Some employees engage in activities such as accounting fraud or bribing officials to protect their supervisors, a phenomenon known as unethical prosupervisor behavior (Y. Wang & Li, 2019), which is a topic of particular interest to scholars (Zhang & Xu, 2024). Employees engaging in unethical prosupervisor behavior tend to possess a pronounced identification with their supervisor (Rho et al., 2015). The theory of charismatic leadership argues that a leader’s charisma shapes follower behavior through a range of nonverbal tactics, such as body language, facial expressions, and distinctive intonation, as well as the articulation of an inspiring vision (Antonakis et al., 2022; Grabo et al., 2017). Leaders can craft their charismatic persona by manipulating perceptions of their physical elevation or distance from followers, or by using coded language to create a sense of mystery, which may prompt followers to engage in unethical prosupervisor behavior (Reh et al., 2017).

 

Organizational identification stands as a pivotal concept within the realm of organizational and management research, particularly when examining unethical prosupervisor behavior. Its significance is underscored by frequent inclusion in surveys addressing global issues, such as climate change, economic crises, and public spending cuts (Gomes et al., 2022). Leaders can foster organizational identification among followers through a variety of processes, including goal congruence, member cooperation, mutual trust, collective self-efficacy, and identification with the leader (Carsten et al., 2019).

 

Prior research has identified numerous individual, organizational, and leadership factors as determinants of unethical prosupervisor behavior (Kelebek & Alniacik, 2022). Employees demonstrating a strong sense of identification with their superiors are prone to engaging in socially unacceptable and unethical behaviors on their behalf (K. Lee, 2020). From the standpoint of leader–member exchange theory, the quality of supervisors’ exchange with their subordinates is a pivotal factor shaping employees’ organizational identification (Serban et al., 2022).

 

However, a notable research gap exists concerning unethical prosupervisor behavior from the perspective of leader charisma theory. Moreover, previous research has indicated that leader identification has a positive prediction effect on unethical prosupervisor behavior (Kline & Fischer, 2023). The latter variable may serve as an outcome of employee organizational identification and citizenship behavior, suggesting that leader identification could steer unethical prosupervisor behavior (Marstand et al., 2021). Therefore, we posited that leader charisma may have an impact on unethical prosupervisor behavior. We also tested the respective mediating and moderating mechanisms of leadership identification and organizational identification in this relationship (see Figure 1).

The seminal theory of charismatic leadership, as described by Kirby et al. (1992), elucidates how followers bestow extraordinary qualities, or charisma, upon leaders. This theory posits that the basis of a charismatic leader’s personality lies in their comprehension of social–emotional organization, which encompasses patterns of emotional expression and proficiency in emotional labor. Such understanding necessitates that charismatic leaders apply their insights about emotional dynamics within their leadership environment (Sy et al., 2018).

 

The charisma manifested by leaders is a product of their personal attributes and behaviors, their followers’ attributions, and situational factors (Sosik et al., 2014). Scholars such as Shamir et al. (2018) have elaborated on how charismatic leaders positively predict their followers’ identification with the organization and perception of collective efficacy. Sy et al. (2018) suggested that the mutual effect among followers can account for some charisma attributions. Carsten et al. (2019) discussed the implications of homogenous and heterogeneous attributions of leadership charisma among followers.

 

Leadership can be bifurcated into two components: inspirational motivation and idealized effect (i.e., elements of charismatic leadership). Both components act as significant predictors of the escalation of unethical pro-organization behavior among employees (Al-husseini & Elbeltagi, 2018). Charisma of leadership is characterized by leaders’ utilization of personal charm, attractiveness, and persuasive communication to predict employees’ behavior (Judge et al., 2009). Charismatic leaders shape their subordinates’ behaviors through recognition of the leader’s personal attributes, effectively altering subordinates’ perceptions (Al-husseini & Elbeltagi, 2018). As subordinates increasingly recognize and internalize charismatic leaders’ personal values, life perspectives, and beliefs as their own behavioral norms, they endorse their leaders, leading to heightened agreement and acceptance (Al-husseini & Elbeltagi, 2018).

 

Banks et al. (2017) suggested that charismatic leaders may strive to convey universal values that increase compatibility among followers and encourage harmonious relationships. When followers perceive value congruence with leaders (Alvesson, 2019), they may engage in unethical prosupervisor (Williams et al., 2018). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Leaders’ charisma will predict followers’ unethical prosupervisor behavior.

 

Leader identification refers to followers’ sense of belonging and connection to a leader (Paulsen et al., 2009). Leaders have a significant impact on followers’ perception of themselves and their sense of belonging (Haslam et al., 2022), which is a crucial aspect of leader charisma (Xie et al., 2018). Inspirational motivation from the leader can enhance followers’ sense of identification, resulting in loyalty to the leader’s vision (Chaturvedi et al., 2019). For instance, charismatic leaders can use vivid rhetoric during crisis situations to express their vision and advocate for collective action to achieve their ideas (Barry & Gironda, 2018). This type of inspirational motivation can lead to high loyalty and commitment from followers to the leader’s vision, and followers may be willing to make personal sacrifices for collective causes (Xie et al., 2018). Inspirational motivation can also enhance followers’ self-efficacy and perception of task ability by positively appraising their values and efficacy, which, in turn, increases their identification with the leader (Vieira et al., 2018).

 

Dartey-Baah and Addo (2018) suggested that charismatic leaders can establish trust in their followers by addressing their needs, demonstrating adventurousness, making personal sacrifices, and showing unconventional expertise, thereby enhancing follower identification. Leaders translate their care for followers’ needs into dedication and commitment to the collective cause, which increases followers’ trust, activates their self-identity, and fosters social relationships between leaders and followers, further encouraging follower identification (du Plessis & Nkambule, 2020; Nassif et al., 2021). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Leaders’ charisma will predict followers’ leadership identification.

 

Identification plays a crucial role in the formation of self-identity (Drummond, 2021). The cognitive relationship individuals have with the object of their identification, whether positive or negative, provides the foundation for self-identity (Hesari et al., 2019). Identification can be categorized into personal, relational, and organizational types (Ashforth et al., 2016). In the workplace, the object employees seek to identify with is limited to their most significant relationship in the company, which is to say, their leader (Su et al., 2020).

 

Employees sometimes engage in behaviors that disrupt or violate ethical norms in an attempt to promote organizational development and protect the economic interests of their leaders (Umphress & Bingham, 2011). This social phenomenon, whereby individuals act to enhance the functioning of the organization or its leaders at the cost of breaching core social values, customs, laws, or appropriate behavioral standards, has been conceptualized as unethical pro-organization behavior (Umphress & Bingham, 2011; Umphress et al., 2010).

 

Due to the sense of identification followers harbor toward their leaders, they not only appreciate and positively evaluate their leaders’ attributes but also define themselves based on these attributes (H. H. Johnson & Umphress, 2019; Z. Wang et al., 2021). High leader identification positively predicts employees’ internal motivation, propelling them to engage in prosupervisor behaviors (Hur et al., 2018). Empirical research on employee behavior in Chinese companies has shown that leader identification positively impacts organizational behavior, with higher levels of leader identification increasing the likelihood of engaging in unethical prosupervisor behavior (Guo et al., 2022). Hence, employees with high levels of identification with their superiors not only internalize their leaders’ objectives but may also resort to unethical behavior to assist their leaders in achieving these goals (H. H. Johnson & Umphress, 2019). Therefore, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Leadership identification will predict followers’ unethical prosupervisor behavior.

 

Charismatic leaders articulate a compelling vision, set high standards for their followers, and underscore the importance of identification, potentially leading followers to engage in unethical prosupervisor behavior (Lian et al., 2022). This dynamic is propelled by leaders who inspire followers to make substantial efforts and stress the significance of collective identification (Yue, 2021). Followers who perceive a charismatic relationship with their leaders may identify more strongly with them, experiencing heightened collective identification and empowerment (Yue, 2021). Consequently, followers may willingly engage in unethical behavior for the organization, aligning with the captivating vision espoused by a charismatic leader (Wegge et al., 2022). Moreover, charismatic leaders, as role models, foster followers’ identification with them, which can lead to unethical prosupervisor behavior (Wegge et al., 2022). Despite potentially fostering a nonexploitative and egalitarian culture, charismatic leaders can become self-centered (Luu, 2023). Even when engaging in unethical practices, they can inspire employees to strongly identify with them and commit themselves to their cause, leading to unethical conduct in the workplace (Lian et al., 2022).

 

Through frequent interactions with charismatic leaders, who serve as role models, team members may unconsciously emulate and internalize their leaders’ behaviors, leading them to engage in unethical prosupervisor behavior (Han et al., 2019). Therefore, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Leadership identification will play a mediating role between leader charisma and followers’ unethical prosupervisor behavior.

 

Organizational identification, rooted in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2004), explains how individuals incorporate group membership into their self-concept. When individuals exhibit a high level of organizational identification, they may pursue opportunities to assist the source of their identity or entities associated with it (E.-S. Lee et al., 2015). Whereas leader identification refers to employees defining themselves based on their leaders’ identity and behaviors (Steffens et al., 2014), organizational identification pertains to employees’ sense of belonging to the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Research has indicated that employees with a high level of organizational identification may engage in behaviors that benefit the organization (Chamberlin et al., 2017).

 

The strength of organizational identification often reinforces the predictive effect of leader identification on unethical prosupervisor behavior (A. J. Johnson et al., 2009). Social identification can be bolstered by leader identification. For instance, Marstand et al. (2021) proposed that employees deduce their identification with leaders depending on the strength of their social identification with the group. Similarly, Horstmeier et al. (2017) argued that employees’ identification with leaders is enhanced by their identification with the organization. However, as organizational identification strengthens, employees may engage in unethical behaviors supportive of the leader during the process of leader identification. Employees who receive recognition from higher level leaders often exhibit strong motivation to assist these leaders, including concealment of potentially damaging information and adoption of similar unethical behaviors to protect and support the leaders (A. J. Johnson et al., 2009).

 

Thus, the predictive effect of leader identification on unethical behaviors to support the leader may be tempered by the extent of organizational identification. As organizational identification intensifies, it may motivate employees to assist their leaders in reaping benefits, thereby fostering engagement in unethical behaviors that favor the leader. Therefore, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Followers’ organizational identification will moderate the relationship between their leadership identification and unethical prosupervisor behavior.

 

Organizational identification may act as a moderator of the relationship between a leader’s charisma and unethical prosupervisor behavior, with higher levels of organizational identification leading to a reduced inclination toward such unethical behaviors when the leader demonstrates strong charisma (Matherne et al., 2018). This suggests that organizational identification can affect how employees respond to charismatic leadership based on their identification with leaders, in terms of whether they will engage in unethical actions that benefit their supervisors (Gigol, 2021). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Organizational identification will moderate the indirect relationship between leader charisma and followers’ unethical prosupervisor behavior via leadership identification.

There is a dearth of research on unethical prosupervisor behavior in companies situated in central China. Thus, we sampled general employees from enterprises in Hunan Province, China, to provide a foundation for further research on how charismatic leadership predicts unethical prosupervisor behavior in specific regional contexts. We surveyed 515 employees from small- and medium-sized enterprises through an online questionnaire (https://www.wjx.cn). To mitigate the risk of errors and response bias, we made direct contact with each participant via online apps such as WeChat and QQ to ensure their serious and careful participation in the investigation. We randomly selected and recruited participants via university alumni associations in Hunan, China.

 

The sample comprised 198 (38.4%) men and 317 (61.6%) women, of whom 272 (52.8%) were aged below 25 years, 145 (28.2%) were aged 26–35 years, 75 (14.6%) were aged 36–45 years, and 23 (4.4%) were aged over 45 years. In terms of educational background, 42 (8.1%) participants had a high school diploma, 77 (15.0%) had graduated from junior college, 315 (61.2%) held a bachelor’s degree, and 81 (15.7%) had a master’s or doctoral degree. Regarding work experience, 246 (47.8%) participants had less than 1 year of experience, while the remaining 269 (52.2%) participants had more than 1 year of experience.

We used established scales sourced from previous research. Two of our colleagues, who are professional translators, used back-translation to convert the items from English to Chinese, and we made suitable modifications based on the specific context of the sample, ensuring the original meaning remained intact. We asked participants “Do you agree with the following statement?” and answers were given on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). We determined the internal consistency of each variable using Cronbach’s alpha.

 

We evaluated the charisma of the leader using a six-item scale derived from Bass and Avolio (1990). A sample item is “I have feelings of pride when in the presence of my leader.” Cronbach’s alpha was .90, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

We assessed leadership identification using a four-item scale adapted from Haslam et al. (2022), which referenced Hiller (2005). A sample item is “My leader serves as a role model for the team.” Cronbach’s alpha was .88, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

We measured organizational identification using six items derived from Postmes et al. (2013), which were adapted from Mael and Ashforth (1992). A sample item is “I perceive compliments to the company as personal praise.” Cronbach’s alpha was .87, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

We assessed unethical prosupervisor behavior using six items derived from Chen et al. (2002) and Umphress et al. (2010). A sample item is “I withhold negative information about my supervisor’s job performance for their benefit.” Cronbach’s alpha was .89, indicating the scale is reliable.

We used SPSS to calculate descriptive statistics and correlations, and employed Amos for confirmatory factor analysis, which included the analysis of four distinct models. Next, we tested the hypotheses using the PROCESS macro for SPSS.

Table 1 presents the results of preliminary analysis, including descriptive statistics and correlation values. Strong positive correlations existed among the variables in this study.

The results of a confirmatory factor analysis indicated that common method variance was not a significant concern in this study. As shown in Table 2, the model fit improved progressively from the one-factor model to the four-factor model, with the latter model demonstrated the best fit. These results suggest that the variables in this study had strong construct validity.

This study used regression analysis with 5,000 bootstrapped resamples to test the hypotheses, and all models demonstrated significant performance. According to Table 3, Model 1, leader charisma predicted leadership identification, thus supporting Hypothesis 2. As per Model 2, leader charisma positively predicted unethical prosupervisor behavior. In addition, leadership identification positively predicted unethical prosupervisor behavior, thereby supporting Hypothesis 3. Leadership identification positively mediated the link between leader charisma and unethical prosupervisor behavior, supporting Hypothesis 4. Model 3 shows leader charisma positively predicted unethical prosupervisor behavior, thus supporting Hypothesis 1.

Leadership identification positively predicted unethical prosupervisor behavior. In addition, organizational identification positively affected unethical prosupervisor behavior. Further, organizational identification positively predicted the effect of leadership identification on unethical prosupervisor behavior, supporting Hypothesis 5 (see Figure 2).

As can be seen in Table 4, the proposed moderated mediation effect (Model 3) was valid. The indirect effect of leader charisma on unethical prosupervisor behavior via leadership identification was stronger among those with high, compared to low, organizational identification. This suggests that the predictive effect of leader charisma on unethical behavior toward the supervisor was particularly strong when organizational identification was high; thus, Hypothesis 6 was supported.

This study examined factors influencing unethical prosupervisor behavior. Drawing from the theory of leader charisma, we established a research model that included leader charisma, leadership identification, organizational identification, and unethical prosupervisor behavior. First, leader charisma predicted unethical prosupervisor behavior. Second, leader charisma positively predicted leadership identification, and leadership identification positively predicted unethical prosupervisor behavior. Furthermore, leadership identification mediated the relationship between leader charisma and unethical prosupervisor behavior. Third, we identified organizational identification as a moderator of the relationship between leadership identification and unethical prosupervisor behavior, and organizational identification also positively moderated the indirect predictive effect of leader charisma on unethical prosupervisor behavior via leadership identification.

This study contributes to the literature on business ethics in three significant ways. First, we have expanded the construct of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Lian et al. (2022) and Mishra et al. (2022) demonstrated that individuals may engage in unethical behavior to benefit entities outside their organization. Our results align with their findings and represent an important step in broadening the understanding of unethical prosupervisor behavior, while contradicting the findings of Matherne et al. (2018).

 

Second, we have contributed to the literature on leadership identification and organizational identification by identifying negative outcomes associated with these constructs. We found that a high level of leadership identification driven by self-interest can lead to employee dependence on, and unethical behavior toward, leaders. These findings enhance understanding of leadership identification and organizational identification by highlighting negative consequences that typically lead employees to adhere to unethical prosupervisor behavior.

 

Third, we have contributed to the literature on leader charisma by highlighting its facilitating role in promoting unethical prosupervisor behavior, introducing leader identification as a significant mediating factor. Our findings support the theoretical notion that leader charisma enhances leadership identification, which, in turn, fosters the conditions conducive to unethical prosupervisor behavior. Specifically, leader charisma increases followers’ sense of leadership identification, providing them with psychological safety and motivating them to engage in unethical actions for the benefit of their leader.

Our findings have several important implications for organizations and practitioners. Although unethical prosupervisor behavior may be well-meant, it can be detrimental to the workplace, particularly for organizational decision makers. Our findings indicate that leader identification can enhance the relationship between charismatic leadership and unethical prosupervisor behavior. This implies that organizations should be mindful of practices that may inadvertently encourage employees to overly identify with their leaders, especially those with a charismatic leadership style. Several recommendations can be applied by organizations, including monitoring and managing the level of leader identification among employees, providing targeted ethics training, and establishing clear reporting channels and open communication to ensure that well-intentioned but unethical acts are discouraged and can be safely reported.

 

For managers, the prevalence of employees’ unethical prosupervisor behavior is concerning, as such behavior may serve the short-term interests of leaders but ultimately fail to benefit the organization or the leaders’ long-term personal interests. High levels of leader charisma can increase employees’ identification with leaders, making the followers more likely to engage in unethical actions to support their supervisors. Organizations should encourage loyalty to company values rather than to individual leaders. Training can help employees recognize and resist unethical pressures, especially those arising from having strong leader identification. Clear policies and reporting channels can further support ethical behavior. By promoting organizational identification and strong ethics, managers can reduce the risk of unethical prosupervisor behavior.

Our study has both methodological and theoretical limitations. From a methodological standpoint, the data were entirely self-reported, which increases the likelihood of distortion due to dishonest responses (Thakur, 2018) or common method bias (Dash & Paul, 2021). One remedy for common method bias is to create a time interval between measuring the predictor variables and the outcomes, which we did not use in our study. From a theoretical standpoint, there are several important considerations. First, this study did not explore alternative pathways linking leader charisma to unethical prosupervisor behavior, such as motivational pathways. We concentrated on the mediating role of leadership identification and the moderating role of organizational identification because these factors are intrinsically connected to unethical prosupervisor behavior. However, alternative pathways, such as moral identification (H. H. Johnson & Umphress, 2019), may also be significant, and our study cannot be considered a comprehensive examination of unethical prosupervisor behavior because we omitted these pathways.

 

Potential future research directions include examining whether the observed relationships hold across various industries, such as innovative high-tech firms and the service sector. Additionally, researchers should aim to collect data from larger samples to minimize errors, particularly in resource-rich environments. Exploring moderating factors such as moral identification could be instrumental in understanding the relationships between identification types and unethical prosupervisor behavior. Furthermore, constructs such as leader–member exchange and trust could moderate the impact of identification on unethical behavior. Strong relationships with supervisors, trust in their decisions, and a sense of loyalty to both supervisors and the organization may increase the likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior to assist supervisors. In summary, understanding the individual and situational factors that may heighten the likelihood of unethical prosupervisor behavior is a rich area for further exploration.

Al-husseini, S., & Elbeltagi, I. (2018). Evaluating the effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing using structural equation modelling: The case of Iraqi higher education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(4), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1142119

 

Alvesson, M. (2019). Leadership: Convergence and divergence in leadership relations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617717339

 

Antonakis, J., d’Adda, G., Weber, R. A., & Zehnder, C. (2022). “Just words? Just speeches?” On the economic value of charismatic leadership. Management Science, 68(9), 6355–6381. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4219

 

Ashforth, B. E., Schinoff, B. S., & Rogers, K. M. (2016). “I identify with her,” “I identify with him”: Unpacking the dynamics of personal identification in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 28–60. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0033

 

Banks, G. C., Engemann, K. N., Williams, C. E., Gooty, J., McCauley, K. D., & Medaugh, M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 508–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.12.003

 

Barry, J. M., & Gironda, J. (2018). A dyadic examination of inspirational factors driving B2B social media influence. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 26(1–2), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2017.1389244

 

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), Article 03090599010135122. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599010135122

 

Carsten, M. K., Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Lau, V. W.-Y. (2019). A follower-centric approach to the 2016 US presidential election: Candidate rhetoric and follower attributions of charisma and effectiveness. Leadership, 15(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715018817930

 

Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & Lepine, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 11–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12185

 

Chaturvedi, S., Rizvi, I. A., & Pasipanodya, E. T. (2019). How can leaders make their followers to commit to the organization? The importance of influence tactics. Global Business Review, 20(6), 1462–1474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919846963

 

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J.-L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902320369749

 

Dartey-Baah, K., & Addo, S. A. (2018). Charismatic and corrective leadership dimensions as antecedents of employee safety behaviours: A structural model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2017-0240

 

Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, Article 121092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092

 

Drummond, J. J. (2021). Self-identity and personal identity. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09696-w

 

du Plessis, A. L., & Nkambule, C. M. (2020). Servant leadership as part of spiritual formation of theological students in contextualisation of 21st century theological training. HTS Teologiese Studies, 76(2), Article a5959. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i2.5959

Gigol, T. (2021). Leadership, religiousness, state ownership of an enterprise and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The mediating role of organizational identification. PLOS One, 16(5), Article e0251465. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251465

 

Gomes, J. F. S., Marques, T., & Cabral, C. (2022). Responsible leadership, organizational commitment, and work engagement: The mediator role of organizational identification. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 33(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21502

 

Grabo, A., Spisak, B. R., & van Vugt, M. (2017). Charisma as signal: An evolutionary perspective on charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.001

 

Guo, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2022). Inclusive leadership, leader identification and employee voice behavior: The moderating role of power distance. Current Psychology, 41(3), 1301–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00647-x

 

Han, Z., Wang, Q., & Yan, X. (2019). How responsible leadership motivates employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A double-mediation model. Sustainability, 11(3), Article 605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030605

 

Haslam, S. A., Gaffney, A. M., Hogg, M. A., Rast, D. E., III., & Steffens, N. K. (2022). Reconciling identity leadership and leader identity: A dual-identity framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(4), Article 101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101620

 

Hesari, E., Peysokhan, M., Havashemi, A., Gheibi, D., Ghafourian, M., & Bayat, F. (2019). Analyzing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationship with residential satisfaction in new cities: The case of Sadra, Iran. Social Indicators Research, 142(3), 1031–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1949-5

 

Hiller, N. J. (2005). An examination of leadership beliefs and leadership self-identity: Constructs, correlates, and outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University.

 

Horstmeier, C. A. L., Boer, D., Homan, A. C., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). The differential effects of transformational leadership on multiple identifications at work: A meta-analytic model. British Journal of Management, 28(2), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12160

 

Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.-W., & Ko, S.-H. (2018). How employees’ perceptions of CSR increase employee creativity: Mediating mechanisms of compassion at work and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3321-5

 

Johnson, A. J., Haigh, M. M., Craig, E. A., & Becker, J. A. H. (2009). Relational closeness: Comparing undergraduate college students’ geographically close and long-distance friendships. Personal Relationships, 16(4), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01243.x

 

Johnson, H. H., & Umphress, E. E. (2019). To help my supervisor: Identification, moral identity, and unethical pro-supervisor behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3836-z

 

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004

 

Kelebek, E. E., & Alniacik, E. (2022). Effects of leader-member exchange, organizational identification and leadership communication on unethical pro-organizational behavior: A study on bank employees in Turkey. Sustainability, 14(3), Article 1055. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031055

 

Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., & King, M. I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding transformational leadership. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941130

 

Kline, C., & Fischer, B. (2023). Morality on holiday: Inspiring ethical behaviour in animal-based tourism through non-moral values. Tourism Recreation Research, 48(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1911273

 

Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012

 

Lee, K. (2020). The effect of supervisor identification on unethical pro-susupervisor behavior: The moderating role of employability perceptions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), Article 9344. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249344

 

Lian, H., Huai, M., Farh, J.-L., Huang, J.-C., Lee, C., & Chao, M. M. (2022). Leader unethical pro-organizational behavior and employee unethical conduct: Social learning of moral disengagement as a behavioral principle. Journal of Management, 48(2), 350–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320959699

 

Luu, T. T. (2023). Collectively crafting the sales job: Linking charismatic leadership to sales teams’ performance. Personnel Review, 52(8), 2048–2069. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2020-0634

 

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

 

Marstand, A. F., Epitropaki, O., van Knippenberg, D., & Martin, R. (2021). Leader and organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviors: Examining cross-lagged relationships and the moderating role of collective identity orientation. Human Relations, 74(10), 1716–1745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720938118

 

Matherne, C. F., Ring, J. K., & Farmer, S. (2018). Organizational moral identity centrality: Relationships with citizenship behaviors and unethical prosocial behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(6), 711–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9519-4

 

Mishra, M., Ghosh, K., & Sharma, D. (2022). Unethical pro-organizational behavior: A systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04764-w

 

Nassif, A. G., Hackett, R. D., & Wang, G. (2021). Ethical, virtuous, and charismatic leadership: An examination of differential relationships with follower and leader outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(3), 581–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04491-8

 

Paulsen, N., Maldonado, D., Callan, V. J., & Ayoko, O. (2009). Charismatic leadership, change and innovation in an R&D organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(5), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810910983479

 

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12006

 

Reh, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Giessner, S. R. (2017). The aura of charisma: A review on the embodiment perspective as signaling. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.001

 

Rho, E., Yun, T., & Lee, K. (2015). Does organizational image matter? Image, identification, and employee behaviors in public and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12338

 

Serban, A., Rubenstein, A. L., Bosco, F. A., Reina, C. S., & Grubb, L. K. (2022). Stressors and social resources at work: Examining the buffering effects of LMX, POS, and their interaction on employee attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(4), 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09774-z

 

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (2018). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. In I. Katz, G. Eilam-Shamir, R. Kark, & Y. Berson (Eds.), Leadership now: Reflections on the legacy of Boas Shamir (pp. 9–29). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-357120180000009009

 

Sosik, J. J., Chun, J. U., & Zhu, W. (2014). Hang on to your ego: The moderating role of leader narcissism on relationships between leader charisma and follower psychological empowerment and moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1651-0

 

Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J., Fransen, K., Yang, J., Ryan, M. K., Jetten, J., Peters, K., & Boen, F. (2014). Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 1001–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.05.002

 

Su, W., Lyu, B., Chen, H., & Zhang, Y. (2020). How does servant leadership influence employees’ service innovative behavior? The roles of intrinsic motivation and identification with the leader. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(4), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-09-2019-0335

 

Sy, T., Horton, C., & Riggio, R. (2018). Charismatic leadership: Eliciting and channeling follower emotions. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.008

 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16

 

Thakur, R. (2018). Customer engagement and online reviews. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.002

 

Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559

 

Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019214

 

Vieira, V. A., Perin, M. G., & Sampaio, C. H. (2018). The moderating effect of managers’ leadership behavior on salespeople’s self-efficacy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.010

 

Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2019). Moral leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2640. https://www.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02640

 

Wang, Z., Xing, L., Xu, H., & Hannah, S. T. (2021). Not all followers socially learn from ethical leaders: The roles of followers’ moral identity and leader identification in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(3), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04353-y

 

Wegge, J., Jungbauer, K.-L., & Shemla, M. (2022). When inspiration does not fit the bill: Charismatic leadership reduces performance in a team crisis for followers high in self-direction. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(6), 1201–1218. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.64

 

Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Deptula, B. J., Lowe, K. B., & McCombs, K. (2018). Did charisma “Trump” narcissism in 2016? Leader narcissism, attributed charisma, value congruence and voter choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.010

 

Xie, Y., Xue, W., Li, L., Wang, A., Chen, Y., Zheng, Q., Wang, Y., & Li, X. (2018). Leadership style and innovation atmosphere in enterprises: An empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.017

 

Yue, C. A. (2021). Navigating change in the era of COVID-19: The role of top leaders’ charismatic rhetoric and employees’ organizational identification. Public Relations Review, 47(5), Article 102118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102118

 

Zhang, B., & Xu, D. (2024). Unethical pro-supervisor behavior and employees’ family satisfaction: The roles of workplace ostracism and work–home segmentation preference. Current Psychology, 43(7), 6297–6307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04724-9