This study examines the effects of ethical leadership on individual unlearning, explorative learning, and exploitative learning. We test the mediating role of affective supervisory commitment in the relationship between ethical leadership and these three types of learning. Structural equation modeling and bootstrapping are used to test these interrelationships based on three-wave survey data collected from 508 employees at five dental and surgical manufacturing firms in Pakistan. The results show that ethical leadership positively affects unlearned, explorative, and exploitative learning. We also find that affective commitment significantly mediates the effects of ethical leadership on unlearning and explorative learning but not the effect of ethical leadership on exploitative learning. In addition to the theoretical implications, this study has practical implications, especially for managers who are concerned about employees’ destructive behaviors and practices and who want to enhance employees’ skills and knowledge, as well as their organizations’ knowledge base.
Ethical leadership has received considerable attention from researchers and the media, mainly because of high-profile corporate scandals such as Enron, Worldcom, and Parmalat (Avey et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2005; Hameed et al., 2023; Mariyani, 2024; Xu et al., 2016). In such cases, top management assigns unrealistic goals to employees; they deliberately neglected unethical practices and behaviors and encouraged gamesmanship and political maneuvering to achieve such goals (Zahra et al., 2007). Ethical leadership has been portrayed as a solution to such scandalous behaviors and performance outcomes, as it discourages and disciplines unethical behavior in organizations while encouraging ethical behavior (Anser et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2005; Eisenbeiß & Brodbeck, 2014; Rasheed et al., 2024; Resick et al., 2011).
According to social learning theory, individuals learn principles that guide their behaviors by experiencing or observing others (Bandura, 1986). To learn such principles, they focus on and conceive of the roles they consider reliable (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Ethical leaders, in this case, are considered the reliable option when they exhibit integrity, high moral standards, and ethical behavior in the workplace (Brown et al., 2005). Thus, employees are more inclined to follow and imitate their leaders’ nurturing behaviors (Brown & Trevino, 2006).
Leaders influence followers through a socio-emotional process that builds fairness and trust between employees and leaders (Blau, 1964). Likewise, an ethical leader exhibits authenticity within the organization through ethical and regulated conduct to develop and sustain the ethical behaviors of employees (Dimitriou & Ducette, 2018; Lu & Lin, 2014; Mayer et al., 2009).
Employees pay close attention to the principles governing ethical conduct and attempt to imitate their leaders’ moral standards. However, behavioral mimicking is just one aspect of social learning theory. In addition to directly imitating a role model's behavior, observers might develop new behaviors that surpass their observations by abstracting principles that guide the observed behavior. For instance, when employees perceive their leader positively (i.e., fair treatment across the board), they think their leaders’ actions benefit the entire organization. Consequently, they are less likely to act unethically (Mayer et al., 2009; Trevino et al., 2014).
Ethical leadership also has a positive influence on several important work-related employee behaviors and attitudes (Avey et al., 2012; George C. Banks et al., 2021; Chughtai et al., 2015; Demirtas & Akdogan, 2014; Musenze & Mayende, 2023). This highlights the importance of ethical leadership for employees’ work-related behaviors and organizational survival, improved performance, and growth, thus warranting attention to ethical leadership.
Brown et al. (2005, p. 120) conceptualized ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers.” Brown et al. (2005) suggested that ethical leadership uses both role modeling and normative roles based on ethics as its sole focus to influence its followers’ (un)ethical behaviors, suggesting that ethical leadership can drive employees to unlearn old, useless, and destructive knowledge, behaviors, and practices and learn ethical behaviors and constructive skills. We argue, therefore, that ethical leadership positively influences individual unlearning, which refers to changing (forgetting and eliminating) old, useless, and destructive knowledge, behaviors, and practices (Hedberg, 1981). Unlearning obsolete and destructive behaviors and practices helps organizations build competencies and gain competitive advantage (Becker, 2005; Hedberg, 1981; Hislop et al., 2014; M.A.S. Khan et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023).
Moreover, the literature suggests that leadership is an important determinant of individual and organizational learning (Crossan et al., 2011; Hannah & Lester, 2009; Leithwood et al., 1998; Mutonyi et al., 2020; Vera & Crossan, 2004; Zhang et al., 2024). Previous studies (e.g., Leithwood et al., 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2004) have shown that transformational and transactional leadership are positively related to individual and organizational learning. However, following Brown et al. (2005) and Sendjaya and Cooper (2011), we argue that transformational and transactional leadership styles tend to demonstrate unethical behaviors. Therefore, such leadership styles can enhance learning but might not offer sustainable solutions to business failure associated with unethical leadership behavior. We propose that mainly because ethics is its sole and central focus (Brown et al., 2005), ethical leadership's decisions about what to learn, what to discard, and how to learn can be founded on ethics. We propose, therefore, that ethical leadership can resolve business failure. Ethical leadership is concerned with and takes responsibility for the professional development of employees and their personal matters, going beyond contractual obligations (Tu et al., 2020; Yidong & Xinxin, 2013) to inspire employees to improve their practices, skills, and knowledge beyond expectations and established standards (Usman & Hameed, 2017).
Studies also suggest that ethical leadership positively influences employees’ innovative behavior, performance, and long-term success (e.g., Ahmad et al., 2023; Ferdig, 2007; Khan et al., 2018; Kim & Lee, 2024; Treviño et al., 2006; Tseng & Wu, 2017; Yidong & Xinxin, 2013). Organizational learning is a key strategic capability that can explain the long-term success of leading organizations in the global market (Bell et al., 2010; Santos-Vijande et al., 2012). As individuals play a key role in knowledge creation and organizational learning (Crossan et al., 1999; Khan et al., 2022; Nonaka, 1994; Usman & Ahmad, 2017), ethical leaders encourage employees to acquire and create new knowledge and learn new skills (Chamtitigul & Li, 2021; Usman & Hameed, 2017). Thus, we propose that ethical leadership positively affects individual learning, which we understand as employees’ acquisition of skills and knowledge (Argyris & Schon, 1996).
We propose that the relationship between ethical leadership and individual learning is complex. The literature (e.g., Cheng et al., 2022; Demirtas & Akdogan, 2014; Hassan et al., 2013; MAS Khan et al., 2019; Kim & Brymer, 2011) suggests that ethical leadership positively affects employees’ emotional bonds, involvement, and identification with the organization, supervisors, and colleagues (Khan et al., 2018; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Wasti & Can, 2008). Affective commitment is also an important predictor of employees’ willingness to create and share knowledge (Casimir et al., 2012; Hislop, 2003; MAS Khan et al., 2019; Raza et al., 2007; Thompson & Heron, 2005), which is a subprocess of learning (Mason & Leek, 2008). As affective commitment positively affects individual learning, we propose that it mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and individual (un)learning.
Drawing mainly on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), we first examine the effect of ethical leadership on individual unlearning and learning and then test the mediating role of affective commitment in the relationship between ethical leadership and individual (un)learning.
Individual learning plays a vital role in organizational learning (Kim, 1993); it is necessary, rather than a choice, for organizational survival, growth, and competitive advantage (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Individual unlearning is equally important for organizational unlearning, learning, growth, and competitive advantage (Becker, 2005; Hedberg, 1981; Hislop et al., 2014; Kim & Park, 2022; Usman et al., 2018). Furthermore, the connection between individual learning/unlearning and the avoidance of scandalous behaviors such as bribery, nepotism, theft, organizational resource manipulation, and corruption originates in the capacity to change behavior with the help of awareness of rules, regulations, policies, and organizational ethical standards (Aguilera & Vadera, 2008; Usman et al., 2018). Employees learn ethical values and align their actions with organizational standards (Stevens & Brownell, 2000). At the same time, unlearning or letting go of scandalous and out-of-date behaviors to promote moral awareness and deter unethical behavior is normally aided by ethical leadership, which sets an example of integrity and fosters an environment in which staff members are motivated to abandon behaviors that could spark controversy (Usman et al., 2018). This ultimately helps the organization avoid controversies and scandalous behaviors, enhancing its ethical foundation.
Aside from ethical leadership's positive relationship with important employee work-related behaviors and attitudes (e.g., ethical behavior, affective commitment, job satisfaction), it can also positively affect individual unlearning and learning (Lundqvist et al., 2023; Anser et al., 2020; Ferdig, 2007; Treviño et al., 2006). However, despite the importance of ethical leadership and individual (un)learning for sustained organizational success, and the presence of theoretical links between these constructs, empirical research on the relationship between ethical leadership and individual (un)learning is scarce (Anser et al., 2020; Usman et al., 2018). This study aims to address this gap and contribute to both theory and practice.
Another key contribution of this study is that we examine the mediating role of affective supervisor commitment in the relationship between ethical leadership and individual (un)learning. In this way, we combine these important knowledge areas.
This study investigates how ethical leadership aligns with sustainable development objectives, especially Goal 16 regarding inclusive communities (United Nations, 2015), making it relevant to the 2030 Agenda. Goal 8, which pertains to decent employment, is supported by ethical leadership, which cultivates trust-based relationships (United Nations, 2015). It also encourages educational possibilities that support Goal 4 regarding high-quality education (United Nations, 2015). By examining ethical and motivational aspects, this research provides valuable perspectives that can help achieve the objectives of the 2030 Agenda. Ethical leadership fostering affective commitment can help organizations create more inclusive, egalitarian, and sustainable societies (United Nations, 2015).
Our study has several practical implications, including for ethical leadership, which is an important antecedent of affective commitment, individual learning, and unlearning. We suggest that by improving supervisors’ ethical conduct, managers can help employees become committed to their supervisors and enhance their skills and knowledge. Our findings are especially useful for organizations that operate in emerging economies and that fall short of their foreign competitors in terms of their skills and the quality of their products, services, and organizational practices (Aulakh et al., 2016; M.A.S. Khan et al., 2023).
2Theory and hypotheses2.1Individual unlearning and learningMany studies have highlighted the importance of organizational learning for long-term success (Bell et al., 2010; Han & Zhang, 2021; Ramos-Hidalgo et al., 2022; Rui et al., 2016; Santos-Vijande et al., 2012; Senge, 1990). While the definition of learning as knowledge acquisition, sharing, and utilization (DiBella et al., 1996) is widely accepted, the literature on learning is characterized by a lack of consensus regarding the locus of learning. For example, a range of models, theories, and typologies of organizational learning based on individual cognition assert the primacy of individuals who, through differentiated access to resources and cognition, are the initiating points of learning; this is then extended to other levels, such as teams, organizations, and interorganizations (Cummings & Worley, 1997; Nonaka, 1994). Meanwhile, the collectivist stream of literature has developed an institutional concept of learning that regards the collective (the organization) as the site of learning (Daft & Weick, 1984; Gioia & Sims, 1986).
We propose that these theories reveal spaces in which various aspects and forms of learning might interact, contest, transform, and coevolve. For instance, through differentiated access to information, resources, and social contexts, an individual's role can dominate the creation of new knowledge. Meanwhile, the social context in which an individual interacts with, observes, and learns from others can also be dominant (Bandura, 1977). Despite the lack of consensus regarding learning sites, these theories suggest that learning at one level can extend to other levels, including the individual. Moreover, individual employees (even if they are not the locus of learning) are part of the organization as a collective (Daft & Weick, 1984). They are important for self-organizing and self-reconfiguring learning practices (Antonacopoulou, 2006). In other words, individual learning contributes to and represents organizational learning. According to Kim (1993), “The importance of individual learning for organizational learning is obvious and subtle because all organizations are composed of individuals, and subtle because organizations can learn independent of any specific individual but not independent of all individuals.”
The literature posits that individuals contribute to organizational learning by refining and rejuvenating existing practices and competencies, acquiring new skills, and developing new practices and competencies (Darwish et al., 2020; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Nonaka, 1994; Usman & Ahmad, 2017). It has been suggested that to enhance organizational learning, individuals must focus on both exploitative and explorative learning. Exploitative learning refers to the search for and acquisition of knowledge that is often related to the improvement and extension of an organization's existing competencies, whereas explorative learning usually aims to change the nature of existing competencies, technologies, products, processes, and practices (Chung et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2018; March 1991).
However, the literature indicates that employees and organizations do not necessarily learn constructive behaviors and practices (Aguilera & Vadera, 2008; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Coopey & Burgoyne, 2000) because they can adopt unethical and destructive behaviors and practices, such as the manipulation and misuse of authority and organizational resources for personal benefit, biased decision-making, the unfair treatment of employees, bribery, and nepotism, all of which adversely affect organizational learning and performance (Aguilera & Vadera, 2008; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Usman & Hameed, 2017). Moreover, some organizations might have developed a culture and structure that is unsuitable for knowledge creation and sharing (Nonaka, 1994). Similarly, employees might use inefficient processes, obsolete technology, and equipment that can be detrimental to productivity, reduce the pace of learning, and jeopardize organizational survival and success. Therefore, to survive and compete, organizations at all levels must acquire new knowledge and skills and unlearn obsolete, unethical, and destructive behaviors and practices (Ruíz et al., 2017).
Furthermore, individual learning and unlearning are essential for preventing scandalous actions such as those seen in Enron and WorldCom. Through individual learning, employees acquire a greater comprehension of moral standards and ideas (Zhou & Zheng, 2024), which empowers them to spot immoral actions and fend off temptations to commit fraud. Additionally, learning promotes the growth of moral judgment and decision-making abilities, enabling people to act morally, even in difficult situations (Cloninger & Selvara, 2010). Encouraging employees to let go of antiquated or unethical attitudes and habits is one way that unlearning unethical practices helps promote ethical conduct (Usman et al., 2018). Collectively, these procedures help build a moral workplace culture that values honesty, openness, and accountability. This lowers the risk of scandal and promotes a culture of trust and responsibility.
In addition, this study highlights the complexity of human learning and unlearning in organizational settings. Supervisors play a critical role in establishing the learning environment and influencing workers’ participation in learning and unlearning processes (Ogueyungbo et al., 2020; Sharma & Lenka, 2024). Organizations can enhance supervisor commitment by providing training and support to supervisors (Simosi, 2012). Organizational interventions can enhance supervisor commitment and promote employee learning. In summary, it is critical to consider the supervisor's role and commitment in promoting behaviors, norms, and practices that enhance employees’ learning and unlearning capabilities.
However, changing employees’ behaviors and organizations’ established cultures, norms, and practices is not a straightforward process, as organizational leadership might have invested significant resources in establishing the existing culture, which would have contributed to the organization's past success (Mezias et al., 2001). Consequently, leaders might be reluctant to change existing cultures and practices (Egitim, 2022; Islam et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2012) and present strenuous resistance (Hedberg, 1981). Resistance to explorative learning can be even more severe, as such learning generates knowledge that can change the nature of existing competencies and behaviors (Wong et al., 2012). As noted by Anser et al. (2020), Kyoko et al. (2016), and Wong et al. (2012), empirical research on unlearning is scarce. Given this dearth of empirical research and the importance of the interconnectedness of unlearning and exploitative and explorative learning for organizational success and competitive advantage, this study focuses on three aspects of learning: unlearning, exploitative, and explorative learning. Our unit of analysis is the individual, given the imperative contribution of individual learning to the development and growth of individual employees and organizations.
2.2Ethical leadershipEthical leaders demonstrate fairness, sincerity, integrity, autonomy, responsibility, and honesty in personal and professional matters (Banks et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006; Hassan et al., 2013). Ethical leaders are upright and show concern for and care for others, including their followers and society (Brown et al., 2005; Hassan et al., 2013). The key facets of ethical leadership, such as concern for others, integrity, honesty, trustworthiness, and fairness, are also important components of other leadership styles (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bakari & Hunjra, 2017; Burns, 1978; Walumbwa et al., 2008). However, ethics is not the core or sole focus of transformational or authentic leadership; it is one of its components, whereas ethics is the sole and central focus of ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005). Such a central focus is crucial, especially when leaders’ failure to demonstrate ethical behavior is a key factor in business failure (Hassan et al., 2013; Kacmar et al., 2016).
Second, based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), Brown et al.’s (2005) definition of ethical leadership features two building blocks: a leader as a moral person and a moral manager. Ethical leaders demonstrate trustworthiness, honesty, and concern for others; promote ethical behavior; and discourage unethical behavior. As a moral manager, an ethical leader uses authority and normative control to set standards of appropriate behavior and impress these standards upon his or her followers using accountability and fair reward and punishment systems (Min et al., 2020). Moreover, ethical leadership fosters effective open communication and autonomy to encourage ethical behavior and practices (Tian et al., 2020).
2.3Ethical leadership and individual unlearning and learningEthical leadership positively affects individual unlearning, exploitative and explorative learning, and learning. Ethical leadership's positive influence on individual learning and unlearning can be established in several ways. First, the literature (e.g., Sharma & Sharma, 2024; Banks et al., 2021; MAS Khan et al., 2019; Ferdig, 2007) suggests that ethical leaders focus on the development and growth of employees, organizations, and society. Since both individual and organizational unlearning and exploitative and explorative learning are important antecedents of employees’ professional development and organizations’ long-term success (MAS Khan et al., 2019; Kim & Atuahene-Gima, 2010), ethical leaders’ emphasis on unlearning, explorative learning, and exploitative learning is inevitable.
Second, we draw on social learning theory to suggest that ethical leadership positively influences individual unlearning, exploitative learning, and explorative learning. For instance, accountability and fairness are key features of ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Resick et al., 2011). Ethical leaders establish accountability mechanisms that strengthen ethical behavior and discourage unethical behavior (Brown et al., 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006). Ethical leaders establish norms regarding what needs to be learned. They link these norms with accountability and fair reward systems to influence their followers to unlearn destructive behaviors and practices and create new knowledge. As ethical leadership rewards employees’ efforts and contributions through a transparent reward system, employees can go beyond minimum learning standards to acquire new skills through risk taking, search, and experimentation (explorative learning).
Third, Zhu et al. (2004) suggested that because followers observe and emulate their leaders’ behavior, ethical leaders can instill honesty among them by setting an example of honest behavior. Thus, an honest leader can serve as a role model for employees to help them discard corrupt and dishonest practices, such as stealing, cheating, and manipulating company resources and time for personal benefit. From a social learning theory perspective (Bandura, 1977), supervisors must be aware of their responsibilities as role models. Supervisors should offer examples of honesty, justice, responsibility, and trustworthiness because employees imitate and learn from their leaders’ behavior (Aksakal & Ulucan, 2024; Hameed et al., 2022; Usman & Hameed, 2017). The literature (e.g., Eisenbeiß & Brodbeck, 2014; Zhu et al., 2004) suggests that honesty is the foundation upon which a leader can win followers’ trust and create a culture of trust (Kerse, 2021; Piccolo et al., 2010) that facilitates knowledge sharing inside and outside the organization and enhances exploitative and explorative learning (Mason & Leek, 2008; Chung et al., 2015). Mooradian et al. (2006) suggest that trust between managers and employees enhances knowledge sharing. Mayer et al. (2009) posited that leaders’ trustworthiness, integrity, and ability encourage their followers to engage in risk-taking behaviors. We suggest, therefore, that ethical leadership can enhance the unlearning of destructive practices and facilitate the creation of exploitative and explorative knowledge. Considering these factors, we propose that ethical leadership is an important antecedent of unlearning, exploitative learning, and explorative learning.
While the “tone at the top” is vital, and top management has the strongest influence on employees’ behavior and performance (Mayer et al., 2009; Weaver et al., 2005), we focus on direct supervisors’ ethical behavior and its relationship to employees’ affective commitment and learning, as supervisors enact top management's policies, facilitate the penetration of the “tone at the top” throughout the organization, and often directly reward or discipline employees for their contribution or lack of it (Davis & Rothstein, 2006). Supervisors can also be independent targets of employees’ commitment (Johnson et al., 2010). We propose that supervisory ethical leadership can positively influence individual unlearning and exploitative and explorative learning. Based on the literature analysis in this section, we propose three hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 Supervisory ethical leadership positively affects individual unlearning.
Hypothesis 2 Supervisory ethical leadership positively affects individual exploitative learning.
Hypothesis 3 Supervisory ethical leadership positively affects individual explorative learning.
Affective commitment binds employees to their organization, its goals and values, and their supervisors and colleagues (Hunter & Thatcher, 2007; Khan et al., 2018; Wasti & Can, 2008). Affective commitment is an important determinant of several work-related behaviors, including good citizenship, retention, learning, productivity, and performance (Alqudah et al., 2022; Casimir et al., 2012; Hunter & Thatcher, 2007; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Wasti & Can, 2008; Yao et al., 2024).
Studies show that just as employees are affectively committed to their organizations, they might also be committed to their supervisors, team members, and colleagues (Khan et al., 2018; Siders et al., 2001; Wasti & Can, 2008). This emphasizes that distinguishing among the foci of commitment makes it easier to relate and explain the behavioral and performance outcomes of commitment to a particular target (Meyer et al., 2012; Vandenberghe et al., 2004; Wayne et al., 1997). The literature significantly differentiates between the different foci of affective commitment, as commitment is directed toward specific targets and can be a better predictor of various behavioral outcomes related to specific targets than overall commitment to the organization (Meyer, 2002).
The differentiation between different foci of commitment makes it easier to explain and relate a specific target's performance to behavioral outcomes (Vandenberghe et al., 2004). Consequently, the differences between these foci of commitment and performance and behavioral outcomes suggest a more advanced relationship between the various foci of affective commitment and other work-related behaviors. Organizations in a competitive environment often face the challenge of a lack of resources. Therefore, differentiating among these foci of commitment and work-related behaviors and outcomes can help managers and policymakers modify their resources to focus on specific affective commitment. Therefore, differentiating these foci and their behavioral and performance outcomes can offer a more refined understanding of the relationship between the various foci of affective commitment and employees’ learning and unlearning.
2.5Affective commitment as a mediatorLeadership is an important determinant of affective commitment (Albrecht, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004; Bycio et al., 1995; Lee, 2005). Bycio et al. (1995) suggested that there is a strong relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment. Kim (2007) found a positive relationship between transactional leadership and affective commitment among Korean local governments. Avolio et al. (2004) suggested that a leader's honesty, integrity, and high moral standards enhance employees’ willingness to cooperate, improve trust, and encourage them to achieve organizational objectives. Leaders’ trustworthiness is imperative for establishing high-quality exchange relationships (Brown & Treviño, 2006).
Moreover, the facets of ethical leadership—integrity, concern for employees’ personal and professional interests, trustworthiness (Brown et al., 2005), faithfulness, and justice (Neubert et al., 2009)—tap into organizational virtuousness (Cameron et al., 2004). Organizational virtuousness creates feelings of gratitude toward the organization among employees and establishes a psychological contract with the organization (Fredrickson, 1998), which reciprocates with affective commitment (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Eisenberger et al., 2001; Gavin & Mason, 2004). Therefore, followers are likely to reciprocate their supervisors’ virtuous treatment with affective commitment to them. Moreover, the components of ethical leadership—trustworthiness, care, honesty, and faithfulness—are key features of committed affection-based relationships (Pierce & Aguinis, 2003). We expect that the features of affection and components of ethical leadership, such as honesty, integrity, fairness, and concern for others, will positively affect employees’ affective commitment to their supervisors.
Empirical studies have also revealed a positive relationship between ethical leadership and affective commitment (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009; Neubert et al., 2009). Den Hartog and De Hoogh (2009) found a positive relationship between ethical leadership (integrity and fairness) and affective commitment to an organization, while Neubert et al. (2009) found a positive relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and affective commitment. Leaders’ ethical behaviors in maintaining a productive workplace environment influence employees’ affective commitment and potential employee outcomes. For instance, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) found a positive relationship between procedural fairness and affective commitment. Likewise, Guest (1997) noted that merit-based promotion opportunities develop affective commitment in employees, leading them to strive to learn in the workplace. We posit, therefore, that supervisory ethical leadership positively influences employees’ affective commitment to supervisors as a natural outcome of supervisors’ demonstrations of ethical behavior and their efforts to model ethical behavior for their followers and enhance their learning.
In addition, affective commitment foregrounds the value of learning for employees’ career growth and organizational success (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Hislop, 2003; Casimir et al., 2012). Hislop (2003) posited that affective commitment positively affects employees’ willingness to share and create knowledge. The literature also suggests that affective commitment reduces employee turnover rates (Chow et al., 2015; Hunter & Thatcher, 2007; Meyer et al., 2002). Thus, affective commitment can help organizations retain specialized tacit knowledge that facilitates the absorption and use of exploitative and explorative learning generated at different organizational levels (Chung et al., 2015; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Raza et al., 2007; Thompson & Heron, 2005). In short, we suggest that affective commitment is an important antecedent of both exploitative learning (henceforth, exploitative learning) and explorative learning (henceforth, explorative learning).
Affectively committed employees internalize organizational goals and values that lead them to work to improve their skills and practices (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987; Locke et al., 1981). We suggest, therefore, that internalizing organizational goals and values can lead employees to unlearn practices that contradict an organization's values and impede goal achievement. We also suggest that affective commitment to supervisors contributes positively to individual unlearning. We propose that affective commitment to a supervisor mediates the effects of ethical leadership on unlearning, exploitative learning, and explorative learning. Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 4 Affective supervisor commitment mediates the positive relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and unlearning.
Hypothesis 5 Affective supervisor commitment mediates the positive relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and exploitative learning.
Hypothesis 6 Affective supervisor commitment mediates the positive relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and explorative learning.
Three waves of survey data are collected from five dental and surgical equipment manufacturing companies in Pakistan to examine the effect of ethical leadership on individual (un)learning and test the mediating role of affective supervisor commitment on the effect of ethical leadership on individual (un)learning.
The surgical equipment manufacturing industry contributes 75 % of Pakistan's engineering exports and >20 % of the world's dental and surgical equipment exports (SCCI, 2015). Despite challenges such as inadequate access to technology, resource shortages, and increasing competition (https://medpk.com/index.php?topic=252.0;wap2), the sector has performed consistently over the years, suggesting that companies in this sector have adapted to emerging conditions and trends such as rising demand for quality, technology, and skill. However, the antecedents of the sector's sustained performance are unknown. Therefore, it offers a useful context for studying the relationship between ethical leadership, affective commitment, and organizational learning. Bringing ethical leadership and affective commitment to the fore as antecedents of organizational learning will be useful for many industry policymakers and managers, especially those from developing economies struggling to sustain themselves in a competitive global environment.
This field requires further research because it is important for economic growth and public health. Data accessibility and the organizations’ willingness to participate also supported this study. Regulatory compliance and technical improvements, among other special issues faced by surgical equipment manufacturers, offer invaluable opportunities to study staff habits and leadership styles. Although this study is limited to this industry, the results can be applied to other sectors inside and outside Pakistan since organizational dynamics and ethical leadership principles are frequently the same across sectors. The research findings potentially hold relevance for not only surgical equipment manufacturers but also a wider range of industries striving for operational excellence and sustainable growth through the guidance of ethical leadership development initiatives and organizational interventions.
Pakistan has over 2000 dental and equipment manufacturing enterprises of small, medium, and large size, 99 % of which are in the same city, Sialkot (SCCI, 2015). We randomly choose five of the 30 largest firms to ensure robust findings while effectively managing resources (at least 500 employees) and 800 of the >3000 employees of these five firms. This study chooses five firms to attain an expected response rate of 50 %–70 %, as supported by previous ethical leadership studies (Ouakouak et al., 2020). We achieve a response rate of 62.5 %, which is appropriate for data analysis. An important part of this method is the selection of a sample size from a broader population. An insufficient sample size leads to study failure, or it might not be a true representation of the population. A large sample size might make it difficult for researchers to collect and handle data, which might result in extra expenses and disregard the actual purpose of sampling (Kotrlik & Higgins, 2001). In addition, as mentioned above, 99 % of these companies are located in one city; therefore, most of the factors are not significantly different.
In addition, we use stratified random sampling based on characteristics such as department size (number of employees) to ensure that the sample represents these companies’ organizations, departments, specialties, and units. The survey is conducted in Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, and back-translation (Brislin, 1970) is used for this purpose. The questionnaire was pilot-tested with five academics and 20 respondents.
Data are collected from the sample in three rounds to reduce the likelihood of common-method bias. In the first round, data are collected on supervisory ethical leadership from 800 employees, along with their age, gender, work experience, and the nature of their jobs. Data on mediator and affective supervisor commitment are collected in the second round, six months after the first. In the third round, six months after the second round, data are collected regarding the dependent variables of unlearning, exploitative learning, and explorative learning. The first round yields 556 responses, the second 543, and the third 521. Responses are collected from the same participant in each round. Thirteen responses have missing data; thus, 508 responses from the participants in all three rounds are used for the data analysis.
The final sample consists of 471 males (92.72 %) and 37 females (7.28 %). The male/female ratio reflects the male-dominant workplaces in the sample companies, where >90 % are male employees. Of these, 24.2 % are matriculated (the minimum education required to apply for a job in the sample firms), 30.5 % have 12 years of education, 19.3 % have a technical diploma (13 years of education), 15.7 % have an undergraduate degree, and 10.2 % have a master's degree or above.
We use structural equation modeling (SEM) and bootstrapping to analyze the hypotheses. SEM is a suitable approach that offers a rigorous framework for testing and confirming a theoretical model, permits the simultaneous study of complicated interactions, and considers measurement errors. Bootstrapping is very helpful when dealing with data with abnormal distributions or small sample sizes because it provides reliable estimates of standard errors, confidence intervals, and indirect effects. Combining these techniques provides an effective and reliable way to address the research questions under consideration (Cheung & Lau, 2008; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). SPSS version 24.0 and AMOS 24.0 are used for data analysis.
3.2Measures and variablesUnless otherwise stated, the items measuring all variables in this study are based on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items are coded such that high scores are associated with higher construct levels.
We measure ethical leadership using a 10-item scale (α = 0.93) from Brown et al. (2005). Examples of the items are “My supervisor listens to what employees have to say” and “My supervisor can be trusted.”
Five items (α = 0.82) from Meyer et al. (1996) are adapted to measure affective supervisor commitment. “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career working with my supervisor” and “I really feel as if my supervisor's problems are my own” are examples of scale items.
To measure unlearning, we adapt four items from Cegarra and Sanchez's (2008) “framework for changing the individual habits.” “I can visualize my own mistakes” and “I have changed my way of thinking and doing things” are two examples.
To measure explorative learning as an individual-level construct, we adapt a five-item scale (α > 0.90) from Chung et al. (2015). “In searching for information, I focus on acquiring knowledge that involves experimentation and high risks” and “My aim is to collect new information and learn new things in new product/service development” are two examples of explorative learning items. To measure exploitative learning as an individual-level construct, we adapt a five-item scale (α > 0.90) from Chung et al. (2015). “My aim is to search for ideas and information that I can implement well to ensure productivity rather than those ideas that could lead to implementation mistakes in the product/service development and the marketplace” and “I emphasize the use of knowledge related to my existing experience” are two examples of exploitative learning items.
3.3Control variablesEmployees can differ in several ways, and differences in age, gender, work experience, and education can confound the results (Shepherd et al., 2011). In our sample, however, work experience and age are highly correlated (r = 0.966, p < 0.01). As work experience has more conceptual relevance to learning than age, we control for it. Educational level is used as the control variable.
As males dominate the workforce in the sample firms (92.72 %) and restrict any effect of gender, we do not use gender as a control variable. Work experience and education are used as control variables.
4ResultsTable 1 presents the means and correlations of the study variables.
Means and correlations.
Sex: 0 = female; 1 = male. Education: 1 = matriculation, 2 = 12 years of education, 3 = 13 years of education, 4 = undergraduate degree, 5 = master's degree or above; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 level (2-tailed).
We use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the measurement model, which consists of supervisory ethical leadership (SEL), affective supervisor commitment (ASC), unlearning (UL), explorative learning (EXR), exploitative learning (EXT), and 28 observed variables. We exclude eight items (SEL2, SEL6, SEL9, SEL10, UL3, EXR1, EXR5, and EXT5) with suboptimal loadings. The fit indices (after dropping the items)—χ2 = 476.422, df = 179, χ2/df = 2.662, GFI = 0.919, IFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.956 and CFI = 0.963 and RMSEA = 0.057—show that the measurement model has good fit with the data.
Table 2 presents the Cronbach's alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), maximum variance shared (MSV), average variance extracted (AVE), and average shared variance (ASV) of all the variables. The scales we use to measure the variables show satisfactory reliability (CR > AVE > 0.50, Table 2) and internal consistency (α > 0.70, Table 2). The square roots of the AVE (Table 2) for each variable are greater than the interconstruct correlations (Table 1). The scales also demonstrate satisfactory discriminant validity, with ASV and MSV values of < AVE (Table 2).
Discriminant validity, convergent validity, and internal consistency.
| Construct | α | CR | AVE | AVE2 | MSV | ASV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. SEL | .91 | .96 | .68 | .82 | .12 | .06 |
| 2. ASC | .94 | .98 | .76 | .87 | .22 | .13 |
| 3. UL | .85 | .81 | .58 | .76 | .16 | .08 |
| 4. EXR | .82 | .82 | .61 | .78 | .22 | .11 |
| 5. EXT | .83 | .87 | .62 | .79 | .06 | .02 |
Notes: SEL = supervisory ethical leadership; ASC = affective supervisor commitment; UL = unlearning.
EXR = explorative learning; EXT = exploitative learning; α = Cronbach's alpha; CR = composite reliability.
AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum variance shared; ASV = average variance shared.
The structural models are evaluated in three steps. First, we examine the direct effects of supervisory ethical leadership on unlearning, explorative learning, and exploitative learning. We find significant direct effects of supervisory ethical leadership on unlearning (β = 0.17, p < 0.01), explorative learning (β = 0.24, p < 0.01), and exploitative learning (β = 0.21, p < 0.01). The fit indices—χ2 = 261.328, df = 101, χ2/df = 2.587, GFI = 0.939, IFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.963, CFI = 0.969 and RMSEA = 0.056—show that the initial structural model (model 1) has good fit with the data. These results are consistent with the first three hypotheses.
Second, in structural model 2 (Fig. 1), we introduce affective supervisor commitment as a mediator of the relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and our outcome variables, along with the control variables work experience and education. The fit indices—χ2 = 588.90, df = 219, χ2/df = 2.689, GFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.946, CFI = 0.954 and RMSEA = 0.058—suggest that structural model (2) fits well with the data, and the role of affective supervisor commitment as a mediator of the relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and outcome variables is important.
Finally, to examine the significance of the mediator's role, we use bootstrapping by specifying a sample of 2000 participants in AMOS 24.0. The results of the mediated model (Table 3) show that after including the mediator—affective supervisor commitment—the direct effect of supervisory ethical leadership on unlearning and explorative learning is nonsignificant. By contrast, the indirect effects of supervisory ethical leadership on unlearning and explorative learning are significant. Moreover, the direct effect of supervisory ethical leadership on exploitative learning is significant while the indirect effect of supervisory ethical leadership on exploitative learning is insignificant. Finally, the effects of education on unlearning (β = −0.04, ns), explorative learning (β = 0.04, ns), and exploitative learning (β = 0.01, ns) are nonsignificant. Similarly, the effects of work experience on unlearning (β = 0.056, ns), explorative learning (β = 0.001, ns), and exploitative learning (β = 0.072, ns) are also nonsignificant. Thus, Hypotheses (4) and (5) are supported. In other words, affective commitment to a supervisor fully mediates the effects of supervisory ethical leadership on unlearning and explorative learning. However, the results (see Table 3) show that affective supervisor commitment does not mediate the relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and exploitative learning. Thus, the results do not support Hypothesis (6).
Direct and indirect effects and 95 % confidence intervals (model 2).
Notes: *Empirical 95 % confidence interval does not overlap with zero.
SEL = supervisory ethical leadership; ASC = affective supervisor commitment.
UL = unlearning; EXR = explorative learning; EXT = exploitative learning.
Drawing on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), this study hypothesizes that supervisory ethical leadership positively influences individual unlearning as well as exploitative and explorative learning. We also propose that affective commitment to supervisors significantly mediates the positive effects of supervisory ethical leadership on unlearned, explorative, and exploitative learning.
Using time-lagged survey data from 508 employees of five dental and surgical equipment manufacturing firms in Pakistan and analyzing the data using SEM and bootstrapping, we establish that supervisory ethical leadership positively affects individual unlearning and exploitative and explorative learning. These findings align with the literature (e.g., Ferdig, 2007; MAS Khan et al., 2019; Tseng & Wu, 2017), which suggests that ethical leadership can enhance employees’ exploitative learning and that explorative learning positively influences the unlearning of destructive behaviors and practices. Ethical leaders establish accountability mechanisms and norms for what needs to be unlearned and learned, and they reward and discipline employees fairly since their performance and behavior promote unlearning destructive behaviors and practices and create new knowledge. Moreover, a fair and transparent reward system drives employees to surpass minimum learning standards and acquire new skills through risk-taking, searching, and experimentation (Mayer et al., 2009). By serving as role models (Brown et al., 2005), ethical leaders can instill honesty among their followers and help them unlearn corrupt behaviors such as stealing, cheating, and manipulating company resources and time. In short, the findings suggest that ethical leadership enhances the unlearning of destructive practices and facilitates both exploitative and explorative learning.
Importantly, affective commitment to supervisors significantly mediates the relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and individual unlearning. The results also show that affective commitment to a supervisor significantly mediates the effects of supervisory ethical leadership on unlearning and explorative learning. These findings are consistent with those of Neubert et al. (2009), who found a positive relationship between supervisory ethical leadership and affective commitment. The findings suggest that supervisors’ honesty, fairness, and ethical behavior improve the quality of the employee–supervisor relationship and promote cooperation in the workplace, which leads employees to affectively commit to the supervisor. In other words, followers reciprocate their supervisors’ virtuous treatment with affective commitment to their supervisors.
The finding that affective commitment to supervisors significantly mediates the effects of supervisory ethical leadership on explorative learning and unlearning is consistent with Raza et al. (2007), Thompson and Heron (2005), and Casimir et al. (2012). Those studies showed that affectively committed employees go beyond norms and expectations to create and share new knowledge. These findings suggest that affectively committed employees understand the value of learning for their career growth and the achievement of organizational objectives (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Casimir et al., 2012; Hislop, 2003), internalize organizational goals that inspire them to improve their skills and practices (Locke et al., 1981), and unlearn practices that contradict the organization's values.
However, our hypothesis that affective commitment to the supervisor mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and exploitative learning is not supported, suggesting that employees who are affectively committed to their supervisors do not focus more on exploitation but are more inclined to focus on activities and practices that enhance their exploratory learning. Perhaps employees take exploitative learning for granted or do not value it, which might impede the incorporation of new knowledge into existing practices and deter the adoption of new ways of doing so. This can hamper the internalization of explorative learning, which is facilitated by exploitative learning (Crossan et al., 1999; Holmqvist, 2004; March, 1991). To address these issues, leaders need to highlight and communicate the value of exploitative learning to their followers.
5.1Theoretical contributionsThis study makes several contributions to the literature. First, we provide evidence for the positive influence of ethical leadership on individual learning and unlearning. Ethical leadership positively contributes to several work-related behaviors and attitudes, such as employees’ ethical behavior, organizational commitment, work engagement, psychological well-being, good citizenship, affective commitment, and job satisfaction (Avey et al., 2012; Chughtai et al., 2015; MAS Khan et al., 2019). The literature also indicates that ethical leadership helps employees unlearn obsolete and destructive behaviors and practices and can positively influence explorative and exploitative learning. However, the relationship between ethical leadership and exploration, exploitation, or unlearning has yet to be explored. Individual learning (exploitative or explorative) plays a key role in organizational learning (Kim, 1993; Nonaka, 1994; Usman & Ahmad, 2017) and is a strategic source of innovation, improved organizational performance, and sustained competitive advantage (Santos-Vijande et al., 2012). This underscores the importance of our study, revealing the positive relationship between ethical leadership and individual learning, and foregrounds the imperative role of ethical leadership in inspiring individuals to acquire new skills and capabilities through risk-taking, experimentation, and novelty to change the nature of existing products, processes, and practices.
Moreover, unlearning obsolete and destructive behaviors is imperative for new knowledge creation, organizational development, and growth (Hislop et al., 2014). However, the literature does not explain how employees should be encouraged to unlearn such behaviors and practices (Brook et al., 2016). This study makes a valuable contribution to the literature by identifying the effect of ethical leadership on individual unlearning.
Another contribution to the literature is that we reveal the significant mediating role of affective commitment to supervisors in the relationships between ethical leadership, individual unlearning, and explorative learning. We show that supervisory ethical leadership is an important antecedent of affective commitment to the supervisor, which plays an important role in employees’ unlearning of obsolete and destructive behaviors and practices and in enhancing explorative learning. Thus, our study combines four important areas of knowledge: ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005; Xu et al., 2016), affective commitment (Demirtas & Akdogan, 2014), explorative learning (Chung et al., 2015; Holmqvist, 2004; March, 1991), and unlearning (Hedberg, 1981; Easterby-Smith et al., 2004; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2011).
5.2Practical implicationsThe finding that ethical leadership is an antecedent of affective commitment, individual learning, and unlearning has several practical implications. Supervisory ethical behavior can help employees affectively commit to their supervisors and thus go beyond the minimum expectations to search for and acquire skills that can change the nature of existing knowledge and practices and help the organization achieve sustained success.
First, this suggests that ethical leadership can encourage followers to improve existing practices and unlearn destructive behaviors and practices by establishing norms regarding what should be unlearned and learned. Similarly, by demonstrating fairness in their decisions, ethical leaders can encourage employees to learn new skills beyond the organization's existing knowledge base. For example, by establishing fair performance appraisals and reward systems, ethical leadership can instill in employees the belief that their efforts and hard work will be rewarded fairly. Consequently, employees can feel safe putting in extra effort, taking risks, and being involved in experimentation to enhance their contribution to organizational success. As leaders, supervisors must understand their roles as role models. As employees tend to imitate and learn from their leaders’ behavior, supervisors should set examples of honesty, fairness, responsibility, and trustworthiness to enhance unlearning, exploitative learning, and explorative learning.
Second, our findings pertain to unlearning and highlight how organizations can unlearn destructive behaviors, reject obsolete technology, and overcome organizational cultural impediments that inhibit productivity and learning. The extant literature does not inform managers about how to unlearn destructive and obsolete behaviors and practices, as there is a paucity of empirical evidence on unlearning (Brook et al., 2016). Our findings suggest that ethical leadership and affective commitment are important antecedents of unlearning. Ethical leadership encourages affective commitment in organizations by encouraging a transparent culture, actively including employees in decision-making processes, and exhibiting a sincere concern for well-being (Qing et al., 2020). Ethical leaders, for example, have started conducting workshops on industry-specific ethical issues, such as the responsible use of materials and ethical component sourcing (Lotfi et al., 2018).
Furthermore, fostering a positive work atmosphere in which staff members feel appreciated and acknowledged for their contributions helps increase their emotional bonds with the company. Leaders foster a strong sense of commitment and devotion among staff members by tying company ideals to ethical standards and highlighting the significance of integrity in daily operations. Furthermore, ethical leaders can use their normative powers and roles as role models to encourage employees to unlearn unwanted behaviors and practices, including corrupt behaviors and practices such as stealing, cheating, and manipulating company resources and time. This is crucial for the effective unlearning of obsolete beliefs and behaviors (Wong & Lam, 2012). Unlearning corrupt practices can present an advantage, especially for companies operating in developing countries, as corruption is a key obstacle to organizational and social development and growth (Aguilera & Vadera, 2008).
Lastly, our research holds particular importance for organizations that operate in emerging economies, such as Pakistan, which have fallen short of their foreign competitors in terms of skills and the quality of their products, services, and organizational practices (Aulakh et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2021). Ethical leaders can encourage employees to improve their knowledge and become affectively committed to going beyond norms to address skill gaps.
5.3Limitations and future researchThis study has some limitations. For example, we focus on large firms. Although our findings can be generalized to SMEs, those could become large organizations in the future that encounter similar problems. SMEs frequently idealize large organizations and their procedures in an effort to expand. Previous research (Liu & Yin, 2023; Walumbwa et al., 2017) has shown a positive relationship between ethical leadership and employees’ learning behaviors. However, according to Mason and Leek (2008), what firms learn varies with the context.
Moreover, SMEs face severe challenges in competing with large organizations because of a shortage of resources and skills, which can lead SMEs’ employees to indulge in unethical practices (Kaptein, 2015; Viviers, 2013). In other words, employees’ likelihood of engaging in unethical behaviors increases in SMEs, as they tend to use unfair means to compensate for the shortage of resources and skills (Kaptein, 2015; Viviers, 2013). Therefore, future research on SMEs could enhance our understanding of the relationships between ethical leadership, unlearning, explorative learning, and exploitative learning. Moreover, as learning can vary by context (Mason & Leek, 2008), testing our hypotheses in different contexts is an important area for future research. Additionally, we focus on the links between ethical leadership, affective commitment, unlearning, explorative learning, and exploitative learning.
Finally, the relationship between ethical leadership unlearning, explorative learning, and exploitative learning can be mediated by a number of factors. For instance, ethical leadership's demonstration of integrity, concern for employees’ personal and professional interests, trustworthiness, faithfulness, and justice (Brown et al., 2005; Neubert et al., 2009) can produce a context of organizational virtuousness (Cameron et al., 2004) that contributes to learning. Future studies can examine the interrelations among ethical leadership, organizational virtuousness context, unlearning, explorative learning, and exploitative learning to suggest organizational virtuousness as a mechanism through which ethical leadership can influence unlearning, explorative learning, and exploitative learning.
Funding statementThis research was funded by Princess Nourah bint Abdul Rahman University Researchers Supporting project number (PNURSP2024R343), Princess Nourah bint Abdul Rahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Data statementThe data will be available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Ethical statementThis study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct by the American Psychological Association (APA). All participants provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Lahore.
CRediT authorship contribution statementMuhammad Aamir Shafique Khan: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Jianguo Du: Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Data curation, Conceptualization. Ahmed Abdul Hameed: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Farooq Anwar: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Muhammad Waqas: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation. Arqam Javed Kayani: Writing – review & editing, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Razaz Waheeb Attar: Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Formal analysis. Amal Hassan Alhazmi: Writing – review & editing, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis.
recomendados
www.publicationethics.org.