Some organizations prioritize short-term economic gains at the expense of ethical principles, leading to the deterioration of these enterprises (Treviño et al., 2006). When illegal and unethical practices are pursued solely to achieve short-term gains, the organization is not only exposed to legal risks—encompassing fines, litigation, and even criminal liabilities—but also its brand image and reputation are undermined, leading to customer attrition and impeding the ability to garner societal recognition and support, thereby hindering the sustainable development of the organization. In order to avoid legal sanctions and moral condemnation, it is crucial for employees to recognize ethical issues within their organization’s operations and promptly suggest ethical recommendations when these arise (DeCelles & Aquino, 2020). Ethical voice is defined as a challenging and risky behavior initiated by employees (Gok et al., 2023) and is the situation when an individual expresses a point of view that aims to change behaviors, procedures, and policies that are not in line with normative standards pertaining to aspects of the business operation grounded in ethical principles (Huang & Paterson, 2017). Moral behavior encompasses both consciously reasoned choices and automatic, unconscious behaviors driven by personal moral frameworks (Dong et al., 2021). When an employee is active in advocating for organizational ethics, this helps elevate colleagues’ moral standards, gain their support, and mitigate the occurrence of ethical crises within the organization (Chen & Treviño, 2022). Therefore, understanding how and when employees develop ethical voice is imperative.

 

The predominant focus in existing research on the antecedents of ethical voice has been on environmental factors within the organization, including leadership, organizational climate, and human resource management practices. Studies have shown that ethical leadership (Zheng et al., 2022), socially responsible human resource practices (Liao et al., 2022), and ethical psychological climate (Gok et al., 2023) promote ethical voice. Conversely, authoritarian leadership hinders ethical voice (Zheng et al., 2021). Ethical voice represents an extrarole employee behavior, and supervisors’ attitude toward prioritizing performance over moral compliance may influence employees’ decision making regarding expressing ethical voice (Chen & Treviño, 2023). However, limited research has been conducted on the impact of taking the stance of prioritizing performance and disregarding morality on employees’ ethical voice. Moral decoupling denotes a moral reasoning process whereby “judgments of performance are separated from judgments of morality” (Bhattacharjee et al., 2013, p. 1167). Supervisors’ moral decoupling refers to the selective separation of moral evaluation from performance evaluation when assessing subordinates (Bhattacharjee et al., 2013). A supervisor who exhibits a high level of moral decoupling believes that even subordinates who act unethically can still be considered high-performing employees (Fehr et al., 2019). Supervisors’ moral decoupling may lead to subordinates relaxing their moral standards and overlooking ethical matters within the workplace, thus suppressing ethical voice.

 

According to social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), signals from the external environmental influence individuals’ perceptual and judgment processes, ultimately shaping their behavior. Moral attentiveness, as defined by Reynolds (2008), refers to people’s awareness and consideration of morally relevant factors in their experiences. This construct comprises two dimensions: perceptual moral attentiveness and reflective moral attentiveness, which represent, respectively, perception and judgment processes regarding morality. Perceptual moral attentiveness pertains to moral information that “is automatically colored as it is encountered” (Reynolds, 2008, p. 1028), that is, employees’ automatic cognitive processing of recognizing, selecting, and interpreting morally significant cues (Gok et al., 2023). Reflective moral attentiveness occurs as “the individual uses morality to reflect on and examine experience” (Reynolds, 2008, p. 1028). It refers to the extent to which employees consciously contemplate and reflect upon ethical issues (Miao et al., 2020). However, within an organization, the level of moral attentiveness is not always fixed but, rather, is influenced by organizational dynamics (Wurthmann, 2017). Drawing on social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), supervisors’ moral decoupling will not only directly affect employees’ moral cognition but will also influence their reflection on the importance of performance morality. Hence, we investigated whether perceptual moral attentiveness and reflective moral attentiveness mediate the relationship between supervisors’ moral decoupling and subordinates’ ethical voice. Our theoretical model is depicted in Figure 1.

When supervisors exhibit high levels of moral decoupling, subordinates may perceive that performance is prioritized and moral concerns are disregarded. This tendency can hinder subordinates’ willingness to express ethical concerns. Furthermore, they face several challenges before engaging in ethical voice, in that they must proactively consider and strategize the timing, method, target, and content of their ethical expressions (Chen & Treviño, 2023). These considerations and strategies divert their attention from work tasks and impede their ability to fulfill their responsibilities. When supervisors engage in moral decoupling, they neglect the cultivation of an ethical climate within the organization or team; thus, support for moral development is lacking (Zhang et al., 2022). As a result, subordinates may encounter reduced job performance and have difficulty in obtaining support from supervisors when voicing ethical concerns, leading to a diminished motivation to engage in such behavior. Additionally, the outcome of expressing ethical concerns is uncertain. When employees encounter difficulties in identifying an appropriate time or place to voice their ethical concerns, or in finding a supervisor qualified to handle ethical issues for them, voicing ethical concerns may jeopardize the employees’ normal workflow, result in ostracism or differentiation by colleagues or leaders, and hinder their chances of receiving a favorable performance evaluation (Zheng et al., 2022). When supervisors engage in frequent moral decoupling, subordinates’ efforts in expressing ethical concerns may go unacknowledged. This imbalance between input (ethical voice) and output (recognition) may inhibit subordinates from engaging in this behavior. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Supervisors’ moral decoupling will be negatively related to subordinates’ use of ethical voice.

According to social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), a salience signal serves as a means of conveying information that individuals can readily detect, thereby influencing their subsequent behavior through a perceptual process. In this study we postulated that supervisors’ moral decoupling would inhibit subordinates’ perceptual moral attentiveness. As already described, a high degree of supervisor moral decoupling signifies a prioritization of performance over ethical considerations (Fehr et al., 2019). Subordinates perceive that emulating their supervisor’s detachment of performance from ethics in the workplace is acceptable, and they believe that removing ethical considerations from their tasks and focusing solely on accomplishing them will not result in a reprimand from their supervisor (Zhang et al., 2022). Miao et al. (2020) argued that supervisors’ moral guidance can foster subordinates’ moral attentiveness, and Zhu et al. (2016) found that employees exhibit a heightened level of moral attentiveness when they emulate their supervisor or manager who uses an ethical leadership style. Therefore, we expected that supervisors’ moral decoupling would lead subordinates to overlook the need for morality in their work, resulting in a potential reduction in employees’ perceptual moral attentiveness.

 

Subordinates who possess elevated levels of perceptual moral attentiveness will be active in seeking and paying attention to moral factors within work-related information, assigning significance to the ethical implications that may arise in their daily interactions, and generating thoughts related to ethics (Miao et al., 2020). In this study we posited that subordinates’ perceptual moral attentiveness would be positively related to their use of ethical voice. When subordinates possess heightened levels of perceptual moral attentiveness, they are more likely to attend to and monitor ethical issues in their own work behavior (Sturm, 2017). When confronted with unethical events, they may experience cognitive dissonance (Dong & Ni, 2018), which, in turn, motivates them to voice ethical concerns based on their internal moral heuristic. Reynolds (2008) found a positive relationship between perceptual moral attentiveness and whistle-blowing. Moreover, heightened levels of perceptual moral attentiveness stimulate an employee’s moral imagination and give rise to moral archetypes (Sturm, 2017). When incidents involving morality contradict their own ethical archetypes, they may be inclined to express the view that the behavior is unethical. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Perceptual moral attentiveness will mediate the relationship between supervisors’ moral decoupling and subordinates’ ethical voice.

According to social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), individuals evaluate the external environment and develop specific attitudes in response to relevant signals. In this study we posited that supervisors’ moral decoupling may have a negative impact on subordinates’ reflective moral attentiveness. When supervisors exhibit a high degree of moral decoupling, subordinates may interpret this as tolerance of or even support for unethical behavior among organizational members (Luan et al., 2021). Consequently, subordinates may perceive that their unethical actions have no influence on how their supervisor perceives them, provided that their job performance remains exceptional. Furthermore, subordinates may experience a reduced sense of self-blame regarding unethical behaviors (Zhang et al., 2022). Deliberating on the morality of daily decision making places a significant burden on employees’ limited work energy (Treviño et al., 2006). Therefore, when supervisor moral decoupling is prevalent, subordinates may be inclined to curtail their contemplation of the moral implications inherent in their daily work events, leading to a diminished reflective moral attentiveness.

 

In general, subordinates with heightened reflective moral attentiveness engage in frequent contemplation of moral matters. Compared with their colleagues, they possess a stronger perception of what is morally right, which then guides their ethical behavior (Gok et al., 2023).  In this study we proposed that subordinates’ reflective moral attentiveness would have a positive impact on their ethical voice. On one hand, highly morally attentive subordinates often reflect on their past unethical behavior (Wurthmann, 2013). By reflecting upon work ethics, subordinates may take the initiative to rectify unethical practices in the workplace and suggest improvements to existing rules, regulations, or methods that undermine ethical compliance (Luan et al., 2021). On the other hand, subordinates with high reflective moral attentiveness may also be proactive in preventing themselves or others from engaging in unethical behavior (Gok et al., 2023). They may promptly engage in ethical voice to address incidents that undermine morality. Building on these premises, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Reflective moral attentiveness will mediate the relationship between supervisors’ moral decoupling and subordinates’ ethical voice.

This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Wuxi University Ethical Committee. Participants were 325 employees of two companies in Changzhou, southern China, which specialize in the production and manufacture of new energy vehicles. We employed a two-stage approach for our survey, in which we initially asked participants to provide the last four digits of their telephone number. They were informed that this information would be used solely for the purpose of matching the responses from both stages of the survey. The focus in the first stage of our survey was on employee perceptions of supervisor moral decoupling, their own perceptual moral attentiveness, reflective moral attentiveness, and demographic variables. We distributed 325 survey forms and recovered 318. After excluding those that were incomplete or had identical answers for all items, we obtained 298 valid forms for analysis. One month later, we distributed the second stage of the survey to all participants who had provided valid responses in the first stage. The aim in this part of the survey was to evaluate participants’ ethical voice over the past month. We recovered 292 survey forms, and after eliminating invalid surveys based on the screening criteria used in the first stage, we retained 280 valid forms (rate of response = 94%). The sample comprised 169 men (60%) and 111 women (40%). Ages ranged between 23 and 57 years (M = 34.00, SD = 6.68). In terms of education level, 11 individuals (3.9%) had a high school diploma or technical secondary school certificate, 17 (6.1%) had a college diploma, 204 (72.9%) possessed a bachelor’s degree, and 48 (17.1%) had a master’s degree or higher qualification. Regarding job position, there were 157 ordinary employees (56.1%), 91 junior managers (32.5%), 30 middle managers (10.7%), and two senior managers (0.7%). An analysis of employees’ tenure with the company revealed that five individuals (1.8%) had less than 1 year of service, 20 (7.1%) had 1 to 3 years, 108 (38.6%) had 4 to 6 years, 98 (35%) had 7 to 10 years, and 49 (17.5%) had over 10 years of service.

All scales used in this study were adopted from established scales developed in English. The translation/back-translation method proposed by Brislin (1970) was employed to ensure the accurate expression of the items in Chinese. We asked a professor of management to translate the English items into Chinese, and subsequently asked another professor to translate the Chinese versions back into English. Next, we asked a bilingual scholar working in management studies to compare the Chinese translation with the original English text, ensuring the accuracy of the Chinese translation and making adjustments to minor ambiguities where necessary. Responses to items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = completely disagree and 5 = completely agree.

 

We adopted the five-item scale developed by Bhattacharjee et al. (2013) and used by Fehr et al. (2019). A sample item is “An employee’s unethical actions do not change my supervisor’s assessments of their performance on work tasks.” In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .70.

 

We adopted the 12-item scale developed by Reynolds (2008). Seven items are used to measure perceptual moral attentiveness (e.g., “Many of the decisions that I make have ethical dimensions to them”). In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .96. Five items are used to measure reflective moral attentiveness (e.g., “I often find myself pondering about ethical issues”). In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .87.

 

We used the six-item scale developed by Huang and Paterson (2017), for which a sample item is “I develop and make recommendations concerning ethical issues that affect work.” In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .72.

 

Consistent with Zheng et al. (2021), we controlled for employees’ gender, age, educational background, position, and tenure.

We used Amos 21.0 to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis to test the discriminant validity of the variables in this study. The results are shown in Table 1. All fit indices of the four-factor model met the minimum standards, indicating that the focal variables in this study had good discriminant validity. Harman’s single-factor test was applied to check for common method bias. Table 1 shows that the single-factor model had the worst fit and did not meet the minimum standard of each indicator. An exploratory factor analysis showed that the amount of variance explained by the first factor was 36.95%, which is lower than the standard of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thus, this study was not seriously influenced by common method bias.

We calculated descriptive statistics and carried out a correlation analysis of the study variables; the results are shown in Table 2. There was a negative correlation between supervisors’ moral decoupling and subordinates’ ethical voice. Supervisors’ moral decoupling was negatively correlated with both perceptual moral attentiveness and reflective moral attentiveness. Perceptual moral attentiveness and reflective moral attentiveness were both positively correlated with ethical voice.

We used Mplus 7.4 for path analysis to test each hypothesis, and the bootstrapping method to test the mediating effects. The path analysis results are shown in Table 3.

As can be seen from Table 3, supervisor moral decoupling was negatively related to ethical voice. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Supervisor moral decoupling negatively predicted perceptual moral attentiveness, but perceptual moral attentiveness was not significantly related to ethical voice. The bootstrapping method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to test whether perceptual moral attentiveness mediated the relationship of supervisor moral decoupling with subordinates’ ethical voice. The mediating effect was not significant, effect = −.001, Boot 95% CI [−0.019, 0.014]. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Furthermore, supervisor moral decoupling negatively predicted reflective moral attentiveness, and reflective moral attentiveness positively predicted ethical voice. The bootstrapping method was also used to test the mediating effect, and the results showed that the mediating effect was significant, effect = −.151, Boot 95% CI [−0.282, −0.070]. The results showed that reflective moral attentiveness mediated the relationship between supervisor moral decoupling and subordinates’ ethical voice. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Through a two-stage survey, we found that supervisor moral decoupling impeded subordinates’ ethical voice, and reflective moral attentiveness negatively mediated the link between supervisor moral decoupling and subordinates’ ethical voice. However, the mediating effect of perceptual moral attentiveness was not supported.

First, our aim in this study was to expand understanding of the consequences associated with supervisors’ moral decoupling by establishing a connection to subordinates’ ethical voice. The primary focus in previous research has been on the effects of supervisor moral decoupling on unethical behavior (Fehr et al., 2019) and workplace cheating (Luan et al., 2021). Moral decoupling by the supervisor has also been used as a contextual factor to investigate the relationship between subordinates’ unethical behavior and supervisors’ negative performance evaluations of the subordinates (Zhang et al., 2022). However, researchers have given limited attention to exploring the association between supervisors’ moral decoupling and subordinates’ proactive moral behavior (see, e.g., Kim & Krishna, 2022). By integrating supervisor moral decoupling with subordinates’ ethical voice, in this study we have not only broadened understanding of the impact of supervisor moral decoupling but have also provided novel insights into the antecedents of subordinates’ use of ethical voice. The predominant focus of past studies in this area has been on examining the factors that drive subordinates’ ethical voice from the perspective of positive ethical leadership styles (Zheng et al., 2022) and management of human resources practices in the organization (Liao et al., 2022). However, these studies have neglected to examine whether employees’ ethical voice is affected when supervisors disassociate ethics from performance. By investigating supervisors’ moral decoupling, our aim in the current study was to address this research gap and provide a valuable addition to the existing literature.

 

Our second aim was to elucidate the underlying process by which supervisors’ moral decoupling influences subordinates’ ethical voice. To accomplish this, we examined the mediating role of moral attentiveness. Researchers had previously identified various psychological factors that influence ethical voice, such as internalization of ethical values, integrity identity (Zheng et al., 2022), ethical self-efficacy (Liao et al., 2022), and duty orientation (Gok et al., 2023). Our study, which we based on social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), complements the existing literature by proposing moral attentiveness as a potential transmission mechanism in stimulating ethical voice. Our findings showed that reflective moral attentiveness served as a mediator between supervisors’ moral decoupling and ethical voice. However, our results did not support a mediating role for perceptual moral attentiveness. We believe this result can be attributed to the following reasons: First, Sturm (2017) argued that when employees engage in perceptual moral attentiveness, this promotes ethical behaviors that are not consciously planned, whereas engaging in reflective moral attentiveness encourages conscious planning and implementation of behaviors. As ethical voice requires that both conscious planning and implementation occur (Gok et al., 2023), among employees it is more likely to be associated with reflective moral attentiveness than with perceptual moral attentiveness. Second, Miao et al. (2020) highlighted that although perceptual moral attentiveness deepens individuals’ awareness of moral components in behaviors, it does not necessarily result in moral behaviors. Additionally, Wurthmann (2013) found that reflective, rather than perceptual, moral attentiveness mediated the relationship between business ethics education and individual social responsibility. Given that engaging in ethical voice requires employees to reflect upon moral issues in daily decision making to shape the content, mode, and target of their voice behavior, such behavior may not be closely related to perceptual moral attentiveness.

To effectively manage supervisor moral disposition and mitigate the occurrence of supervisor moral decoupling, managers of organizations should take proactive measures. First, during the recruitment process, managers should be meticulous in considering the qualities that indicate the candidate has high ethical standards. Additionally, they should strengthen supervisors’ moral consciousness through comprehensive moral leadership training. Furthermore, it is crucial to implement a performance evaluation system in which both processes and outcomes are valued. In this system, supervisors who demonstrate exemplary moral conduct should be incentivized and members who violate the organization’s code of ethics should be penalized. By emphasizing the equal importance of performance and ethics to supervisors, managers can effectively reduce the negative consequences for the organization that stem from supervisors’ moral decoupling.

This study has some limitations. First, because we measured supervisors’ moral decoupling and subordinates’ moral attentiveness simultaneously, we could not establish causality between these variables. In future studies, a three-stage data collection approach could be adopted, whereby data on supervisor moral decoupling are collected at the first stage, subordinates’ moral attentiveness is assessed at the second stage, and subordinates’ ethical voice is evaluated at the third stage. This sequential process would facilitate the inference of causal relationships. Second, the survey sample for this study was limited to employees of two manufacturing enterprises in southern China, which constrains the generalizability of the study’s findings. Future researchers could validate these findings by expanding the sample size and gathering data from professionals across diverse industries.

Bhattacharjee, A., Berman, J. Z., & Reed, A. I. (2013). Tip of the hat, wag of the finger: How moral decoupling enables consumers to admire and admonish. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1167–1184. https://doi.org/10.1086/667786

 

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

 

Chen, A., & Treviño, L. K. (2022). Promotive and prohibitive ethical voice: Coworker emotions and support for the voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 1973–1994. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001003

 

Chen, A., & Treviño, L. K. (2023). The consequences of ethical voice inside the organization: An integrative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(8), 1316–1335. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001075

 

DeCelles, K. A., & Aquino, K. (2020). Dark knights: When and why an employee becomes a workplace vigilante. Academy of Management Review, 45(3), 528–548. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0300

 

Dong, R., Lu, T., Hu, Q., & Ni, S. (2021). The effect of formalism on unethical decision making: The mediating effect of moral disengagement and moderating effect of moral attentiveness. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12315

 

Dong, R., & Ni, S. (2018). Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Moral Attentiveness Scale. Ethics & Behavior, 28(2), 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1274656

 

Fehr, R., Welsh, D., Yam, K. C., Baer, M., Wei, W., & Vaulont, M. (2019). The role of moral decoupling in the causes and consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.007

 

Gok, K., Babalola, M. T., Lakshman, C., Sumanth, J. J., Vo, L. C., Decoster, S., Bansal, A., & Coşkun, A. (2023). Enhancing employees’ duty orientation and moral potency: Dual mechanisms linking ethical psychological climate to ethically focused proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(1), 157–175.

 

Huang, L., & Paterson, T. A. (2017). Group ethical voice: Influence of ethical leadership and impact on ethical performance. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1157–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314546195

 

Kim, S., & Krishna, A. (2022). ‘I’ll stand by you’: Understanding customers’ moral decoupling processes and supportive behavioral intentions in cases of corporate misconduct. Journal of Marketing Communications, 28(7), 745–767.

 

Liao, Z., Cheng, J., & Chen, Q. (2022). Socially responsible human resource management and employee ethical voice: Roles of employee ethical self‐efficacy and organizational identification. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(4), 820–829.

 

Luan, K., Lv, M., & Zheng, H. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and cheating behavior: The mediating effects of organizational identification and perceived supervisor moral decoupling. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 768293. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.768293

 

Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., Nielsen, I., & Herbert, K. (2020). Ethical leadership and unethical pro‐organisational behaviour: The mediating mechanism of reflective moral attentiveness. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 834–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12210

 

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

 

Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027–1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1027

 

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563

 

Sturm, R. E. (2017). Decreasing unethical decisions: The role of morality-based individual differences. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2787-x

 

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258

 

Wurthmann, K. (2013). A social cognitive perspective on the relationships between ethics education, moral attentiveness, and PRESOR. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1330-6

 

Wurthmann, K. (2017). Implicit theories and issue characteristics as determinants of moral awareness and intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2714-1

 

Zhang, G., Mao, J., & Hong, B. (2022). When will an unethical follower receive poor performance ratings? It depends on the leader’s moral characteristics. Ethics & Behavior, 32(5), 413–430.

 

Zheng, Y., Epitropaki, O., Graham, L., & Caveney, N. (2022). Ethical leadership and ethical voice: The mediating mechanisms of value internalization and integrity identity. Journal of Management, 48(4), 973–1002.

 

Zheng, Y., Graham, L., Farh, J.-L., & Huang, X. (2021). The impact of authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: A moderated mediation model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04261-1

 

Zhu, W., Treviño, L. K., & Zheng, X. (2016). Ethical leaders and their followers: The transmission of moral identity and moral attentiveness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(1), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.11

Bhattacharjee, A., Berman, J. Z., & Reed, A. I. (2013). Tip of the hat, wag of the finger: How moral decoupling enables consumers to admire and admonish. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1167–1184. https://doi.org/10.1086/667786

 

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

 

Chen, A., & Treviño, L. K. (2022). Promotive and prohibitive ethical voice: Coworker emotions and support for the voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 1973–1994. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001003

 

Chen, A., & Treviño, L. K. (2023). The consequences of ethical voice inside the organization: An integrative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(8), 1316–1335. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001075

 

DeCelles, K. A., & Aquino, K. (2020). Dark knights: When and why an employee becomes a workplace vigilante. Academy of Management Review, 45(3), 528–548. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0300

 

Dong, R., Lu, T., Hu, Q., & Ni, S. (2021). The effect of formalism on unethical decision making: The mediating effect of moral disengagement and moderating effect of moral attentiveness. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12315

 

Dong, R., & Ni, S. (2018). Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Moral Attentiveness Scale. Ethics & Behavior, 28(2), 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1274656

 

Fehr, R., Welsh, D., Yam, K. C., Baer, M., Wei, W., & Vaulont, M. (2019). The role of moral decoupling in the causes and consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.007

 

Gok, K., Babalola, M. T., Lakshman, C., Sumanth, J. J., Vo, L. C., Decoster, S., Bansal, A., & Coşkun, A. (2023). Enhancing employees’ duty orientation and moral potency: Dual mechanisms linking ethical psychological climate to ethically focused proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(1), 157–175.

 

Huang, L., & Paterson, T. A. (2017). Group ethical voice: Influence of ethical leadership and impact on ethical performance. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1157–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314546195

 

Kim, S., & Krishna, A. (2022). ‘I’ll stand by you’: Understanding customers’ moral decoupling processes and supportive behavioral intentions in cases of corporate misconduct. Journal of Marketing Communications, 28(7), 745–767.

 

Liao, Z., Cheng, J., & Chen, Q. (2022). Socially responsible human resource management and employee ethical voice: Roles of employee ethical self‐efficacy and organizational identification. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(4), 820–829.

 

Luan, K., Lv, M., & Zheng, H. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and cheating behavior: The mediating effects of organizational identification and perceived supervisor moral decoupling. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 768293. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.768293

 

Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., Nielsen, I., & Herbert, K. (2020). Ethical leadership and unethical pro‐organisational behaviour: The mediating mechanism of reflective moral attentiveness. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 834–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12210

 

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

 

Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027–1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1027

 

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563

 

Sturm, R. E. (2017). Decreasing unethical decisions: The role of morality-based individual differences. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2787-x

 

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258

 

Wurthmann, K. (2013). A social cognitive perspective on the relationships between ethics education, moral attentiveness, and PRESOR. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1330-6

 

Wurthmann, K. (2017). Implicit theories and issue characteristics as determinants of moral awareness and intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2714-1

 

Zhang, G., Mao, J., & Hong, B. (2022). When will an unethical follower receive poor performance ratings? It depends on the leader’s moral characteristics. Ethics & Behavior, 32(5), 413–430.

 

Zheng, Y., Epitropaki, O., Graham, L., & Caveney, N. (2022). Ethical leadership and ethical voice: The mediating mechanisms of value internalization and integrity identity. Journal of Management, 48(4), 973–1002.

 

Zheng, Y., Graham, L., Farh, J.-L., & Huang, X. (2021). The impact of authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: A moderated mediation model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04261-1

 

Zhu, W., Treviño, L. K., & Zheng, X. (2016). Ethical leaders and their followers: The transmission of moral identity and moral attentiveness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(1), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.11