Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Organizational justice is influenced by interpersonal relationships in the workplace. This study investigates the moderating role of ethical leadership on the relationship between justice dimensions (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and employees’ ethical behavior. We identified a sample of 545 supervisor–subordinate dyads from the banking industry in Saudi Arabia and found that ethical leadership positively and significantly moderates the relationship between organizational justice and employees’ ethical behavior. Nevertheless, the interaction between interpersonal justice and ethical leadership was insignificant. Our findings show the important role played by managerial ethical leadership in increasing the positive impact of organizational justice dimensions on employees’ ethical behavior.

Plain language summary

This study investigates the moderating role of ethical leadership on the relationship between justice dimensions (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and employees’ ethical behavior. We identified a sample of 545 supervisor–subordinate dyads from the banking industry in Saudi Arabia and found that ethical leadership positively and significantly moderates the relationship between organizational justice and employees’ ethical behavior. Nevertheless, the interaction between interpersonal justice and ethical leadership was insignificant. Our findings show the important role played by managerial ethical leadership in increasing the positive impact of organizational justice dimensions on employees’ ethical behavior.

Keywords

organizational justice organizational fairness ethical leadership ethical behavior and employees

Introduction

Today’s business scandals have placed increasing pressure on experts, academics, practitioners, and the government on issues relating to business ethics and ethical behavior (Astrachan et al., 2020). This has reference to the various scandals involving large organizations such as the Irish National Bank, Enron, and Worldcom. Thus, in the midst of a growing number of business scandals around the world (e.g., Tyco, Enron, WorldCom) significant ethical concerns have been posed by academics, practitioners, policymakers, and governments (Al Halbusi et al., 2019, 2020; Kuenzi et al., 2019; Treviño et al., 2014; Valentine et al., 2013). The 2008 financial crisis and the consequent damage to several worldwide corporations were viewed as ethical rather than financial problems. Hence, business scandals and ethical lapses have heightened issues across managers, shareholders, and employees, who understand that unethical behavior can impair an organization’s long-term health while also harming its reputation in the short term (Brown & Treviño, 2014; Ko et al., 2017; Werner et al., 2019). Every organization that does not foster an ethical culture risk lowering its standards, increasing economic costs, and increasing risk (Ng, & Feldman, 2015; Thomas et al., 2004). Moreover, stakeholders would also stop engaging with such businesses (Bedi et al., 2016; Babalola et al., 2017; O’Keefe et al., 2019).

Employee perceptions of fairness in the workplace are referred to as organizational justice, with justice being the core virtue and principle of an organization (Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1990). Scholars have discussed the framework and aspects of organizational justice since the publishing of the underpinning research. According to meta-analytic findings (Colquitt et al., 2013), experts now agree on the multidimensionality of the organizational justice construct, which includes distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice which is cover all the concepts of fairness. For example, distributive justice is regarding perceived fairness in the outcome distribution (salary, promotions, and rewards), and it addresses the degree to which outcomes are equitable (Colquitt et al., 2013). Considering its importance placed on rewards, distributive justice is primarily associated with cognitive, affective, and cognitive responses to specific consequences (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). In regards to procedural justice as it refers to perceptions of fairness pertaining to the approaches, structures, and procedures used to distribute rewards and advantages within an entity (Leventhal, 1980). Whilst also distributive justice perspectives are connected to satisfaction with individual results, procedural justice perceptions are associated with organizational-related behavior and attitudes. Thus, poor procedural justice induces intellectual and emotional indignation, which also manifests as resentment and a lack of cooperation (Colquitt, 2001). For interpersonal justice describes the level to which authorities or third parties are required for executing procedures or determining outcomes to treat people with politeness, dignity, and respect. Lastly, informational justice emphasizes the truthfulness and adequacy of the information and clarifications provided to individuals concerning the supply of consequences and/or the implementation of procedures. In the case of informational justice, the descriptions and justifications provided to employees are supposed to mitigate their negative reactions to injustice perceptions and/or to the inequities in the allocation of results (Colquitt et al., 2013). Therefore, in this study, we adapted four-factor models of justice in order to capture the overall concept of organizational justice.

Typically, treatment refers to employees’ ethical assumptions, particularly their concerns about how they are treated in an organization (Al Halbusi et al., 2018; Folger et al., 2005; Karam et al., 2019). Organizational justice is incorporated of numerous significant dimensions, including distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and interactional justice, which determine the perceptions of organizational justice procedures and, on a practical level, lead to either positive or negative outcomes. Treatment is, therefore, a significant indicator of ethical conduct, which focuses on employees’ reactions to their employers (Konovsky 2000; Treviño et al., 2014). Employees view decisions as being taken in a reasonable manner when an organization makes fair decisions and policies are applied consistently and correctly, for example, resulting in a high degree of positive actions by employees. In addition, psychologically, previous studies have found that injustice at an organization is related to the misconduct of employees (Cohen-Charash & Spector 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Khan et al., 2013; Roch et al., 2019).

Despite this, there are a number of studies on the relationship between organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and employees’ ethical behavior (e.g., Shah et al., 2017). Also, most prior studies have concentrated on the impact of one or two components of organizational justice on employees’ ethical behavior (Chen McCain et al., 2010; Shah et al., 2017), as their findings are not completely in line with the propositions in the literature, whereas the current study integrated the four dimensions of organizational justice (i.e., distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) to look at their relationship to employees’ ethical behavior.

Importantly, the previous works have neglected the vital role of ethical leadership as a vital moderator between organizational justice and employees’ ethical behavior. Thus, the primary goal of this research is to add to the body of knowledge in the field of business ethics by examining the effects of organizational justice variables such as distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and interactional justice on employees’ ethical behavior and determining the moderating role of ethical leadership in this link. Basically, ethical leadership refers to “the expression or demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through interpersonal relationships and personal actions, and the endorsement of such conduct for followers through two-way communication, decision-making, and reinforcement” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). Thus, we focused on ethical leadership because ethical leaders set a positive example and role model for their employees by demonstrating genuinely ethical behavior, ethical decision-making, and moral conduct in everyday situations with their employees (Toor, & Ofori, 2009). Also, because of ethical leadership understanding the meaning of ethical behavior in role models and as an ethical guide is important since ethical leadership helps to establish and develop an organization’s ethical framework, as well as employee ethical conduct (Brown et al., 2005; Toor & Ofori, 2009). Particularly, ethical leadership concerns good practices, including integrity, both of which demonstrate trustworthiness, fairness, care, and concern for others, and behaving with ethical intentions (Treviño et al., 2014). This is also because ethical leadership can be classified into several dimensions. First, personal moral factors comprise integrity, concern for others, fairness, and trustworthiness. Second, moral manager factors involve role modelling, ethical conduct, determining ethical standards, punishment, communication and reward. So, based on that because most businesses rely on their employees to deal with complex issues, solve complicated problems, and implement crucial choices, identifying the elements that influence employees’ ethical behavior is a major concern. The extent to which employees behave ethically is defined by justice and ethical aspects so the interaction between organizational justice and ethical leadership was valuable to the literature.

Theoretical Foundation and Hypothesis Development

Organizational Justice and Employees’ Ethical Behavior

According to Greenberg (1987), organizational justice described the various views of members of staff regarding their organization’s decision-making practices and its impact on members of staff. They perceived that justice may influence organizational output. Fairness is an incorporation of a constructed analysis that creates the expectation of being treated fairly universally, the purpose of fairness is to be responsible (Colquitt, 2001). Therefore, new over the last 4 decades, many studies have highlighted the importance of organizational justice on workplace ethical behavior (Al Halbusi et al., 2021; Colquitt et al., 2001). However, the extent to which these results can be generalized across different universal principles and across cultures still needs further exploration. Empirical evidence has revealed that subordinates have different perceptions of value systems from their managers, even when they come from the same sociocultural background, which leads to them having different reactions toward their organization (Butitova, 2018; Karam et al., 2019). Numerous studies have underlined the impact of organizational justice on workplace ethical behavior over the last 4 decades (Colquitt et al., 2001; Loi et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2016). Nevertheless, more research is needed to see how far these findings can be applied to various universal principles and across cultures. Even though they originate from the same socio-cultural background, empirical research shows that subordinates and managers have different perceptions of value systems, resulting in distinct responses to their organization (Cheng, 2014; Loi et al., 2011; Li et al., 2012). However, as mentioned earlier, organizational justice involves four components, which are described below.

Distributive Justice the first component is distributive justice which describes the fairness of the outcomes being received by employees, such as promotion opportunities or pays (Oubrich et al., 2021). Distributive justice also describes the perceptions of fairness that are related to decision outcomes and resource allocation (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Akram et al., 2020; Colquitt et al., 2001). This explains most of the variance in the outcomes that exist among the dimensions. Distributive justice is encouraged by several values (for instance equality, equity, or need) for distributing resources (Adams, 1963; Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003). It is concerned with the anticipation of return that employees receive for their efforts (Saunders et al., 2002). Organizations make decisions for the benefit of their employees and consequently notify them about the fruitful results which the organization receives because of their efforts and distribute rewards fairly based on their efforts (Colquitt et al., 2003; Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022). Distributive justice remains highly valued because it compares the values and benefits with those of other organizations or with the same sectors. Similarly, the followers of various organizations could compare their benefits with the works of other organizations. The effect on employees could be positive or negative which depends on the feedback that they receive from their employer (Van Dijke et al., 2019). If employees have a sense of satisfaction they feel so because of the performance of the organization’s management and if the feeling is negative, then it reflects on the poor functioning of management (Mohyeldin Tahir Suliman, 2007; Shah et al., 2017). Moreover, due to the poor performance of an organization, employees remain scammed resulting in absenteeism, thus creating acute problems of staff turnover (Dietrich et al., 2019; Rubino et al., 2018). Hence, all these elements influence an individual’s perceptions and how the employees can react. Based on this argument, we recommend the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1. Distributive justice has a positive effect on employees’ ethical behavior.

Procedural Justice the second component is procedural justice which describes the procedures and processes that are involved when making allocation decisions (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Procedural justice is nurtured when the inputs of the employees are considered during the decision-making processes and when the implementation of procedures is done with consistency, accuracy, bias suppression, representativeness, correctability, and ethicality (Colquitt et al., 2001; Huang & Huang, 2016; Leventhal, 1980). An essential component of procedural justice is to make sure that participants have a voice or an input in the outcome. Procedural justice is one of the types of organizational justice which is concerned with the process that is applied by the organizations for the purpose of incentive distribution. Also, the policies are applied to the payment of salary and some other benefits. Whether a high or low level of incentives is gained when the procedures are applied by the organization are reasonably and fairly justified (Greenberg, 1990; Schuh et al., 2019). This has arisen on the ground that the policies and standards for resource distribution and other decision-making are reasonable and fairly accepted (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003). Employees consider the processes of an organization to be justified when they feel that they are free from favoritism, as well as their value at the time of any decision-making, the ethical standards applied, and the reliability and universality of a decision implementation (Nagtegaal, 2021; Stecher & Rosse, 2005). The consistency of the procedures taken by organizations remains an essential factor because such stability verified the fairness of decisions across various situations (Newman et al., 2020; Qiu & Dooley, 2022). Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2. Procedural justice has a positive effect on employees’ ethical behavior.

Interpersonal Justice the third component, interpersonal justice, is a kind of organizational justice that makes predictions about ethical behavior at work. Furthermore, it refers to the perceptions of the employees about the degree to which authority figures treat them with respect and dignity (Colquitt, 2001). They perceived interactional justice based on what extent the employees are being treated fairly at the workplace (Noble et al., 2021) Interpersonal justice is quite simply a name for the way in which employees require to be treated by their management with respect (Rahaman et al., 2022). These demonstrate the type of process through which individuals are treated with politeness, including, the degree to which the reasons behind a specified incident are clarified. Interpersonal justice can be seen as an output of perceptions that may occur due to the well-organized and capable conduct of employees employed in organizations, which may consist of availability, competence, consistency, discreetness, fairness, integrity, commitment, openness, promise fulfillment, receptivity, and overall trust (Reb et al., 2019; Scott et al., 2007). Interpersonal justice is understood as the level at which one party feels respected, such that he or she is satisfied to draw in or keep social contacts inside the organization in order to achieve specific responsibilities or tasks (Holtz & Harold, 2013). According to Brown and Treviño (2006), trustworthiness is the only expectation that one can expect from colleagues and management regarding their capabilities and reliability in order to fulfill the organization’s goals competently. In the published literature, the perception of ability is defined as a group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that empowers a party to influence within a specific domain. While benevolence is related to the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to perform well for the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive; integrity is defined in terms of the trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable (DeConinck, 2010; Jacobs et al., 2014; Schuh et al., 2019). From the above idea of interpersonal trustworthiness, it may similarly be contended that if employees have trust in the ability, integrity, and benevolence of management, then ethical behavior is likely to increase (Rahaman et al., 2022; Zapata et al., 2016). Hence, we theorize as follows.

Hypothesis 3. Interpersonal justice has a positive effect on employees’ ethical behavior.

Informational Justice is described as the process of getting vital information in a proper manner and through clear communication. This is regarded as one of the unrestricted aspects of organizational justice for the reason that different communication approaches are implemented by organizations, Thus, this would influence the various perception of employees. Moreover, informational communication can take on a critical part of any organization’s success or failure (Colquitt et al., 2001). Informational justice measures the extent to which a company’s operations share information with its individuals in order to clarify procedures (Bies & Shapiro, 1988; Greenberg, 1993). It’s referred to as informational justice because it requires decision-makers to provide sufficient facts and explanations, such as a thorough explanation of the final decisions made. Due to the efforts to explain changes, informational justice is related to establishing trust (Colquitt et al., 2001), This is crucial for the development of important employees’ responsiveness to organizational performance during transitions. Besides, according to Bies and Moag (1986) and Colquitt (2001), The process of acquiring all relevant information in a timely and transparent manner is known as information fairness. This is one of the uncontrolled parts of organizational justice because different organizations utilize varied communication tactics, which effect diverse employee attitudes (Brown et al., 2005). Moreover, informational interaction may play a critical influence in the organization’s success or failure. As a result, it’s acceptable to argue that clear interaction lowers the likelihood of deception (Colquitt et al., 2001). A number of recent empirical research have found that informational justice has a direct impact on people’s ethical behavior (Al Halbusi et al., 2021; Charoensap et al., 2018; Chiaburu & Lim, 2008; Crawshaw et al., 2013; Moghimi et al., 2013; Ugaddan & Park, 2019). Thus, we formulated the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4. Informational justice has a positive effect on employees’ ethical behavior.

Contingent Role of Ethical Leadership

In this era, the new leadership style places interest on the importance of virtue and morality. Many researchers, mostly stress truthfulness and honesty in this leadership style (Brown et al., 2005). Brown and Treviño (2006), emphasized that ethical scandals are spreading in several workplace environments such (in non-profit organizations, sports, and religious institutions), which echoed out the importance of ethical issues and leadership behaviors that have ethical content in order to minimize the phenomenon (Bedi et al., 2016). Thus, ethical leadership was defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the advancement of such conduct to the followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision making” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). As emphasized earlier, this conduct could be promoted to the followers by two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making. In the previous studies, ethical leadership generally stressed integrity and honesty (Kuntz et al., 2013), and ethical leaders remained as honest, and principled decision-makers. Scholars categorized these features as the moral character of ethical leaders (Werner et al., 2019).

Numerous empirical studies have provided evidence that ethical leadership is associated with the ethical conduct of employees (Mayer et al., 2009; O’Keefe et al., 2019). Ethical leadership is an aspect of regulating behavior within individual relationships in the organization that can reinforce and improve employees’ ethical behavior. An ethical leader can have an influence on employees through the socio-emotional exchange (Mayer et al., 2009; Kuenzi et al., 2019). The socio-emotional exchange is a behavior which creates trust and fairness between leaders and employees (Blau, 1964). Employees will not tend to behave unethically when they notice their leaders treat them honestly and believe that the leader’s behavior benefits the organization (Treviño et al., 2014). More recently some studies have confirmed that ethical leaders are an essential factor and critically influence the individual’s behavior (Lu & Lin, 2014; Constandt et al., 2018; Dimitriou & Ducette, 2018; Sosik et al., 2019). Thus, ethical leaders are a powerful source of influence on employees’ work behavior, including their ethical behavior. Leaders should exhibit a high degree of ethical standards and moral behavior in their everyday discussions, actions, purposes, and manners as this will position them as the role model for their followers to follow (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Previous scholarly works on ethical leadership have regularly drawn consideration to the significance of understanding the role of ethical leadership in shaping employees’ ethical behavior (Brown et al., 2005; Ofori, 2009). Despite the importance of ethical leadership in triggering the ethical behavior of employees as functional role.

In this study therefore, ethical leadership is regarded as a critical moderator for a number of reasons. First, Managers play a critical role in bringing justice in a corporation since they have control over the business resources and legitimate power over employees (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006). As stated by Loi et al. (2009), The most serious issue is that leaders are frequently viewed as business representations, and when leaders act ethically, workers’ perceptions of justice improve, which is a vital aspect in exhibiting ethical behavior in the workplace. A moral leader is likened to a ship’s captain who steers the ship in the proper path (Brown, 2007). Second, because employees see their leader as a role model, both professionally and personally, who executes their work in an ethical manner within the business and reflects a reasonable spectrum of viewpoints, the organization’s leader provides and outlines guidelines and an ethical structure (Brown et al., 2005; Treviño et al., 2014). An individual leader look after their employees, make fair decisions, and prioritize the means over the results. A professional leader communicates with and treats employees fairly, establishing clear policies and procedures that set high expectations, and proactively trying to connect those moral expectations and standards to employees through the use of a reward system and punishment program that promotes people to perform ethical manner (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Hence, developing an ethical structure and creating a strong ethical culture among workers are key tasks for the ethical manager (Babalola et al., 2017; Werner et al., 2019). In the sense that the leader listens to what employees have to say and makes rational decisions, ethical leadership is connected to justice (Al Halbusi et al., 2022).

In essence, we argue that ethical leadership moderates the relationship between organizational justice dimensions (i.e., distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and employees’ ethical actions because managers perform their work in a transparent and equitable way. As a result, employees who work for such leaders regard the organization’s processes as transparent and trustworthy, and they have faith that they will prevent unethical behavior (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006). In contrast, employees who work for managers who are unjust and dishonest sense a misalignment between the organization’s processes and the manager’s actions. The issue is whether or if workplace fairness and ethical conduct are accurate and reliable indicators of their future as employees in the organization, and whether or not they behave or interact ethically (Brown et al., 2005). Employees use this evidence to infer how they will be treated, therefore leaders with a high sense of ethics emerge vital and crucial (Lin et al., 2009; Koopman et al., 2019). Open communication, such as discussing business ethics and personal issues, along with the expectations of the ethical leader, conveys ethics to the employees in the workplace (Ko et al., 2017). Leaders’ commitment to the organizational procedures and policies gives the employees a sense of the fairness of the organization’s procedures, as well as the application of fairness practically, sufficiently, and clearly, in order to stand out in the organizational context. Therefore, Employees’ perceptions of justice are crucial because they use them to determine whether or not they will continue working for that business. Furthermore, managers that engage in unethical dialogues with their staff are more likely to have differing perspectives on ethical behavior and justice (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006; Kuenzi et al., 2019). Thus, the following hypotheses were formulated.

Hypothesis 5. Ethical leadership has a positive effect on employees’ ethical behavior.

Hypothesis 6(a). Ethical leadership moderates the relationship between distributive justice and employees’ ethical behavior such that the relationship is strengthened when the level of ethical leadership is higher.

Hypothesis 6(b). Ethical leadership moderates the relationship between procedural justice and employees’ ethical behavior such that the relationship is strengthened when the level of ethical leadership is higher.

Hypothesis 6(c). Ethical leadership moderates the relationship between interpersonal justice and the ethical behavior of employees such that the relationship is strengthened when the level of ethical leadership is higher.

Hypothesis 6(d). Ethical leadership moderates the relationship between informational justice and the ethical behavior of employees such that the relationship is strengthened when the level of ethical leadership is higher.

Method

Sample and Procedures

A self-administered survey was utilized to collect 545 supervisor–subordinate dyads from the Saudi banking sector to examine the hypotheses. Prior conducting the questionnaire, senior members from each organization’s human resources department were informed. After getting approval, the survey was distributed. Two hundred ninety-five employees received the questionnaire, a pre-stamped envelope, and a covering letter in their questionnaire packs. The purpose of the survey was outlined in the covering letter, and participants were encouraged to return the filled questionnaires in a pre-stamped envelope.

We obtained data from two sources to reduce common method variance (CMV) (supervisors and their subordinates). To mitigate common method bias, we used a two-wave survey with a 1-month lag (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012). Surveys were distributed to 500 employees operating under 150 superiors. Employees rated their views of distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice, as well as the ethical leadership behavior of their direct supervisor, in the first phase. The supervisors evaluated their subordinates’ ethical behavior a month later in the second wave. Only 477 out of 500 employee questionnaires were found to be legitimate, reflecting a 95% response rate. A total of 139 supervisor questionnaires were returned out of a total of 150, resulting in a supervisor response rate of 92%. Over the course of the two waves, 545 matching subordinate-supervisor replies were obtained. Two sets of surveys were coded so, that the responses of subordinates and supervisors could be matched later. Furthermore, the participants were notified of their anonymity and the significance of their involvement in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Measurement

Since the participants speak Arabic, Brislin’s (1980) back-translation approach was used to translate the English version to Arabic one. In cross-cultural surveying, this method is commonly used to determine the accuracy of a translations. The items were translated into Arabic first, then compared to the original English language by two bilingual speakers to see if any semantic inconsistencies existed. If a discrepancy was identified, the retranslation and assessment process should be repeated till the two bilingual speakers were no more aware of issues. Finally, a large number of people consented to take part in this stage. The responses were formatted on a five-point Likert Scale, with anchors of “1 = Strongly Disagree” and “5 = Strongly Agree.”

Organizational Justice has been evaluated using a 20-item measure derived from Colquitt’s (2001) measure for workplace impressions. The 20-items refer to “distributive justice,”“procedural justice,”“interpersonal justice,” and “informational justice.” The example of the items shown respectively. Distributive Justice“Does your outcome reflect the effort you have put into your work”; Procedural Justice, “Have you been able to express your views and feelings throughout those procedures”; Interpersonal Justice“Has your superior treated you in a polite manner?”Informational Justice“Were your superior’s explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?” for the employees’ ethical behavior was adapted slightly from the 12-item scale used in previous studies to evaluate the ethical behavior of employees (Al Halbusi et al., 2020; Newstrom & Ruch, 1975). Sample item “I conduct only company business on company time” and “I complete time/quality/quantity reports honestly.” In regards to, ethical leadership behavior comprises ten items Brown et al. (2005), ethical leadership contains ten items. An example is “My supervisor listens to what employees have to say.”

Data Analysis and Results

The partial least squares (PLS) analysis was used to measure model structural equations in this investigation. The Smart-PLS 3.2.8 software was then used to assess the research model (Ringle et al., 2015). Hair et al. (2017) recommended a two-stage analytical process, which was followed in this study. It begins with a measurement model assessment (which establishes reliability and validity) and proceeds to a structural model assessment (tests the hypothesized relationships).

Demographic Analysis

The 22.2% of the respondents were men (18.2% women). In terms of their ages, the largest group (16.2%) falls in the range between 31 and 40 years. With regards to educational background, people who hold a bachelor’s degree represent the majority (24.2%), and for job experience, more than the 18.1% of the respondents had been working for 6 to 10 years.

Measurement Model Assessment

The measuring model was evaluated using construct validity (containing convergent and discriminant validities) and construct reliability. To assess the reliability of each fundamental variables in the measurement model, individual Cronbach’s alpha value were assessed for construct reliability. The consequences showed that all the individual Cronbach’s alpha values, which ranged from 0.787 to 0.914, were more than the recommended value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017). Moreover, the composite reliability (CR) was utilized in this research to assess the construct reliability, which also provided the suggested value. Thus, the standards gained, which reached from 0.860 to 0.927, were more than 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017). This is an adequate signifier that construct reliability was achieved, as shown in Table 1. So, the CR and Cronbach’s alpha obtained for all the constructs can be classified as sufficiently error-free. To test the reliability indicator, factor loading was employed. Significant loadings on a construct indicate that the linked indicators share a lot of similarities, indicating that the construct was able to observe them (Hair et al., 2017). Values greater than 0.50 were considered very significant for outer loading (Hair et al., 2017). As seen in Table 1, the loadings for all the items were more than the recommended value of 0.5, except for item PJ7 = 0.325, which was lower than 0.50, and was thus dropped due to the low loading (see Table 1). For the remaining items in the model, the loading met all the requirements. To test the convergent validity (the degree to which a measure is positively correlated to alternative measures of the same construct), the average variance extracted (AVE) was used in this study. This is an indication that all the values of the AVE, ranging from 0.508 to 0.655, were higher compared to the recommended value of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2017). For all the constructs, convergent validity was met successfully, and an acceptable convergent validity was attained, as offered in Table 1.

Table 1.

Measurement Model, Loading, Construct Reliability, and Convergent Validity.

Constructs	Items	Loading (>.5)	Cronbach’s alpha (>.7)	CR (>.7)	AVE (>.5)
Distributive justice	DJ1	0.798	0.787	0.860	0.606
	DJ2	0.756
	DJ3	0.780
	DJ4	0.778
Procedural justice	PJ1	0.693	0.809	0.860	0.508
	PJ2	0.753
	PJ3	0.823
	PJ4	0.672
	PJ5	0.629
	PJ6	0.690
	PJ7	Dropped
Informational justice	InforJ1	0.833	0.887	0.917	0.687
	InforJ2	0.869
	InforJ3	0.831
	InforJ4	0.819
	InforJ5	0.792
Interpersonal justice	InterPJ1	0.884	0.827	0.883	0.655
	InterPJ2	0.864
	InterPJ3	0.810
	InterPJ4	0.661
Ethical leadership	EL1	0.641	0.908	0.924	0.551
	EL2	0.780
	EL3	0.631
	EL4	0.740
	EL5	0.803
	EL6	0.736
	EL7	0.741
	EL8	0.759
	EL9	0.802
	EL10	0.766
Employees’ ethical behavior	EEB1	0.670	0.914	0.927	0.514
	EEB2	0.748
	EEB3	0.714
	EEB4	0.743
	EEB5	0.697
	EEB6	0.726
	EEB7	0.728
	EEB8	0.658
	EEB9	0.695
	EEB10	0.734
	EEB11	0.738
	EEB12	0.748

Notes.(PJ7) was dropped it due to the low loading. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Two methodologies were utilized to determine discriminant validity: Fornell-Larcker and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). There were no issues with Fornell-technique; Larcker’s the AVE for each concept was bigger than the variation explained by the other observed variables (Hair et al., 2017). (See Table 2). Henseler et al. (2015) suggested the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) of correlations based on the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix as a more accurate approach. When the HTMT value is greater than HTMT 0.85 (value of 0.85), there is a concern with discriminant validity (Kline, 2010). Table 3 demonstrates that all of the HTMT values are below the 0.85 criterion, indicating discriminant validity.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics, Correlation Matrix, and Discriminant Validity Via Fornell and Larcher.

Constructs	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Distributive justice	3.855	0.585	0.778
2. Procedural justice	3.792	0.551	0.602	0.713
3. Informational justice	4.168	0.637	0.432	0.514	0.829
4. Interpersonal justice	4.502	0.519	0.134	0.165	0.483	0.809
5. Ethical leadership	4.175	0.549	0.335	0.583	0.472	0.305	0.742
6. Employees’ ethical behavior	4.133	0.521	0.408	0.574	0.555	0.248	0.602	0.717
7. Gender	1.238	0.426	−0.006	0.030	0.141	−0.006	0.021	0.122	n.a
8. Age	3.044	1.004	−0.092	−0.047	−0.007	0.058	0.035	−0.095	−0.024	n.a
9. Education	2.828	1.216	0.011	0.003	−0.059	−0.114	−0.028	−0.078	0.025	0.222	n.a
10. Job experience	3.281	1.197	−0.167	−0.079	0.074	0.083	0.038	−0.019	−0.021	0.694	0.145	n.a

Notes. SD = standard deviation; n.a = not applicable. Bold values on the diagonal in the correlation matrix are square roots of AVE (variance shared between the constructs and their respective measures). Off-diagonal elements below the diagonal are correlations among the constructs, where values between .13 and .16 are significant at p < .05, and values above .16 are significant at p < .01 (two-tailed test).

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity Via HTMT.

Constructs	Distributive justice	Ethical behavior	Ethical leadership	Informational justice	Interpersonal justice
Distributive justice
Ethical behavior	0.454
Ethical leadership	0.399	0.679
Informational justice	0.527	0.604	0.529
Interpersonal justice	0.189	0.264	0.359	0.558
Procedural justice	0.784	0.633	0.667	0.593	0.199

Notes. HTMT should be lower than 0.85.

Structural Model Assessment (Hypothesis Testing)

Our direct hypotheses from H₁ to H₄ are discussed in this section. The hypothesis testing provided the first indication of the direct effect (H₁), namely, distributive justice significantly predicts the ethical behavior of employees. Hence, H₁ was accepted with β = 0.386, t = 6.467 and p < .000. The second direct effect (H₂) of the relationship between procedural justice and employees’ ethical behavior was positively significant with values β = 0.198, t = 3.019, and p < .001. Similarly, for H₃, informational justice was significantly related to the employees’ ethical behavior, so that β = 0.280, t = 3.990, and p < .000. Interpersonal justice also positively influenced the ethical behavior of employees, so that β = 0.301, t = 4.881, and p < .000. In addition, we have tested H₅ the direct effect of ethical leadership and ethical behavior of employees and the result showed a significant relationship β = 0.216, t = 5.020, and p < .000. The results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 1.

Table 4.

Structural Path Analysis: Direct Effect.

Hypothesis	Relationship	SB	SD	t-Value	p-Values	Bias and corrected bootstrap 95% CI	Decision	f ²	VIF
						[Lower level, upper level]
H-1	Distributive justice -> Ethical behavior	0.386	0.060	6.467	.000	[0.275, 0.475]	Supported	0.178	1.664
H-2	Procedural justice -> Ethical behavior	0.198	0.066	3.019	.001	[0.075, 0.293]	Supported	0.035	2.275
H-3	Informational justice -> Ethical behavior	0.280	0.070	3.990	.000	[0.166, 0.404]	Supported	0.087	1.834
H-4	Interpersonal justice -> Ethical behavior	0.301	0.062	4.881	.000	[0.187, 0.396]	Supported	0.085	1.359
H-5	Ethical leadership -> Ethical behavior	0.216	0.043	5.020	.000	[0.147, 0.286]	Supported	0.085	0.219

Notes. VIF = variance inflation factor; f² = (R² included—R² excluded)/(1−R² included); effect sizes of f² ≥ .02, ≥.15, and ≥.35 are small, moderate, and large, respectively (Cohen 1988).

Figure 1.

Research model: Hypotheses testing.

The moderation test was a crucial contribution in evaluating whether ethical leadership moderates the link between the independent elements of organizational justice, which was one of the study’s major purposes (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and the dependent variable (ethical behavior of employees). Therefore, the moderation effect of ethical leadership on the correlation between organizational justice and employee ethical conduct was tested. The first interaction between distributive justice and ethical leadership toward employees’ ethical behavior revealed a significant interaction, such that β = 0.131, t = 4.640, and p < 0.000. Hence, H_6a is supported. The second interaction between procedural justice and ethical leadership toward the ethical behavior of employees also revealed a significant interaction, with values of β = 0.131, t = 4.640, and p < .000. Therefore, H_6b is accepted. The third interaction presents the relationship between informational justice and ethical leadership toward employees’ ethical behavior, and the statistical analysis showed a positive interaction with values of β = 0.099, t = 3.166, and p < .001. Therefore, H_6c is supported. Surprisingly, the interaction between interpersonal justice and ethical leadership was insignificant, as the statistical analysis showed β = 0.045, t = 1.024, and p < .153. As such, H_6d was not supported. All the results are presented in Table 5 and Figure 1.

Table 5.

Structural Path Analysis: The Interaction Effect (Moderation).

Hypothesis	Relationship	SB	SD	t-Value	p-Values	Bias and corrected bootstrap 95% CI	Decision	f ²	VIF
						[Lower level, upper level]
H-5_a	DJ X EL-> EEB	0.131	0.052	4.640	.000	[0.041, 0.203]	Supported	0.026	1.148
H-5_b	PJ X EL-> EEB	0.149	0.050	2.988	.001	[0.064, 0.232]	Supported	0.039	1.471
H-5_c	InformJ X EL-> EEB	0.099	0.046	3.166	.001	[0.027, 0.176]	Supported	0.018	1.072
H-5_d	InterpeJ X EL-> EEB	0.045	0.044	1.024	.153	[−0.117, 0.020]	Not supported	0.002	1.568

Notes. VIF = variance inflation factor; f² = (R² included —R² excluded)/(1–R² included); effect sizes of f² ≥ .02, ≥.15, and ≥.35 are small, moderate, and large, respectively (Cohen 1988). Keys: DJ X EL-> EEB = distributive justice X ethical leadership-> employees’ ethical behavior; PJ X EL-> EEB = procedural justice X ethical leadership-> employees’ ethical behavior; InformJ X EL-> EEB = informational justice X ethical leadership-> employees’ ethical behavior; InterpeJ X EL-> EEB = interpersonal justice X ethical leadership-> employees’ ethical behavior.

Dawson (2014) recommended that this can be followed up with an interaction plot. Hence, this research used interactions plot to investigate at the gradient of the slopes for all four interactions. As shown in Figure 2, the line labeled “high ethical leadership” for the first interaction has a steeper gradient when compared to “low ethical leadership,” which indicates that when ethical leadership is higher, the positive relationship between distributive justice and the ethical behavior of employees is stronger (see Figure 2). The second interaction is between procedural justice, ethical leadership, and the ethical behavior of employees, which shows that the positive relationship between procedural justice and employees’ ethical behavior is greater when ethical leadership is higher (see Figure 3). Figure 4 presents the interaction between informational justice, ethical leadership, and employees’ ethical behavior. As can be seen from the interaction, a high ethical leadership value strengthens the positive relationship between informational justice and the ethical behavior of employees, such that the relationship is stronger when the ethical leadership is higher (see Figure 4).

Figure 2.

Distributive justice X ethical leadership interaction on the employees’ ethical behavior.

Figure 3.

Procedural justice X ethical leadership interaction on the employees’ ethical behavior.

Figure 4.

Informational justice X ethical leadership interaction on the employees’ ethical behavior.

The concern of collinearity is crucial in a structural model, as noted before in the analysis section. Hair et al. (2017) state that there is a multi-collinearity issue when the largest variance inflation factor (VIF) has a value greater than 5.0. However, Tables 4 and 5 present the findings related to our results and are free of multicollinearity problems, as the VIF values are all far lower than the 5.0 cutoff (Hair et al., 2017). Also, Tables 4 and 5 demonstrate the effect size f², which can be used to determine whether an exogenous latent construct has a weak, moderate, or substantial effect on an endogenous latent construct (Gefen & Rigdon, 2011). Hair et al. (2017) recommended that a test should be conducted on the change in the R² value. Cohen (1988) suggested a magnitude of f² at 0.02 (small), 0.15 (medium), and 0.35 (large), as guideline measures. Therefore, as showed in Tables 4 and 5, the f² can be considered to have medium-to-large effects, except for the interaction between interpersonal justice and ethical leadership, which was considered small.

Importantly, in terms of the overall explanatory power of the model, R² = 0.518 for employees’ ethical behavior, which can be classified as a moderate-to-substantial effect (Hair et al., 2017). Also, the Stone-Geisser blindfolding sample reuse technique reveals Q² values larger than zero, thus indicating that the research model in this study is good for predicting employees’ ethical behavior (Q² = 0.241) (Hair et al., 2017). Finally, in terms of overall goodness-of-fit (GoF), the standardized root mean square (SRMR) residual index offers a value of 0.042, which is far below the 0.08 cutoff (Henseler, 2017). Also, the SRMR’s 95% bootstrap quantile is 0.059 and, therefore, higher than the SRMR value (0.042), which indicates that the model has a good fit (Hair et al., 2017). Finally, the discrepancy indexes dULS (unweighted least squares discrepancy) and dG (geodesic discrepancy) are also under the bootstrap-based 95% percentile (dULS = 1.371 < HI 95 of dULS = 2.852; dG = 0.462 < HI 95 of dG = 0.881) (Hair et al., 2017). Overall, the discrepancy between the empirical and the model-implied correlation matrix is not significant, which suggests no reason to reject the model, and that the model is likely to be true (Henseler, 2017).

Discussion and Conclusion

This study examines the relationship of distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice with employee ethical behavior. Importantly, we analyzed ethical leadership as a vital boundary condition on the relationship between (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and employee ethical behavior. Despite this, there are a number of studies on the relationship between organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and employees’ ethical behavior (e.g., Shah et al., 2017). Also, most prior studies have concentrated on the impact of one or two components of organizational justice on employees’ ethical behavior (Chen McCain et al., 2010; Shah et al., 2017), as their findings are not completely in line with the propositions in the literature, whereas the current study integrated the four dimensions of organizational justice (i.e., distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) to look at their relationship to employees’ ethical behavior. Therefore, as our investigation revealed (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) positively influence employees’ ethical behavior, the term is closely connected to the concept of fairness; employees are sensitive to decisions made on a day-to-day basis by their employers that will judge these decisions as fair. These judgments influence an individual’s behavior and can, in cases where the actions have a personal effect on the employee and are judged as fair, lead to positive ethical behavior (Karam et al., 2019). Based on its centrality, in this study, we found that distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice and an individual’s behaviors. Indeed, these elements has been demonstrated to significantly influence the ethical behavior of employees.

Most significantly, in this study, we analyzed ethical leadership as a contingent element on the relationship of (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and ethical behavior of employees. Therefore, the results revealed that ethical leadership is strengthened the positive impacts of both (distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and employee ethical behavior. Thus, we derive two main conclusions: First, by evoking enhanced ethical behavior among employees, justice including (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) constitutes a fueling factor that rests on employees’ perceptions of fairness within their organization. Even if they do everything possible to ensure fair and ethical content outputs and processes within an organization, individuals may respond differently to these factors. Leaders in an organization are in a privileged situation to administer justice since they have significant influence over organizational resources and legitimate power over employees (Hayibor et al., 2011), especially when the compatibility of a follower’s values with the manager’s values is high that would facilitate the development of followers’ ethical behavior (Cha et al., 2020). Thus, ethical leadership is a clear moderator of the effects of (distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) and employee ethical behavior.

Theoretical Implications

This research added to the body of knowledge by concentrating on the wide range of positive outcomes associated with organizational justice and individual ethical behavior. The majority of recent study has focused on the favorable influence of organizational justice on employees’ ethical behavior (Demirtas, 2015; Shah et al., 2017). Nevertheless, this investigation is one of the few to incorporate all four aspects of organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) into a single study (Al Halbusi et al., 2019). Hence, as a result, all four aspects of organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) were investigated in relationship to employees’ ethical behavior in a single sample. In addition, the majority of previous research concentrated on the Western cultural context (Chen McCain, et al., 2010; Treviño & Weaver, 2001) or on a type of unethical behavior directed at redressing perceived issues of injustice, for example, retaliation, theft, and sabotage (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; El Akremi et al., 2010). Thus, by examining at how organizational justice significantly influences ethical behaviors in a Middle Eastern country like Saudi Arabia, our work has taken a significant step forward in examining the actual nature of these interactions across various cultural settings.

Most importantly, As earlier stated, behavioral implications are determined by the compatibility of a person’s (leaders) values with organizational values (justice). The aim of this study was to see if ethical leadership increased the positive impact of organizational justice on workers’ ethical behavior. Therefore, leaders are seen as essential purposes of ethical behavior and organizational success. This study discovered that ethical leadership has a significant impact on the relationship between organizational justice (i.e., distributive justice, procedural justice, and informational justice) and the ethical behavior of employees, such the relationship is stronger when a leader’s ethical behavior is higher (except for the interaction between interpersonal justice and ethical leadership, which was insignificant). This research coped that as role models in their organizations who can trigger relational attachments and model ethical leadership behavior, trigger managers have a legitimate right that morally controls the activities of the organization’s members. In addition, the results of this investigation can be used to derive a variety of important conclusions. A moral leader is comparable to a captain who knows how to lead a ship in the proper path (Brown, 2007). Individuals see their leader as a role model, both as a personal manager and as a professional manager, who executes their work in an ethical manner inside the organization, as the organization’s leader creates and articulates ethical guidance and ethical principles (Brown et al., 2005). According to Brown and Treviño (2006), A personal leader runs his or her business appropriately, caring for his or her employees, making sound decisions, and emphasizing on the means rather than the goal. A professional leader engages and treats employees fairly by establishing clear rules and procedures that demand high moral standards from employees, proactively conveying those moral standards and expectations to employees, and employing a system of rewards and punishments to motivate subordinates to engage in ethical behavior (Brown et al., 2005). Therefore, as a result, ethical leadership was discovered to be a significant moderator in the relationship between organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, and informational justice) and ethical conduct among employees in this research.

Managerial Implications

The findings give a clear indication to upper management that, while ethical issues in businesses are more concerning than organizational justice alone, failing to ensure that organizational justice is perceived favorably by employees is an important component to consider when encouraging ethical workplace practices. Of further importance, the findings of this study support previous suggestions (e.g., Al Halbusi et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2005) that managerial activities can vary depending on whether a leader has high or low ethical values. Although the positive relations we found between organizational justice and employee ethical behavior, our findings suggest that these associations might be established either positively or negatively depending on the extent of ethical leadership behavior. In other words, upper management should be cautious that their efforts to make organizational justice transparent and interpreted in their organizations will not evoke the favorable response in terms of ethical behavior that they expect from all of their subordinates. These findings are significant because they help practitioners forecast whether employees will be encouraged by distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice practices in the workplace, as well as when these experiences would be less influential.

As an outcome of the present study, it’s probable that there are constraints affecting (by enhancing or buffering) the positive effects that define justice standards in the results given to the employees and the actions used to make decisions that are intended to enforce social exchange processes. Certainly, organizational justice perceptions (i.e., distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) may generate positive responses in subordinates, including ethical actions, centered on social exchange processes. Nonetheless, employees can respond inversely to these aspects of justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) even though they do whatever possible to ensure equal outcomes and processes of the organization. Therefore, the effects of organizational justice on employee ethical conduct are explicitly moderated by ethical leadership, the most significant issue is that leaders are often seen as representatives of the company, and when managers act ethically, they reinforce workers’ perceptions of justice as a key component of ethical conduct in the workplace (Lind, 2001). Employee ethical behavior is influenced by ethical leadership. As a result, organizations should take it into account. As a result, businesses should make an effort to select and/or train ethical leaders, as ethical leadership encourages employees to act ethically. Company entities may consider two options: recruiting more ethical leaders and offering more training to current leaders. Training themes include promoting and rewarding ethically behaving employees, conveying the importance of ethics, and being role models of ethical behavior (Treviño et al., 2014). As a result, at the highest levels, ethical practitioners must be considered and recognized, regardless of whether they have a high or low degree of ethical values, who have prior knowledge of how corporate justice affects employee ethical behavior, and complement administrative acts with those that maintain an ethical work environment.

Limitations and Future Studies

Due to the research’s shortcomings, precautions should be taken when interpreting the findings. First, because the workers in our sample derive from a particular industry (banking), the generalizability of our findings to the general population may be limited. Generalizability remains a severe concern because the sample does not really reflect the complete cultural context of Saudi Arabia’s population. Hence, future research would be able to reproduce the current findings across a variety of organizational, manufacturing, and geographic settings. Second, although this investigation is predictive and utilizes a strong time-lagged study design that separates two-time frames, it is not a completely longitudinal design that enables for clear causal conclusions to be derived. Hence, we inspire organizational researchers in conducting more empirical studies to look into the link between ethical leadership and employee behavioral outcomes, as well as collectivistic and gender issues, because feminist issues are significant in Saudi Arabia, where men and women are treated differently in the workplace (Marcinkowska et al., 2017). Third, the study’s findings were based on a survey of respondents from a Middle Eastern cultural background. As a consequence, the context’s specific cultural characteristics, which featured a strong adherence to religious values among other things, are taken into consideration (Moaddel & Karabenik, 2010), might have affected the study’s outcomes. The consequences of right, ethical action is remarkably likely to be repeated within cultural settings (Triandis et al., 1988). Nevertheless, further study is clearly required to determine the context-sensitivity of these results (Whetten, 2009) when compared to other cultures, Saudi Arabia’s religious and cultural features are easily distinct (Ribberink et al., 2018).

Particularly, as indicated earlier, cultural issue may affect the outcomes of this study. Thus, at first glance, the cultural background and ethnic diversity that exists in the Saudi Arabia verified that the perceived of ethical perspectives are different from other cultures and this variety is indeed indicated unexpected results. Saudi is considered as country has variety of ethnic. Since ethics aspects is considered as self-regulation, self-conception and responsibility of an individual the perceived of ethics has variation from one person to another in the diversity context in term of self-conception which is very hard to verify it in context has ethnic diversity. By the same token, this point is highlighted in the Saudi context with ethnic diversity where, basically, the different diversity of employees may provide an unconscious prescription makes a high difference of the concepts. A further according to Hofstede (1984) Saudi society is collectivist nature, so in the collectivist nature; in comparison with individualistic societies, defining ethics as activities of ethical decision, and assigning tasks based on ethical standards and responsibilities of individuals, so, based on this is very clear for individualistic people works better rather than collectivistic, for instance, employees feel and behave better when they have more action and interaction of individualism rather than collectivism (Al Halbusi et al., 2022).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research has been funded by the scientific research deanship at the University of Hail- Saudi Arabia through project number BA-2210.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

ORCID iD

Hussam Al Halbusi

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Adams

J. S.

(1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968

Akram

Lei

Haider

M. J.

Hussain

S. T.

(2020). The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 117–129.

Al Halbusi

Ruiz-Palomino

Jimenez-Estevez

Gutiérrez-Broncano

(2021). How upper/middle managers’ ethical leadership activates employee ethical behavior? The role of organizational justice perceptions among employees. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 652471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652471

Al Halbusi

Tang

T. L. P.

Williams

K. A.

Ramayah

(2022). Do ethical leaders enhance employee ethical behaviors? Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 11(1), 105–135.

Al Halbusi

Tehseen

Hamid

F. A. H.

Afthanorhan

(2018). A study of organizational justice on the trust in organization under the mediating role of ethical leadership. Business Ethics and Leadership, 2(4), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.2(4).89-98.2018

Al Halbusi

Williams

K. A.

Mansoor

H. O.

Hassan

M. S.

Hamid

F. A. H.

(2019). Examining the impact of ethical leadership and organizational justice on employees’ ethical behavior: Does person–organization fit play a role? Ethics & Behavior, 30(7), 514–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2019.1694024

Al Halbusi

Williams

K. A.

Ramayah

Aldieri

Vinci

C. P.

(2020). Linking ethical leadership and ethical climate to employees’ ethical behavior: The moderating role of person–organization fit. Personnel Review, 50(1), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2019-0522

Ambrose

M. L.

Schminke

(2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491.

Astrachan

J. H.

Binz Astrachan

Campopiano

Baù

(2020). Values, spirituality and religion: Family business and the roots of sustainable ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), 637–645.

10.

Babalola

M. T.

Stouten

Camps

Euwema

(2017). When do ethical leaders become less effective? The moderating role of perceived leader ethical conviction on employee discretionary reactions to ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3472-z

11.

Bedi

Alpaslan

C. M.

Green

(2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2625-1

12.

Bies

R. J.

Shapiro

D. L.

(1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 676–685. https://doi.org/10.2307/256465

13.

Bies

Moag

(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki

R. J.

Sheppard

B. H.

Bazerman

M. H.

(Eds.) Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43–55). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

14.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge.

15.

Brislin

R. W.

(1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis

H. C.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (pp. 389–444). Allyn & Bacon.

16.

Brown

M. E.

(2007). Misconceptions of ethical leadership: Organizational Dynamics, 36(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.03.003

17.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

(2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

18.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

(2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1769-0

19.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

Harrison

D. A.

(2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

20.

Butitova

(2018). Perceptions of organizational justice among state government employees: The effect of years of public service. Public Personnel Management, 48(3), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018816348

21.

Cha

S. E.

Kim

S. S.

Hewlin

P. F.

DeRue

D. S.

(2020). Turning a blind or critical eye to leader value breaches: The role of value congruence in employee perceptions of leader integrity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(3), 286–306.

22.

Charoensap

Virakul

Senasu

Ayman

(2018). Effect of ethical leadership and interactional justice on employee work attitudes. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(4), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21574

23.

Chen McCain

S. L.

Tsai

Bellino

(2010). Organizational justice, employees’ ethical behavior, and job satisfaction in the casino industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(7), 992–1009. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011066644

24.

Cheng

S. Y.

(2014). The mediating role of organizational justice on the relationship between administrative performance appraisal practices and organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1131–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816864

25.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Lim

A. S.

(2008). Manager trustworthiness or interactional justice? Predicting organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9631-x

26.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.

27.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

P. E.

(2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958

28.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

29.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O. L. H.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

30.

Colquitt

J. A.

Greenberg

(2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In Greenberg

(Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 159–200). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607379-13

31.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

Rodell

J. B.

Long

D. M.

Zapata

C. P.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

(2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199.

32.

Constandt

De Waegeneer

Willem

(2018). Coach ethical leadership in soccer clubs: An analysis of its influence on ethical behavior. Journal of Sport Management, 32(3), 185–198.

33.

Crawshaw

J. R.

Cropanzano

Bell

C. M.

Nadisic

(2013). Organizational justice: New insights from behavioral ethics. Human Relations, 66(7), 885–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713485609

34.

Dawson

J. F.

(2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

35.

DeConinck

J. B.

(2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust. Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1349–1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.01.003

36.

Demirtas

(2015). Ethical leadership influence at organizations: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1950-5

37.

Dietrich

Weisswange

T. H.

(2019). Distributive justice as an ethical principle for autonomous vehicle behavior beyond hazard scenarios. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09504-3

38.

Dimitriou

C. K.

Ducette

J. P.

(2018). An analysis of the key determinants of hotel employees’ ethical behavior. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 34, 66–74.

39.

El Akremi

Vandenberghe

Camerman

(2010). The role of justice and social exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model. Human Relations, 63(11), 1687–1717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710364163

40.

Folger

R. G.

Cropanzano

(1998). Organizational justice and human resource management (Vol. 7). Sage.

41.

Folger

Cropanzano

Goldman

(2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality. In Greenberg

Colquitt

(Eds), Handbook of organizational justice (p. 215). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

42.

Gefen

Rigdon

E. E.

Straub

(2011). Editor’s comments: an update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS quarterly, iii-xiv.

43.

Greenberg

(1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/257990

44.

Greenberg

(1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208

45.

Greenberg

Cropanzano

(1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In Cropanzano

(Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

46.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2017). A Primeron Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), seconded. Sage.

47.

Hayibor

Agle

B. R.

Sears

G. J.

Sonnenfeld

J. A.

Ward

(2011). Value congruence and charismatic leadership in CEO–top manager relationships: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 237–254.

48.

Henseler

(2017). Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1281780

49.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

50.

Hermanto

Y. B.

Srimulyani

V. A.

(2022). The effects of organizational justice on employee performance using dimension of organizational citizenship behavior as mediation. Sustainability, 14(20), 13322.

51.

Hofstede

(1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Sage.

52.

Holtz

B. C.

Harold

C. M.

(2013). Interpersonal justice and deviance: The moderating effects of interpersonal justice values and justice orientation. Journal of Management, 39(2), 339–365.

53.

Huang

(2016). Interactional justice and employee silence: The roles of procedural justice and affect. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(5), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.5.837

54.

Jacobs

Belschak

F. D.

Den Hartog

D. N.

(2014). (Un)Ethical behavior and performance appraisal: The role of affect, support, and organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1687-1

55.

Karam

E. P.

Davison

R. B.

Juravich

Nahrgang

J. D.

Humphrey

S. E.

Scott DeRue

(2019). Illuminating the “Face” of justice: A meta-analytic examination of leadership and organizational justice. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 134–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12402

56.

Khan

Abbas

Gul

Raja

(2013). Organizational justice and job outcomes: Moderating role of Islamic work ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1937-2

57.

Kline

R. B.

(2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

58.

Bartnik

Haney

M. H.

Kang

(2017). Ethical leadership: An integrative review and future research agenda. Ethics & Behavior, 28(2), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1318069

59.

Konovsky

M. A.

(2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600306

60.

Koopman

Scott

B. A.

Matta

F. K.

Conlon

D. E.

Dennerlein

(2019). Ethical leadership as a substitute for justice enactment: An information-processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000403

61.

Kuenzi

Mayer

D. M.

Greenbaum

R. L.

(2019). Creating an ethical organizational environment: The relationship between ethical leadership, ethical organizational climate, and unethical behavior. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12356

62.

Kuntz

J. R. C.

Kuntz

J. R.

Elenkov

Nabirukhina

(2013). Characterizing ethical cases: A cross-cultural investigation of individual differences, organizational climate, and leadership on ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 317–331.

63.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of justice in social relationships. In Gergen

Greenberg

Willis

(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in experimental and social psychology (pp. 91–131). Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2

64.

Johnson

D. E.

(2012). Moral leadership and psychological empowerment in China. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(1), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211193875

65.

Lin

X.-W.

Che

H.-S.

Leung

(2009). The role of leader morality in the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(7), 1536–1561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00494.x

66.

Lind

E. A.

(2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. Advances in Organizational Justice, 56(8), 56–88.

67.

Loi

Hang-Yue

Foley

(2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X39657

68.

Loi

Lam

L. W.

Chan

K. W.

(2011). Coping with job insecurity: The role of procedural justice, ethical leadership and power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1095-3

69.

Loi

Mao

Ngo

(2009). Linking leader-member exchange and employee work outcomes: The mediating role of organizational social and economic exchange. Management and Organization Review, 5(3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00149.x

70.

C.-S.

Lin

C.-C.

(2014). The effects of ethical leadership and ethical climate on employee ethical behavior in the international port context. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 209–223.

71.

Marcinkowska

U. M.

Dixson

B. J.

Kozlov

M. V.

Prasai

Rantala

M. J.

(2017). Men’s preferences for female facial femininity decline with age. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 72(1), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv077

72.

Mayer

D. M.

Kuenzi

Greenbaum

Bardes

Salvador

(2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002

73.

Moaddel

Karabenik

S. A.

(2010). Religious fundamentalism in eight Muslim-majority countries: Reconceptualization and assessment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 57(4), 676–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12549

74.

Moghimi

S. M.

Kazemi

Samiie

(2013). Studying the relationship between organizational justice and employees’ quality of work life in public organizations: A case study of Qom province. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 6(1), 117–143. https://doi.10.22059/IJMS.2013.30127

75.

Mohyeldin Tahir Suliman

. (2007). Links between justice, satisfaction and performance in the workplace. Journal of Management Development, 26(4), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710740075

76.

Nagtegaal

(2021). The impact of using algorithms for managerial decisions on public employees’ procedural justice. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101536.

77.

Newman

D. T.

Fast

N. J.

Harmon

D. J.

(2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149–167.

78.

Newstrom

J. W.

Ruch

W. A.

(1975). Ethics of management and management of ethics. MSU Business Topics, 23(1), 29–37.

79.

T. W. H.

Feldman

D. C.

(2015). Ethical leadership: Meta-analytic evidence of criterion-related and incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 948–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038246

80.

Noble

S. M.

Foster

L. L.

Craig

S. B.

(2021). The procedural and interpersonal justice of automated application and resume screening. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(2), 139–153.

81.

O’Keefe

D. F.

Howell

G. T.

Squires

E. C.

(2019). Ethical leadership begets ethical leadership: exploring situational moderators of the trickle-down effect. Ethics & Behavior, 30(8), 581–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2019.1649676

82.

Oubrich

Hakmaoui

Benhayoun

Söilen

K. S.

Abdulkader

(2021). Impacts of leadership style, organizational design and HRM practices on knowledge hiding: The indirect roles of organizational justice and competitive work environment. Journal of Business Research, 137, 488–499.

83.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

84.

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

85.

Qiu

Dooley

(2022). How servant leadership affects organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating roles of perceived procedural justice and trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(3), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2021-0146

86.

Rahaman

H. S.

Stouten

Decoster

Camps

(2022). Antecedents of employee thriving at work: The roles of formalization, ethical leadership, and interpersonal justice. Applied Psychology, 71(1), 3–26.

87.

Reb

Chaturvedi

Narayanan

Kudesia

R. S.

(2019). Leader mindfulness and employee performance: A sequential mediation model of LMX quality, interpersonal justice, and employee stress. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(3), 745–763.

88.

Ribberink

Achterberg

Houtman

(2018). Religious polarization: Contesting religion in secularized Western European countries. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 33(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2018.1469262

89.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J.-M.

(2015). SmartPLS 3. Bonningstedt: SmartPLS. Retrieved December 30, 2018, from http://www.smartpls.com.

90.

Roch

S. G.

Shannon

C. E.

Martin

J. J.

Swiderski

Agosta

J. P.

Shanock

L. R.

(2019). Role of employee felt obligation and endorsement of the just world hypothesis: A social exchange theory investigation in an organizational justice context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12578

91.

Rubino

Avery

D. R.

McKay

P. F.

Moore

B. L.

Wilson

D. C.

Van Driel

M. S.

Witt

L. A.

McDonald

D. P.

(2018). And justice for all: How organizational justice climate deters sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 519–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12274

92.

Schuh

S. C.

Zheng

M. X.

Xin

K. R.

Fernandez

J. A.

(2019). The interpersonal benefits of leader mindfulness: A serial mediation model linking leader mindfulness, leader procedural justice enactment, and employee exhaustion and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 1007–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3610-7

93.

Scott

B. A.

Colquitt

J. A.

Zapata-Phelan

C. P.

(2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1597.

94.

Shah

Anwar

Irani

(2017). The impact of organizational justice on ethical behavior. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 12(2), 240. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbir.2017.081405

95.

Sosik

J. J.

Chun

J. U.

Ete

Arenas

F. J.

Scherer

J. A.

(2019). Self-control puts character into action: Examining how leader character strengths and ethical leadership relate to leader outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 765–781.

96.

Stecher

M. D.

Rosse

J. G.

(2005). The distributive side of interactional justice: The effects of interpersonal treatment on emotional arousal. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2), 229–246.

97.

Thomas

Schermerhorn

J. R.

Dienhart

J. W.

(2004). Strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(2), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.13837425

98.

Toor

S.-R.

Ofori

(2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0059-3

99.

Treviño

L. K.

Weaver

G. R.

(2001). Organizational justice and ethics program “Follow-Through”: Influences on employees’ harmful and helpful behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857765

100.

Treviño

L. K.

den Nieuwenboer

N. A.

Kish-Gephart

J. J.

(2014). (Un)Ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 635–660. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143745

101.

Triandis

H. C.

Bontempo

Villareal

M. J.

Asai

Lucca

(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323

102.

Ugaddan

R. G.

Park

S. M.

(2019). Do trustful leadership, organizational justice, and motivation influence whistle-blowing intention? Evidence from federal employees. Public Personnel Management, 48(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018783009

103.

Valentine

Hollingworth

Francis

C. A.

(2013). Quality-related HR practices, organizational ethics, and positive work attitudes: Implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(4), 493–523.

104.

Van Dijke

Gobena

L. B.

Verboon

(2019). Make me want to pay. A three-way interaction between procedural justice, distributive justice, and power on voluntary tax compliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01632

105.

Werner

J. M.

Anderson

Nimon

(2019). Human resource development quarterly and human resource development: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21340

106.

Whetten

D. A.

(2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00132.x

107.

A. J.

Loi

Ngo

(2016). Ethical leadership behavior and employee justice perceptions: The mediating role of trust in organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2457-4

108.

Zapata

C. P.

Carton

A. M.

Liu

J. T.

(2016). When justice promotes injustice: Why minority leaders experience bias when they adhere to interpersonal justice rules. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1150–1173.

Navigating Organizational Justice and Ethical Leadership: Empirical Evidence from Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Foundation and Hypothesis Development

Organizational Justice and Employees’ Ethical Behavior

Contingent Role of Ethical Leadership

Method

Sample and Procedures

Measurement

Data Analysis and Results

Demographic Analysis

Measurement Model Assessment

Structural Model Assessment (Hypothesis Testing)

Discussion and Conclusion

Theoretical Implications

Managerial Implications

Limitations and Future Studies

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

Informed Consent

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References