↓ Skip to main content

In the moral eye of the beholder: the interactive effects of leader and follower moral identity on perceptions of ethical leadership and LMX quality

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In the moral eye of the beholder: the interactive effects of leader and follower moral identity on perceptions of ethical leadership and LMX quality
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01126
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffen R. Giessner, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Suzanne van Gils, Daan van Knippenberg, Janine A. J. M. Kollée

Abstract

Previous research indicated that leader moral identity (MI; i.e., leaders' self-definition in terms of moral attributes) predicts to what extent followers perceive their leader as ethical (i.e., demonstrating and promoting ethical conduct in the organization). Leadership, however, is a relational process that involves leaders and followers. Building on this understanding, we hypothesized that follower and leader MI (a) interact in predicting whether followers will perceive their leaders as ethical and, as a result, (b) influence followers' perceptions of leader-follower relationship quality. A dyadic field study (N = 101) shows that leader MI is a stronger predictor of followers' perceptions of ethical leadership for followers who are high (vs. low) in MI. Perceptions of ethical leadership in turn predict how the quality of the relationship will be perceived. Hence, whether leader MI translates to perceptions of ethical leadership and of better relationship quality depends on the MI of followers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 21 31%
Psychology 11 16%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Arts and Humanities 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,584,977
of 22,641,687 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,729
of 29,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,168
of 263,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#346
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,641,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.