Protecting the Organization or Eroding Followership? The Influence of Leader Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior on Subordinate Followership
Drawing on data from 242 supervisor–subordinate dyads in Chinese firms, this study demonstrates that leader unethical pro-organizational behavior (LUPB) undermines subordinate followership by diminishing perceptions of ethical leadership, though this negative effect is attenuated when subordinates attribute the behavior to altruism or engage in moral rationalization.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Leadership is often mistaken for a matter of rank, where a title on a door grants the right to command. In reality, true leadership relies on something far more fragile: the voluntary willingness of people to follow. This trust is not given automatically; it is built on the belief that a leader is not only effective but also morally sound. When a leader makes a decision, followers watch closely, not just to see if the goal is reached, but to judge the character of the person making the call. If a leader acts in a way that violates shared rules of right and wrong, even with the best intentions, it can shake the foundation of that trust. The question researchers have long debated is whether a leader who breaks the rules to help their company can still keep the loyalty of their team, or if the damage to their reputation is too great to repair.
A team of researchers from universities in China set out to investigate this specific tension. They focused on a phenomenon known as leader unethical pro-organizational behavior. This describes a situation where a manager uses dishonest or unethical methods—such as exaggerating product claims, hiding defects, or misleading regulators—specifically to benefit the organization. While the goal is to help the company, the means are wrong. The researchers wanted to know how this behavior affects the leader's ability to secure the voluntary support of their subordinates. They proposed that when employees see their leader acting unethically, even for a good cause, they begin to view that leader as less ethical overall. This shift in perception, in turn, makes employees less willing to follow the leader's direction or support their vision.
To test this idea, the researchers gathered data from 242 pairs of supervisors and their direct reports across various industries in China, including technology, banking, and retail. They used a careful, three-step process over several months to ensure the answers were thoughtful and not just immediate reactions. First, the leaders rated their own willingness to engage in these unethical, company-serving behaviors. Later, their subordinates rated how ethical they believed their leader to be, how much they trusted the leader's motives, and how much they were willing to follow. Finally, the same subordinates reported on their own level of active support and participation in the leadership process. This design allowed the researchers to see how one person's actions influenced another person's feelings and behaviors over time.
The results confirmed that when leaders engage in unethical behavior to help the organization, it does indeed erode the willingness of their team to follow them. The study found a clear link: as leaders reported more of these unethical actions, their subordinates rated them as less ethical leaders, and subsequently, those subordinates were less willing to offer their voluntary support. The researchers identified that the loss of the leader's moral reputation was the key mechanism driving this change. When a leader breaks the rules, it sends a signal that they are not a moral person or a moral manager, and this signal weakens the bond of trust required for genuine followership.
However, the story is not entirely black and white. The researchers discovered that the damage to the leader's reputation depends heavily on how the employee interprets the situation. Two specific factors acted as buffers, softening the blow. The first was altruistic attribution. If a subordinate believed that the leader's unethical actions were driven purely by a desire to help the organization, rather than by selfishness or greed, the negative impact on their view of the leader was less severe. The second factor was moral rationalization. Some employees have a natural tendency to justify the misconduct of others, convincing themselves that the unethical means were acceptable given the circumstances. When employees engaged in this type of thinking, they were less harsh in their judgment of the leader, which in turn protected the leader's ability to retain some level of followership.
Despite these buffers, the study found that the damage was never completely undone. Even when employees believed the leader had good intentions or tried to justify the behavior, the leader's ethical standing still suffered. The unethical means remained a stain on the leader's character in the eyes of the team. The researchers concluded that while a good motive can make a bad decision slightly more forgivable, it does not make the decision right. The act of breaking the rules to achieve a goal ultimately undermines the leader's moral authority, making it harder for them to command the voluntary loyalty of their team. This suggests that leaders who rely on unethical shortcuts, even for the sake of the company, may be trading short-term gains for a long-term loss of the very support they need to lead effectively.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.