This model did not fit the data as well as the hypothesized model.
Finally, a fourth comparison model positioned job satisfaction as an additional distal outcome with job search behaviors and
intentions to quit rather than a mediator. Results from the model comparison also suggest that the hypothesized model was
empirically superior to this comparison model overall, suggesting job satisfaction is better understood as a partial mediator than
simply an additional distal outcome. Thus, overall, the hypothesized model emerged as fitting the data the best.
Table 2
Comparison of a hypothesized model to alternative models

Models Factors χ d Δχ ( C RMS SR

2 2

f df) F EA MR
I
Hypothe   2,4 7   . .05 .04
sized 04 0 9
model 2 4
Alternati Same as 2,8 6 584 . .04 .06
ve model hypothesize 88 9 (−12 9
1 d model, 0 ) 5
but also
Models Factors χ d Δχ ( C RMS SR
2 2

f df) F EA MR
I
included
test of all
non-
significant
paths which
were related
to the
hypotheses
(e.g., job
satisfaction 
→ job
search
behaviors)
Alternati A common 6,2 7 3351 . .09 .07
ve model method 39 0 (−1) 79
2 model 1 *
where all
items at
Time 1 load
on a “Time
1” factor
and items at
Time 2 load
on a “Time
2” factor
Alternati A model 4,5 6 1679 . .08 .13
ve model where 67 9 (−7) 8
3 abusive and 5 * 6
ethical
leadership
items create
a single
“leadership”
latent
predictor
predicting
the model
as
hypothesize
d
Alternati A model 3,2 6 323 . .06 .12
 Models Factors χ d Δχ ( C RMS SR
2 2

f df) F EA MR
I
ve model where job 11 9 (−10 9
4 satisfaction 2 )* 0
is listed as a
third
criterion
and NOT a
mediator
* Significant at p < .001

In order to test Hypotheses 3a and 3b, we tested two separate models, one with no abusive supervision (n = 215) and the other
with low levels of abusive supervision (n = 155). The results represented in Fig. 2 are for cases of high ethical leadership and no
abusive supervision and demonstrate results consistent with the test of Hypothesis 1 (i.e., that high ethical leadership leads to high
job satisfaction, which in turn leads to lower intentions to quit and job search behaviors). The results represented in Fig.  3 are for
cases of high ethical leadership and low levels of abusive supervision. In support of Hypothesis 3a, results show that when low
levels of abusive supervision occur, the path from ethical leadership to job satisfaction becomes non-significant. Similarly, in
support of Hypothesis 3b, results also show that even these low levels of abusive supervision have similar effects to those which
were hypothesized in Hypothesis 2 (i.e., direct effects on job search behaviors and indirect effects through job satisfaction followed
by intentions to quit).

Fig. 2
Structural equation model of high ethical leadership and no abusive supervision. N = 215, all numbered paths significant
at p < .01, χ  = 551.57 (df = 272), p < .01, CFI = .96, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .05
2

Fig. 3
Structural equation model of high ethical leadership and low abusive supervision. N = 155, all numbered paths significant
at p < .01 (except as noted), χ  = 553.45 (df = 272), p < .01, CFI = .94, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .05
2

Discussion
Theoretic and Practical Implications
The results of this study indicated that both ethical leadership and abusive supervision had a significant impact on job search
behaviors, but the influential mechanisms were quite different. Ethical leadership followed a rather traditional process from
ethical leadership through higher job satisfaction, to lower turnover intentions, and ultimately to lower job search behaviors. Such
a series of relationships helps to explain Path 4 in the unfolding model of turnover in which low job satisfaction is the primary
cause of job turnover.

Similarly, employees who indicated that their supervisors displayed abusive behaviors were less satisfied with their jobs, leading to
higher turnover intentions and more job search behaviors. However, there remained a direct path from abusive supervision to job
search behaviors, a finding which is consistent with abusive supervision acting as shock. Moreover, the finding that even low levels
of abusive supervision can neutralize the effects of high ethical leadership is further evidence that abusive supervision acts as a
shock. The direct and mediated effects of abusive supervision are consistent with Path 3 of the unfolding model, providing insight
as to why leavers may follow this particular path.

These results are consistent with the results of other studies. For example, the relationship between ethical leadership and follower
job satisfaction (r = .37) is similar to the relationship found by Neubert et al. (2009) (r = .44). Likewise, the correlation between
abusive supervision and follower job satisfaction (r = −.33) is similar to the relationship reported by Tepper et al. 2004 (r = −.27).
The relationship between follower job satisfaction and intentions to quit in this study (r = −.65) was similar to that found by Allen
et al. (2003) (r = −.57). We believe that the consistency of the current study to prior research serves to support the finding that
ethical leadership and abusive supervision function differently with respect to the turnover process.

These initial results suggest new avenues for research in ethical leadership as it pertains to human resource-related outcomes.
Additional contextual variables ought to be examined to learn whether ethical leadership impacts turnover through more than just
job satisfaction and intentions to quit. For example, are certain types of people more or less affected by ethical leadership? In a
global economy, are there cultural differences in how people interpret and respond to ethical leadership? Similarly, future research
ought to examine abusive supervision with respect to Paths 1 and 2 of the unfolding model in which there is an immediate decision
to quit. For example, are there different thresholds of abuse which may cause a person to bypass additional steps of the turnover
process?

There are several human resource management implications suggested by the results of the study. First, ethical leadership is
behavioral and as such can be developed. Ethical leadership in particular encompasses several transactional elements (e.g.,
rewarding ethical behavior and punishing unethical behavior) which can be practiced and developed. While Walumbwa and
Schaubroeck (2009) have recently questioned the ability to develop ethical leadership to a great degree, they do note that the
leader’s character is one small component of ethical leadership behaviors and leave open the possibility of developing ethical
behavior of leaders. This suggestion is also consistent with Anand et al. (2005) who articulate several contextual causes of
corruption, noting the importance of developing both the person and context for a sustainable enhancement of ethical behavior.
Thus, the first managerial implication is to develop ethical leaders for a potential decrease in employee turnover behaviors.

Relatedly, while having ethical leadership is beneficial, it is also expected to some extent. The expectation of ethical leadership may
lead to a certain level of complacency with both leaders and followers. If this is the case, it begs the following question: Do leaders
need to reinforce perceptions of ethical leadership continually in order to maintain high job satisfaction and low job search
behaviors among followers? Research on other positive forms of leadership such as leader behavioral integrity (e.g., Simons  2002)
indicates that they might need to do so. If this is the case, then leaders may need to pay more attention to the “moral manager”
aspect of ethical leadership in which leaders proactively discuss and model ethical practices.

Another human resource management implication is a warning for leaders in general and human resource management leaders in
particular who depend on or even engage in abusive supervision. The results from examining highly ethical leaders are important:
Even a few instances of abuse can overshadow high sustained levels of ethical conduct. In other words, leaders need to “be on their
game” at all times.

Limitations and Conclusion

There are at least three limitations in the current study that need to be considered; as a result, the conclusions offered here should
be interpreted with caution. First, common method bias, which occurs when the same method of data collection (e.g., all survey, all
observation, all narrative) is used for all study variables, is a possibility in this study. To account for this possible limitation, we
temporally separated the data collection procedure with predictors collected at Time 1 and criterion at Time 2 based on the
recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003). Given the strength of the relationships in Table 1 and the lack of evidence for
colinearity, it would appear that this procedure was relatively successful. However, the links between the three criterion variables
should be made with caution as they were collected simultaneously at Time 2.

A second limitation is the lack of an experimental research design. In research on ethical leadership, it is difficult to conduct a field
experiment where leaders are manipulated to be more or less ethical or abusive. As such, we cannot rule out reverse causality
where, for example, an employee becomes satisfied in his or her job and thus determines to stay and generates beliefs that his or
her manager is ethical. Perhaps more realistic is the situation in which an employee is dissatisfied with his or her job for a reason
which is outside the direct supervisor’s control (e.g., working conditions) and subsequently determines the organization and its
members are unethical.
 The third limitation is that our data do not allow us to examine how abusive supervision and ethical leadership impact turnover
and job search behavior through all possible paths of the unfolding model. We surmise that abusive supervision initiates Path 3,
which suggests that after a shock, leavers start considering other job alternatives, whereas both abusive supervision and ethical
leadership initiate Path 4b because of the mediated role of job satisfaction. Future research with actual turnover data or data which
would completely explain actual turnover (e.g., exit interviews) can better clarify the relationship of the two leadership types and
all paths of the unfolding model. In particular, future research should examine the effects of abusive supervision on Paths 1 and 2
of the unfolding model. In addition, consideration of other turnover determinates (e.g., labor markets) would be helpful.

In conclusion, the theory and results we show enhance the understanding of ethical leadership and abusive supervision. Results
suggest they are not simply opposites, but rather share a nuanced inverse relationship. Further, knowledge of how they coexist in
the workplace by way of employee perceptions is just beginning to emerge. Together, results here add to the accumulating research
that ethical leadership has an important role within the leadership literature. The findings suggest that the tried and true construct
of job satisfaction is still an important mechanism in today’s workplace. Research findings here also suggest that even low levels of
abusive supervision can have an inordinate impact on the turnover process.

References
1. Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived
organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal
of Management, 29, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Aquino, K., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., & Hom, P. W. (1997). Integrating justice
constructs into the turnover process: A test of a referent cognitions model. Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 1208–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–
201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive supervision and subordinate
problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress, and subordinate personality into account. Human
Relations, 59, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership (4th ed.). New York:
The Free Press.Google Scholar
6. Benson, G. S., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. A. (2004). You paid for the skills, now keep
them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47,
315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 288–
312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future
directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Cameron, L. D., & Leventhal, H. (2003). The self-regulation of health and illness
behavior. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
11. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York:
Guilford Press.Google Scholar
12. Cleveland, B. (2005). Tackling turnover. Call Center Magazine, 18, 1–19.Google Scholar
13. Crossley, C. D., Grauer, E., Lin, L. F., & Stanton, J. M. (2002). Assessing the content
validity of intention to quit scales. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
14. De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership,
relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and
subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297–
311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. DeConinck, J. B., & Stilwell, C. D. (1997). Incorporating organizational justice, role
states, pay satisfaction and supervisor satisfaction in a model of turnover intentions. Journal of
Business Research, 57, 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes
of influence and counter productivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level
investigation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Dupre, K. A., & Day, A. L. (2007). The effects of supportive management and job
quality on the turnover intentions and health of military personnel. Human Resource
Management, 46, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic
unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Freund, A. (2005). Commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of turnover intentions
among welfare workers. Administration in Social Work, 29, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Graen, G. B., Liden, R., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee
withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Grandey, A. A., Kern, J., & Frone, M. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders vs. insiders:
Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, A., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on
organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 33, 64–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and
correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next
millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.Google Scholar
26. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Boonthanum, R. (2005). The interrelationship between
abusive supervision, leader member exchange, and various outcomes. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles.
27. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Holt, D. T., Rehg, M. T., Lin, J. H. S., & Miller, J. (2007). An application of the
unfolding model to explain turnover in a sample of military officers. Human Resource
Management, 46, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and
retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the
future. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 61, 1–
55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits—self-
esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction
and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle
Scholar
32. Lee, T. M., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of
voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51–89.Google Scholar
33. Lee, T., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L. S., & Hill, J. W. (1999). The unfolding model of
voluntary turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450–
462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2001). Are female managers quitters? The
relationships of gender, promotions, and family leaves of absence to voluntary turnover. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 1167–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low
does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why
people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 1102–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (2009).
The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of
Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0037-9.
38. Niederman, F., Sumner, M., & Maertz, C. P. (2007). Testing and extending the unfolding
model of voluntary turnover to IT professionals. Human Resource Management, 46, 331–
347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level
conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673–690.CrossRefGoogle
Scholar
42. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. C., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding
written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
44. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and
contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.Google Scholar
45. Schat, A. C., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Exposure to workplace
aggression from multiple sources: Validation of a measure and test of a model. Unpublished
manuscript, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
46. Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’
words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.Google Scholar
47. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological
Bulletin,119, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, L. M., & MacGregor, D. G. (2005). Affect, risk, decision
making. Health Psychology, 24, S35–S40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (2002). To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover
following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 707–
729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Tang, T. L., Kim, J. K., & Tang, D. S. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the
relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations, 53,
213–245.Google Scholar
51. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal,43, 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the
relationship between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’
attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings. Personnel
psychology,46(2), 259–293.Google Scholar
55. Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job
satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 621–
638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. 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, 1275–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J.
(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. Zatzick, C. D., Elvira, M. M., & Cohen, L. E. (2003). When is more better? The effects
of racial composition on voluntary turnover. Organization Science, 14, 483–
496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and
subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1068–
1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar