Socialized Charismatic Leadership, Values Congruence, and Deviance in Work Groups

Multiple versions of values-based charismatic and transformational
leadership theory exist in the literature (Bass & Avolio,
1993; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House, 1977; Shamir, House, &
Arthur, 1993). These approaches overlap considerably in their
descriptions of an inspiring, values-based leadership style that
includes ethical content. In particular, the charisma dimension of
transformational leadership refers to the leader as an ethical role
model (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996).
Despite arguments that authentic transformational (Bass & Steidlmeier,
1999) and socialized charismatic leaders (Howell &
Avolio, 1992) are ethical leaders, less is known about whether and
how such a leadership style is related to followers’ ethical performance.
We address that question in this study by focusing on
socialized charismatic supervisory leadership and deviance in the
work group.
Workplace deviance involves intentional acts that violate organizational
or societal norms and that harm the organization or its
members (O’Leary-Kelly, Duffy, & Griffin, 2000). It includes
serious interpersonal and organizational misconduct, such as theft,
interpersonal aggression, and sabotage, and more minor behaviors,
such as intentionally wasting resources or blaming coworkers for
one’s mistakes. We focus on workplace deviance because of its
importance in the workplace and its costliness in economic and
social terms (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Giacolone & Greenberg,
1997; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly,
1998; Vardi & Wiener, 1996). We investigate its association with
socialized charismatic leadership because previous theorizing suggests
that leadership style can influence deviant behavior (Vardi &

Weitz, 2004). In addition, we are interested in understanding the
social influence mechanism that explains this relationship. We
propose that socialized charismatic leaders exert their influence on
deviant behavior in the work group through a values congruence
process (Kelman, 1958; see Figure 1).

Theory and Hypotheses
Work Group Level of Analysis
We conceptualize the study’s constructs (socialized charismatic
leadership, values congruence, and workplace deviance) at the
work group level. First, we expect that leaders will demonstrate
socialized charismatic leadership similarly to the entire work
group; they do not reserve such a leadership style for a select few
individuals. Also, previous research has found agreement in followers’
perceptions of transformational and charismatic leadership
in work groups (i.e., Judge & Bono, 2000). Thus, consistent with
this recent work, we treat socialized charismatic leadership as a
group-level construct (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Kark, Shamir, &
Chen, 2003; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). Similarly,
because socialized charismatic leaders are thought to motivate all
of their followers by fostering shared values (Shamir et al., 1993),
we also conceptualize perceived values congruence at the group
level.
We also conceptualize workplace deviance at the level of the
work group. Although we acknowledge that acts of deviance are
individual behaviors, deviance has also been considered at the
group level (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998; Robinson & O’Leary-
Kelly, 1998). Using language from the multilevel literature, we
propose that deviance is a “shared unit property” (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000, p. 30) that originates in the behaviors of individuals
but converges as a function of socialized charismatic leadership.
Theory and research emphasize contextual influences on deviance
(Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). In addition, supervisory
leadership style is an important shared contextual influence that is
thought to shape behavior in work groups (e.g., Stogdill, 1963).
Socialized charismatic leaders serve as ethical role models (Avolio
et al., 1999), arouse a collective sense of mission (Conger, 1999),

and get followers to transcend their self-interest for the good of the
group (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Social learning from role models
(Bandura, 1986) suggests that work group members share a similar
influence in their supervisor. On the basis of Schneider’s (1987)
attraction–selection–attrition hypothesis, Robinson and O’Leary-
Kelly (1998) also argued that work group members should be
relatively homogeneous in their attitudes and behaviors related to
antisocial behavior. Finally, employees who work together should
share similar perceptions of the extent to which deviant behaviors
occur in their work group, and they should acquire these perceptions
through direct observation of deviant coworkers and through
shared social information (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998).

Socialized Charismatic Leadership and Workplace
Deviance
Normative theory argues that leaders should play an ethical
authority role (e.g., Ciulla, 1998; Freeman, Gilbert, & Hartman,
1988; Rost, 1995). The organizational leadership literature has
addressed leadership’s ethical dimension primarily through transformational
and charismatic leadership (Kanungo & Mendonca,
1996). Burns (1978) distinguished transformational leadership
from transactional approaches. He argued that transformational
leaders encourage followers to embrace moral values and to act in
the interest of the collective rather than according to self-interest.
He cited Kohlberg’s (1969) theory of cognitive moral development
as well as Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs and Rokeach’s
(1973) theory of values to explain transformational leaders’
influence.
Bass (1985) translated Burns’s (1978) work on transformational
leadership for the organizational literature and, with Avolio (Bass
& Avolio, 2000), developed a multidimensional transformational
leadership construct with the following dimensions: individualized
consideration, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and
inspirational motivation. The inspirational motivation component
of transformational leadership combines with the idealized influence
dimension to account for the “charismatic” aspect of transformational
leadership (Avolio et al., 1999). According to Bass
and Avolio, the definition of charisma is “provides followers with
a clear sense of purpose that is energizing; a role model for ethical
conduct which builds identification with the leader and his or her
articulated vision” (p. 29).
We use the term socialized charismatic leadership to make it
clear that we are focusing on “ethical” transformational and charismatic
leaders. Some have argued that both transformational and

charismatic leaders can be self-centered and manipulative in pursuing
their goals (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Others have differentiated
between the ethical and unethical potential in both types
of leadership. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) differentiated between
authentic transformational leaders, who are ethical leaders, and
pseudotransformational leaders, who are self-interested and lack
“moral virtue.” In addition, Howell and Avolio (1992) found
systematic differences between ethical and unethical charismatic
leaders, consistent with Howell’s (1988) conceptualization of socialized
and personalized charismatic leaders. The term socialized
charismatic leadership emphasizes our focus on leaders who convey
ethical values, are other centered rather than self-centered, and
who role model ethical conduct.
We predict that employees who report directly to a socialized
charismatic leader (i.e., direct reports) will engage in fewer acts of
workplace deviance. First, harmful acts aimed at the organization
should be lower because the supervisor is perceived to be the
linking pin between the organization and employees and therefore
represents the organization to direct reports. If a socialized charismatic
leader represents positive ethical values (Kanungo & Mendonca,
1996), followers’ attitude toward the organization should
be more positive, and they should have little motivation to harm it.
Second, harmful acts aimed at the organization and work group
members should be lower because charismatic leaders inspire
followers to transcend their own self-interest for the good of the
team and organization. Behaviors that harm either the work group
or the organization are inconsistent with that type of transcendence.
Third, socialized charismatic leaders serve as visible role
models (Shamir et al., 1993). According to social learning theory
(Bandura, 1986), if leaders are ethical role models (Avolio et al.,
1999) then employees will observe and imitate their ethical behavior,
which should translate into lower levels of deviance. Finally,
the personalized charismatic leadership style has been associated
with increased follower destructiveness (O’Connor,
Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995). Thus, the opposite,
socialized charismatic leadership style, should be associated
with reduced follower destructiveness.
Hypothesis 1: Socialized charismatic leadership is negatively
associated with deviant behavior in the leader’s work group.
The Mediating Role of Values Congruence
Despite much theorizing about how transformational and charismatic
leaders impact followers, the social influence processes

used by these leaders remain poorly understood (Yukl, 1999).
Recent studies have attempted to explicate these processes (e.g.,
Bono & Judge, 2003; Kark et al., 2003), but with mixed results
(Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). In this study, we focus on
perceived values congruence as the key mediating process because
values play such a prominent role in all theories of charismatic and
transformational leadership (House, 1996) and because followers’
perception that they share the socialized charismatic leader’s values
should be associated with reduced deviance in work groups.
Furthermore, the empirical association of perceived values congruence
with transformational leadership and its influence on
outcomes has been supported in previous research (Bono & Judge,
2003; Jung & Avolio, 2000).
Similar to transformational leaders, socialized charismatic leaders
are thought to emphasize the collective and the value of being
part of something larger than oneself (Shamir et al., 1993). Individuals
are thought to follow socialized charismatic leaders because
they are attracted to the leader’s vision and values (Howell,
1988). Socialized charismatic leaders have been described as ethical
role models (Avolio et al., 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996)
who influence followers by conveying ethical values and by tying
goals to followers’ values (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Kanungo &
Mendonca, 1996; Lord & Brown, 2001; Shamir et al., 1993).
Because the values conveyed resonate with their own, followers
perceive that they share the leader’s values (Burns, 1978). Thus,
socialized charismatic leadership should be associated with perceived
values congruence between the leader and followers in the
work group.
Hypothesis 2: Socialized charismatic leadership is positively
related to values congruence between leaders and work group
members.
The ethical values modeled by socialized charismatic leaders
and shared by work group members are the standards used to
guide employees to engage in normatively appropriate conduct
and refrain from normatively inappropriate conduct. Research
from the literature on values (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1996)
and organizational deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1997) suggests
that ethical values serve as important deterrents of deviant
behavior. Socialized charismatic values emphasize altruism
(Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996) and serve as powerful constraints
for followers, thus inhibiting work group members from
engaging in behaviors that are harmful to others (Robinson &
Bennett, 1997). In addition, because socialized charismatic
leaders influence values at the level of the work group, ethical
values internalized among group members function as informal
sanctions that further regulate the level of deviance in the group
(Hollinger & Clark, 1983; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Robinson
& O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Therefore, we propose that perceived
values congruence between work group members and their
leader will mediate the relationship between socialized charismatic
leadership and deviance in the work group.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between socialized charismatic
leadership and deviant behavior in work groups is
mediated by values congruence.

Method

Data Collection
Data were collected from surveys administered to employees from a
large nationwide health care corporation that includes over 100 U.S.
hospitals and employs close to 100,000 employees. The focus of our study
is on leaders and the work groups they manage. Like many other organizations,
this organization has supervisors at all levels. We wanted to
sample across multiple levels of management to capture a broader picture
of leadership that might be more generalizable to leaders in other organizations.
We were able to survey two broad categories of employees—those
whose direct supervisor was an administrator in corporate headquarters or
hospital administration, and those whose supervisor was a nurse manager.
We distributed 474 survey packets via the company’s internal mail
system to these managers. Five packets were undeliverable, so the total
number of survey packets distributed to leaders was 469. Each packet
contained three different types of surveys: (a) a survey for the manager to
complete (containing questions about the leader’s level of management, his
or her number of direct reports, and other measures that are not part of this
study); (b) five employee antecedent surveys, which contained measures
for perceptions of socialized charismatic leadership, to be completed by a
randomly selected set of the manager’s direct reports; and (c) five work
group outcome surveys, which contained measures of workplace deviance,
values congruence, and social desirability, to be completed by a different
randomly selected set of the manager’s direct reports. We gave the managers
detailed instructions for how to randomly select the half of their
employees who would receive the antecedent survey and the other half who
would receive the outcome survey. Unless leaders had more than 10 direct
reports, they were directed to give every one of their direct reports a
survey. Those with more than 10 direct reports were given instructions for
how to randomly choose which of their employees would receive surveys
and which would not.
To reduce the likelihood of biased responding (Dilman, 1978), we
placed each survey in a separate envelope with a cover letter from a top
manager, encouraging participation and ensuring complete anonymity. We
also assured respondents that management in this organization would only
see the aggregated results of this survey. We included a postage-paid reply
envelope with our mailing address and university affiliation with each
survey so that employees could mail their completed surveys directly to us.
Response Rates
At least two antecedent surveys and two outcome surveys were completed
and returned from 177 work groups, for a group response rate of
37.7%. We had data indicating the number of direct reports working for
each leader (a control variable in this study) and the number of surveys
distributed for 150 of these groups. Within these 150 groups, 1,167 surveys
were distributed to direct reports. We received a total of 882 completed
surveys (441 antecedent surveys and 441 outcome surveys), for an individual
response rate of 75.6%. Overall, we received a mean of 2.94
antecedent surveys and 2.94 outcome surveys per group.
Sample Characteristics
The average age of respondents who completed antecedent surveys was
44.1 years, and the average age was 43.9 years for those who completed
outcome surveys. The average tenure with the company was 8.3 years for
employees completing the antecedent surveys and 8.2 years for employees
completing the outcome surveys. In all, 76.6% of respondents completing
the antecedent survey were White (76.4% for outcome surveys), and 73.3%
were women (74.6% for outcome surveys). The organization was unable to
provide us with specific demographic information (however, it did confirm
that the demographic information for the managers in our sample was

consistent with the population demographics for managers throughout this
organization).

Measures
All measures used in this study have been used in prior research. In the
following sections, we report the details of each measure and all of the
items, with the exceptions of the copyrighted Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ;1 Bass & Avolio, 2000) and the measure of social
desirability (Paulhus, 1991), which are listed in the Appendix.
Socialized charismatic leadership. Socialized charismatic leadership
was measured with the 12-item charisma dimension from the MLQ (Bass
& Avolio, 2000). A sample item is “considers the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions” (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Charisma items were
measured along a 5-point response format from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently,
if not always [modified from the MLQ’s original format, which
ranges from 0 to 4]). The estimated reliability of this measure was .96.
Values congruence. We used Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert’s
(1996) four-item measure of perceived values congruence. The response
format for this scale was 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .85.
Social desirability. Because reporting of deviant conduct could be
susceptible to biased responding, we used Paulhus’s (1991) Balanced
Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) as a control variable. We used
19 of the 20 impression management subdimension items of the BIDR. At
our participating organization’s request, we dropped 1 item (“I never read
sexy books or magazines”), and we slightly reworded 2 others for clarity.
The BIDR has a scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 7 (very true). After
selected items are reverse scored, one calculates a social desirability score
by counting the number of exaggerated responses (a 6 or 7). Therefore, an
individual’s social desirability score could range from 0 to 19. The Cronbach’s
alpha for this measure was .74.
Level of management and number of direct reports. We controlled for
leaders’ level of management by creating a dummy variable to capture the
distinction between two different levels of leaders within this organization—
those who were corporate or hospital administrators, and those who
were nurse managers. We also controlled for the number of direct reports
each manager was responsible for, because deviant behavior may be easier
in larger work groups, in which supervision is more difficult. Managers
reported the number of employees reporting to them.
Workplace deviance. We used Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) twodimensional
measure of workplace deviance: interpersonal and organizational
deviance. Interpersonal deviance is measured with 7 items, whereas
organizational deviance is measured with 12 items. Because deviance is a
low-base-rate phenomenon, we instructed respondents to report how often
they had observed members of their work group engage in a variety of
deviant behaviors in the past year. Both scales are anchored on a 7-point
response format ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (daily). The estimated reliability
was .87 for the interpersonal deviance measure and .89 for the
organizational deviance measure. When aggregated, this measure represents
the shared perception of the extent to which such behavior occurs in
the group.
Data Aggregation
We conceptualized socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence,
and workplace deviance at the group level. To determine empirically
the appropriateness of aggregating data, we calculated intraclass correlation
coefficients (ICCs; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Typically, researchers
using ICC(1) justify aggregation if the F test for these values is significant
(Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). In the present study, all of the ICC(1) values
were significant. For interpersonal deviance, ICC(1) was .09, F(149,
291) 1.30, p  .05. For organizational deviance, ICC(1) was .10, F(149,
291)  1.32, p  .05. For perceived values congruence, ICC(1) was .22,

F(149, 291)  1.85, p  .001. ICC(2) was .23 for interpersonal deviance,
.24 for organizational deviance, and .46 for perceived values congruence.
These ICC(2) values are lower than the traditional .70 criterion and those
reported by other researchers (Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002;
Ostroff, 1992). However, ICC(2) is a function of group size. In addition,
the work groups we studied were much smaller than the military companies
surveyed by Bliese et al. and the junior and senior high school faculties
surveyed by Ostroff. If our average group size was comparable to the ones
in Bliese et al.’s (M  41.67) and Ostroff’s (M  40.67) studies, our
ICC(2) values would have been .80 (interpersonal deviance), .82 (organizational
deviance), and .92 (perceived values congruence). These values
are well above the recommended cutoff of .70 and more in line with the
ICC(2) values reported by Bliese et al. (.80) and Ostroff (ranged from .80
to .93 for a variety of teacher attitudes). On the basis of these results, we
aggregated our variables to the group level and proceeded with the
analysis.
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations for the
variables in this study. Consistent with our predictions, charisma
was negatively correlated with interpersonal (r  .22, p  .01)
and organizational deviance (r  .26, p  .01) and positively
correlated with perceived values congruence (r  .21, p  .01).
Note that these three correlations are cross-source and not inflated
by common method or same-source variance. Perceived values
congruence was negatively correlated with interpersonal deviance
(r.35, p  .001) but unrelated to organizational deviance (r 
.12). Controls for social desirability (negatively related) and
number of direct reports (positively related) were also correlated
with both types of deviance.
To test our first hypothesis, we conducted a multiple regression
analysis predicting interpersonal and organizational deviance separately
(see Table 2 for results). We regressed the dependent
variables on socialized charismatic leadership and controls for
social desirability, number of direct reports, and level of management.
Hypothesis 1 was supported, as socialized charismatic leadership
was negatively related to interpersonal ( .17, p  .05)
and organizational deviance (  .18, p  .05).
Next, we followed procedures recommended by Baron and
Kenny (1986) to test for mediation. The first step (see Hypothesis
1) was to regress the dependent variables (interpersonal and organizational
deviance) on the independent variable (socialized charismatic
leadership). Next, we regressed the mediating variable
(values congruence) on socialized charismatic leadership (see Table
3 for results). Socialized charismatic leadership was significantly
related to values congruence (  .18, p  .05), meeting the
second requirement for mediation and providing support for Hypothesis

  1. Finally, we regressed both dependent variables (interpersonal
    and organizational deviance) on the independent (socialized
    charismatic leadership) and mediating variable (values
    congruence) together. Values congruence was significantly related
    to interpersonal deviance (  .27, p  .01), but socialized
    charismatic leadership was not (  .12), which suggests complete
    mediation. Values congruence was not significantly related to
    1 The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 5 (Copyright
    1995, 2000 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio) was used in this research
    with permission of Mind Garden, 1690 Woodside Road, Suite 202, Redwood
    City, CA 94061. All rights reserved.

organizational deviance (.02), which means that evidence of
mediation was lacking. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was only partially
supported.

Discussion
We set out to answer the question, “Is a socialized charismatic
leadership style related to reduced deviance in work groups?” As
we hypothesized, less deviance was reported in work groups that
were managed by socialized charismatic leaders. Our second research
question was, “What is the social influence mechanism that
explains the relationship between socialized charismatic leadership
and employee deviance?” We hypothesized that socialized charismatic
leaders exert their influence through a process of perceived
values congruence. Values congruence was found to mediate this
relationship for interpersonal deviance but not for organizational
deviance. A control variable, level of management, was significantly
correlated to interpersonal and organizational deviance,
which means that employees observed deviance more frequently in
work groups that were supervised by nurse managers. Staffing
shortages and financial constraints that plague many modern
health care organizations put pressure on nurses “to do more with
less” and may trigger acts of workplace deviance (Robinson &
Bennett, 1997).

Strengths and Limitations of the Research
A key strength of this study is its use of multisource survey data.
The dependent and independent variables were collected from
different members of the same work group, which supports confidence
in the key relationship between socialized charismatic
leadership and workplace deviance. However, the mediator and
dependent variable were collected from the same respondent,
which means that the results for the mediating role of values
congruence between socialized charismatic leadership and interpersonal
deviance may be inflated by common methods bias.
Conversely, if common methods bias were the only explanation for
our results, we would expect to find support for mediation with
organizational deviance as well. Nevertheless, readers should interpret
our mediating results cautiously.
An anonymous reviewer expressed concern about whether we
could trust leaders to follow our explicit directions regarding
random survey distribution in their work groups and whether
socialized charismatic leaders might choose survey respondents in
a systematically different manner. In a post hoc analysis, we
examined whether socialized charismatic leaders who rated higher

on social desirability were more likely to choose employees to fill
out surveys who would make them look better. We found no
evidence to support this concern.
One of the main limitations of this study is that the data are
cross-sectional, leaving questions about causality. However, it
seems doubtful that a lack of observed deviant behavior in a work
group would lead to attributions of socialized charismatic leadership.
Nevertheless, future research would benefit from longitudinal
designs.
Also, our sample captured both lower level (nurse managers)
and higher level (executive) leaders and their work groups from a
large health care organization. We consider this a strength because
we captured different types of immediate supervisors in this organization.
However, in the future, researchers should explore
whether these findings generalize to other types of leaders and
organizations and whether the findings hold for socialized charismatic
executives and more distant employees, with whom the
executives do not have a direct report relationship.
This research was narrowly focused on socialized charismatic
leadership, values congruence, and observed deviance in work
groups. Although previous research has documented a relationship
between socialized charismatic leadership and prosocial citizenship
behaviors (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach,
2000 for a review), a stronger and more informative test would
include both personalized and socialized charismatic leadership as
well as both prosocial and deviant behaviors in the same study.
Finally, measuring sensitive behaviors such as workplace deviance
is challenging. We had empirical support as well as prior
precedent (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998) for examining deviance
at the group level, but deviant acts are individual acts—
individuals, not groups, engage in deviant behavior. However,
asking employees to admit that they have personally engaged in
workplace deviance, even anonymously, is unlikely to result in
accurate reporting of these behaviors (Dalton & Metzger, 1992;
Wimbush & Dalton, 1997). Studying observed deviance at the
group level allowed us to mitigate the potential bias that would be
associated with self report. In addition, it helped to deal with
common method variance. In the future, researchers should attempt
to develop methods that allow for a cross-level approach,
with socialized charismatic leadership influencing individual-level
deviance.
Finally, given the sensitivity of the dependent variable, we
controlled for social desirability bias in our research by ensuring
respondent anonymity during data collection and including a measure
of social desirability in our regression analyses. The measure
of social desirability bias was correlated with both types of deviance
and was significant in the interpersonal deviance regression
analysis, which suggests that its inclusion was important.

Implications for Research
These findings are important for research in the areas of ethics,
leadership, and workplace deviance. The relationship between
socialized charismatic leadership and employee deviance reaffirms
the strong influence supervisors have on their direct reports (Tyler,
1999). However, this study is most important because, to our
knowledge, it is the first to demonstrate a relationship between
socialized charismatic leadership and reduced deviance in work
groups.

This relationship makes sense because of the proposed ethical
content of this leadership style (Burns, 1978; Kanungo & Mendonca,
1996). Socialized charismatic leaders are thought to model
ethical conduct, convey ethical values, and focus followers on
collective rather than selfish interests. Thus, followers should be
less motivated to harm the organization or coworkers.
We also set out to understand the underlying process that
explains the relationship between socialized charismatic leadership
and deviance in work groups. Scholars have proposed and found
that values congruence plays a key role in the socialized charismatic
influence process (Howell, 1988; Jung & Avolio, 2000). As
hypothesized, we found that socialized charismatic leadership was
related to perceived values congruence among the leader’s direct
reports.
We reasoned that followers who perceive that they share the
values of a socialized charismatic leader would refrain from deviant
acts against the organization and coworkers. We found that
perceived values congruence fully mediated the relationship with
interpersonal deviance but did not mediate the relationship with
organizational deviance. We offer several possible explanations
for these mixed results. First, it is possible that perceived values
congruence with executive leaders’ values is more likely to mediate
deviance directed against the organization. For organizationfocused
outcomes, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) concluded that employees’
trust in senior management was more influential than
their trust in their immediate supervisor (which is closer to the
focus of this study). Level of management might similarly affect
the role of values congruence.
Second, it is possible that alternative conceptualizations of the
mediator might produce stronger support. Although research by
Meglino, Ravlin, and Adkins (1989) suggests that perceived values
congruence is a better predictor of outcomes as opposed to actual
values congruence, in future work, researchers might measure
congruence by administering an inventory of specific values (e.g.,
Rokeach, 1973) to supervisors and their employees. Also, although
our focus on values congruence is in line with previous work (Jung
& Avolio, 2000), researchers may wish to focus on goal concordance
as opposed to value congruence. For example, Bono and
Judge (2003) linked transformational leadership to outcomes via
self-concordance, the extent to which job tasks and goals express
the individual’s authentic interests and values.
Implications for Management Practice
The findings suggest that supervisors’ socialized charismatic
leadership deters workplace deviance. Given the cost of these
types of deviant behaviors (especially acts aimed at harming the
organization, e.g., employee theft and sabotage), estimated in the
billions of dollars every year, even a small reduction in the level of
workplace deviance should be practically relevant (Robinson &
Bennett, 1995; Vardi & Weitz, 2004).
Many organizations are already focusing on charismatic and
transformational leadership in leadership training because the evidence
suggests that such leaders have a positive impact on worker
attitudes and performance (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam,
1996). Given that transformational leadership can be developed
(Avolio, 1999; Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996), organizations
now have another reason to attempt to foster this type of leadership
in their managers. They can consider the influence of socialized

charismatic leadership on workplace deviance and incorporate this
outcome more explicitly in leadership training programs.
The deviant behaviors included in the measure of interpersonal
and organizational deviance overlap considerably with measures
of unethical organizational behavior (see Akaah, 1992; Trevin˜o,
Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998). Concerns about the management of
many of these behaviors in organizations are often within the
purview of separate ethics officers who are responsible for the
design and delivery of ethics codes, ethics training programs, and
reporting systems. Typically, leadership development programs in
organizations are designed and operated separately from these
ethics management activities. The findings of this research suggest
that the managers of these efforts (ethics management and leadership
development) should be working more closely together, because
leadership can likely influence ethics-related outcomes in
important ways.
References
Akaah, I. P. (1992). Social inclusion as a marketing ethics correlate.
Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 599–608.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces
in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexamining the
components of transformational and transactional leadership using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational
leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic
transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–
217.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, R. L. (1996). Foci
and bases for employee commitment: Implications for job performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464–482.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.
Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking
multilevel methods in leadership: The articles, the model, the dataset.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 3–14.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward
understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders.
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554–571.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Ciulla, J. (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in
organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of
research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–179.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dalton, D. R., & Metzger, M. B. (1992). Towards candor, cooperation, and
privacy in applied business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 207–
221.
Dilman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method.
New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic
findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 611–628.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A
field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.
Freeman, R. E., Gilbert, D. R., & Hartman, E. (1988). Values and the
foundations of strategic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 7,
821–835.
Giacolone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt
& L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207).
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J. (1996). Path– goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and
a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized
leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.),
Charismatic leadership (pp. 213–236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership:
Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6, 43–54.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–
765.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental
investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence
on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21, 949–964.
Kanungo, R., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational
leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 246–255.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization:
Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2,
51–60.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical
steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational
Research Methods, 3, 211–236.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). State and sequence: The cognitive-development approach
to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization
theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory
and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes.
In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and
new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate
self-concepts. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133–152.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness
correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic
review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–
425.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values

approach to corporate culture: A field test of the values congruence
process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 424–432.
O’Connor, J. A., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. E., &
Connelly, M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: A
historiometric study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529–555.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Duffy, M. K., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Construct
confusion in the study of antisocial behavior at work. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 275–303.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and
performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77, 963–974.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P.
Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). New York:
Academic Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the
theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.
Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition,
its manifestations, and its causes. Research on Negotiations in
Organizations, 6, 3–27.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly:
Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace
deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational
behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–23). New York: Wiley.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do:
The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press

Rost, J. C. (1995). Leadership: A discussion about ethics. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 5, 129–136.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,
40, 437–453.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of
integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna
(Eds.), The psychology of values (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivation effects of
charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science,
4, 1–17.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of
charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates attitudes, unit
characteristics, and superior’s evaluation of leader’s performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 43, 387–409.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire—Form XII. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research,
Ohio State University.
Trevin˜o, L. K., Butterfield, K. B., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical
context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447–476.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identitybased
perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 201–246.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory,
research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational
framework. Organization Science, 7, 151–165.
Wimbush, J. C., & Dalton, D. R. (1997). Base rate for employee theft:
Convergence of multiple methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
756–763.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational
and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10,
285–305.

Appendix
Measures and Items
Interpersonal Deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000)
“During the past year, a member(s) of this group:”

  1. made fun of someone at work.
  2. said something hurtful to someone.
  3. made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work.
  4. cursed at someone at work.
  5. played a mean prank on someone at work.
  6. acted rudely toward someone at work.
  7. publicly embarrassed someone at work.
    Organizational Deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000)
    “During the past year, a member(s) of this group:”
  8. took property from work without permission.
  9. spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of
    working.
  10. falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than was
    spent on business expenses.
  11. took an additional or longer break than is acceptable.
  12. came in to work late without permission.
  13. littered the work environment.
  14. neglected to follow boss’s instructions.
  15. intentionally worked slower than he/she could have worked.
  16. discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized
    person.
  17. used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job.
  18. put little effort into his/her work.
  19. dragged out work in order to get overtime.
    Values Congruence (Becker et al., 1996)
  20. If the values of my manager were different, I would not be as
    attached to him/her.
  21. Since starting this job, my personal values and those of my
    manager have become more similar.
  22. The reason I prefer my manager to others is because of what he
    or she stands for, that is, his/her values.
  23. My attachment to my manager is primarily based on the similarity
    of my values and those represented by him/her.
    Socialized Charismatic Leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2000)
    Socialized charisma was measured with the Multifactor Leadership
    Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000).
    Received May 24, 2004
    Revision received March 29, 2005
    Accepted April 4, 2005