Authentic Leadership and Followers’ Cheating Behaviour: A Laboratory Experiment from a Self-Concept Maintenance Perspective

Braun, Susanne; Hornuf, Lars

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65307-5_9

Authentic Leadership and Followers’ Cheating Behaviour: A Laboratory Experiment from a Self-Concept Maintenance Perspective

Susanne Braun^4,5 &
Lars Hornuf^6,7

Chapter
First Online: 14 December 2017

2576 Accesses
1 Citations
1 Altmetric

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Leadership and Followership ((PASTLEFO))

Abstract

This chapter presents insights into the question whether followers’ perceptions of authentic leadership attenuate cheating. From the perspective of self-concept maintenance theory, followers will cheat so long as they can maintain a positive self-concept. We suggested that authentic leadership lowers the perceptual threshold under which followers can still consider themselves honest. A laboratory experiment combined video-based variations of authentic leadership with a cheating-of-mind experiment. We collected data from 343 students at a German university. Results indicate that participants cheated, but not to the fullest extent possible. Authentic leadership did not affect the extent to which participants cheated. These results held when moderating variables were tested (e.g., cheating norm, victimization). Hence, the findings do not support the notion that a short-term authentic leadership intervention attenuates cheating.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

Abeler, J., Becker, A., & Falk, A. (2014). Representative evidence on lying costs. Journal of Public Economics, 113, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.01.005.
Article Google Scholar
Alberti, F., & Güth, W. (2013). Studying deception without deceiving participants: An experiment of deception experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.001.
Article Google Scholar
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.619.
Article Google Scholar
Ariely, D. (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Google Scholar
Ariely, D., Garcia-Rada, X., Hornuf, L., & Mann, H. (2014). The (true) legacy of two really existing economic systems. Munich Discussion Papers in Economics 2014–26. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2457000
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25001-2.
Article Google Scholar
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2014). Report to the nations on occupational fraud and abuse. Austin, TX: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Retrieved from https://www.acfe.com/rttn/docs/2014-report-to-nations.pdf.
Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003.
Article Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070.
Article Google Scholar
Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006.
Article Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. H., & Gino, F. (2012). Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173815.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.
Article Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1993). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101, 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1086/259394.
Article Google Scholar
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 14–31. Retrieved from http://amr.aom.org/content/23/1.toc.
Google Scholar
Braun, S., & Peus, C. (2016). Crossover of work–life balance perceptions: Does authentic leadership matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3078-x.
Bucciol, A., Landini, F., & Piovesan, M. (2013). Unethical behavior in the field: Demographic characteristics and beliefs of the cheater. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.018.
Article Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015.
Article Google Scholar
Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on followers’ ethical decision-making in the face of temptation: An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 581–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.001.
Article Google Scholar
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051808326596.
Article Google Scholar
Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516, 86–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13977.
Google Scholar
Conrads, J., Irlenbusch, B., Rilke, R. M., & Walkowitz, G. (2013). Lying and team incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology, 34, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.10.011.
Article Google Scholar
Deyle, E. (2014). The new barometer: The global retail theft barometer. Retrieved from http://www.odesus.gr/images/nea/eidhseis/2015/3.Global-Retail-Theft-Barometer-2015/GRTB%202015_web.pdf
Djawadi, B. M., & Fahr, R. (2015). “… and they are really lying”: Clean evidence on the pervasiveness of cheating in professional contexts from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 48, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.03.002.
Article Google Scholar
Effron, D. A., Bryan, C. J., & Murnighan, J. K. (2015). Cheating at the end to avoid regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000026.
Article Google Scholar
Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). White lies. Management Science, 58, 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1449.
Article Google Scholar
Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013). Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and organizational deviance. Management Research Review, 36, 828–848. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2012-0136.
Article Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in disguise – An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11, 525–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12014.
Article Google Scholar
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120–1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007.
Article Google Scholar
Gill, D., Prowse, V., & Vlassopoulos, M. (2013). Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 96, 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.09.011.
Article Google Scholar
Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership and business ethics. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 4, 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199700400406.
Article Google Scholar
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20, 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x.
Article Google Scholar
Gino, F., Kouchaki, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The moral virtue of authenticity. How inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychological Science, 26, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615575277.
Article Google Scholar
Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37, 1137–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310393520.
Article Google Scholar
Hörner, K., Weisweiler, S., & Braun, S. (2015). Authentic leadership and follower stress perception and coping – Model testing and validation of the Authentic Leadership Inventory. 75th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2015/1/10922.short
Houser, D., Vetter, S., & Winter, J. (2012). Fairness and cheating. European Economic Review, 56, 1645–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.08.001.
Article Google Scholar
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Review, 6, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1992.4274395.
Google Scholar
Ibarra, H. (2015). The authenticity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 93, 52–59. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-authenticity-paradox.
Google Scholar
Ichino, A., & Maggi, G. (2000). Work environment and individual background: Explaining regional shirking differentials in a large Italian firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 1057–1090. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554890.
Article Google Scholar
Javidan, M., & Dastmalchian, A. (2009). Managerial implications of the GLOBE project: A study of 62 societies. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47, 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411108099289.
Article Google Scholar
Jiang, T. (2013). Cheating in mind games: The subtlety of rules matters. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.003.
Article Google Scholar
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01.
Kiersch, C. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2015). Is being authentic being fair? Multilevel examination of authentic leadership, justice, and employee outcomes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22, 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815570035.
Article Google Scholar
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management, 41, 1677–1697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457822.
Article Google Scholar
Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2011). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1036-1.
Article Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.409.
Article Google Scholar
Lundquist, T., Ellingsen, T., Gribbe, E., & Johannesson, M. (2009). The aversion to lying. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.010.
Article Google Scholar
Mann, H., Garcia-Rada, X., Hornuf, L., & Tafurt, J. (2016). What deters crime? Comparing the effectiveness of legal, social, and internal sanctions across countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00085.
Article Google Scholar
Mann, H., Garcia-Rada, X., Hornuf, L., Tafurt, J., & Ariely, D. (2016). Cut from the same cloth: Similarly dishonest individuals across countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 858–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116648211.
Article Google Scholar
Mann, H., Garcia-Rada, X., Houser, D., & Ariely, D. (2014). Everybody else is doing it: Exploring social transmission of lying behavior. PloS One, 9(10), e109591. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109591.
Article Google Scholar
Mathys, N. J. (2002). A conversation with C. Richard Panico: Leading an ethically-based organization. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900208.
Article Google Scholar
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–644. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633.
Article Google Scholar
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1996). The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6, 461–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857499.
Meuser, J. D., Gardner, W. L., Dinh, J. E., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Lord, R. G. (2016). A network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management, 42, 1374–1403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316647099.
Article Google Scholar
Murphy, P. R., & Dacin, M. T. (2011). Psychological pathways to fraud: Understanding and preventing fraud in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0741-0.
Article Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2003). An experimental investigation of deterrence: Cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology, 41, 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00985.x.
Article Google Scholar
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008.
Article Google Scholar
Nitsch, D., Baetz, M., & Hughes, J. C. (2005). Why code of conduct violations go unreported: A conceptual framework to guide intervention and future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-8203-6.
Article Google Scholar
Peus, C., Braun, S., & Knipfer, K. (2015). On becoming a leader in Asia and America: Empirical evidence from women managers. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.004.
Article Google Scholar
Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1042-3.
Article Google Scholar
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2012). Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65, 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.003.
Article Google Scholar
Schneider, A., & Schröder, T. (2012). Ideal types of leadership as patterns of affective meaning: A cross-cultural and over-time perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272512446755.
Article Google Scholar
Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.006.
Article Google Scholar
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What's your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.005.
Article Google Scholar
Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 513–540. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200818436.
Article Google Scholar
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434.
Article Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617. Retrieved from http://wweb.uta.edu/management/lavelle/New%20Folder/Trevino%201986.pdf.
Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258.
Article Google Scholar
Vidyarthi, P. R., Anand, S., & Liden, R. C. (2014). Do emotionally perceptive leaders motivate higher employee performance? The moderating role of task interdependence and power distance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.003.
Article Google Scholar
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913.
Article Google Scholar
Wang, D. S., & Hsieh, C. C. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41, 613–624. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.613.
Article Google Scholar
Weisel, O., & Shalvi, S. (2015). The collaborative roots of corruption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 10651–10656. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423035112.
Article Google Scholar
Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. K. (2013). Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of empowerment. Journal of Nursing Management, 69, 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06089.x.
Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the support of David Schindler and the team of the Munich Experimental Laboratory for Economic and Social Sciences. We also thank Ximena Garcia-Rada and the participants in the Workshop on Experimental Labour and Personnel Economics (Institute for Labour Law and Industrial Relations in the European Union) as well as the Workshop on the Autonomy at Work and Employee Involvement: Causes and Consequences (Institute for Employment Research) for their helpful comments and suggestions. We are highly indebted to Anna Fuhrmann and Xueqian Chen for their excellent research assistance. We also thank Matthias Schmitt, Karolina Nieberle, David Goretzko, and Mark Bärthel for their help in running the experiment. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Fritz Thyssen Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Durham University Business School, Durham University, Durham, UK
Susanne Braun
Center for Leadership and People Management, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany
Susanne Braun
Faculty of Business Studies & Economics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Lars Hornuf
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany
Lars Hornuf

Authors

Susanne Braun
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Lars Hornuf
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Dorianne Cotter-Lockard

Appendix 1

List and Definition of Variables

Dependent Variable:

High roll: 0 = Participants reported that they had rolled a 1, 2, or 3. 1 = Participants reported that they had rolled a 4, 5, or 6.

Explanatory Variables:

Age: Participants’ age as of April 2015.
Education: Reply to the question “What is the highest level of education you have completed?” 0 = none, 1 = “Hauptschule” (lower-level high school), 2 = “Realschule” (high school), 3 = “Abitur / Fachabitur” (college), 4 = “Bachelor / Fachhochschulabschluss” (3–4 years of university), 5 = “Master / Diplom” (4–5 years of university) and 6 = “Promotion / Aufbaustudium” (doctoral degree, post-graduate degree).
Expectations: Reply to the question “What is the percentage of participants who have earned more than you in the die task?”
Gender: Gender, 0 = female, 1 = male.
Living standard: Reply to the question “What describes your standard of living?” on a scale from 1 = very well-off to 6 = poor.
Material standard: Reply to the question “What is your marital status”. 1 = single, 2 = In a relationship, 3 = married, 4 = divorced, 5 = other, 6 = prefer not to answer.
Semester: Number of semester participants had studied as of April 2015.
Work experience: Reply to the question whether the participant had previous work experience in an organization, 0 = no, 1 = yes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Braun, S., Hornuf, L. (2018). Authentic Leadership and Followers’ Cheating Behaviour: A Laboratory Experiment from a Self-Concept Maintenance Perspective. In: Cotter-Lockard, D. (eds) Authentic Leadership and Followership. Palgrave Studies in Leadership and Followership. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65307-5_9

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65307-5_9
Published: 14 December 2017
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65306-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65307-5
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Abstract

References

Acknowledgements

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

List and Definition of Variables

Dependent Variable:

Explanatory Variables:

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Publish with us

Search

Navigation