Next Article in Journal
Review on Millimeter-Wave Radar and Camera Fusion Technology
Next Article in Special Issue
Does Servant Leadership Promote Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Employees? A Structural Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Improvement in Durability and Service of Asphalt Pavements through Regionalization Methods: A Case Study in Baja California, Mexico
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Can We Make a Sustainable Workplace? Workplace Ostracism, Employees’ Well-Being via Need Satisfaction and Moderated Mediation Role of Authentic Leadership
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/su14095125
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ethical Leadership and Innovative Behavior: Mediating Role of Voice Behavior and Moderated Mediation Role of Psychological Safety

by
Xiu Jin
1,
Chenglin Qing
1,* and
Shanyue Jin
2,*
1
Department of Business Administration, Honam University, Gwangju 62399, Korea
2
College of Business, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(9), 5125; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095125
Submission received: 17 March 2022 / Revised: 16 April 2022 / Accepted: 21 April 2022 / Published: 24 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmentally Sustainable Work Behavior)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Organizations increasingly emphasize and require their members to engage in innovative behavior because it is directly associated with organizational sustainability and survival. This study aims to address whether ethical leadership enhances subordinates’ innovative behavior and investigates the mediating role of voice behavior in promoting innovative behavior. Psychological safety was tested to moderate the mediating effect of voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative behavior. We collected data from 296 full-time employees from small and medium-sized enterprises in China. The results suggest that ethical leadership positively influences innovative behavior through the mediating role of voice behavior. Furthermore, psychological leadership significantly moderates the mediating effect of voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative behavior. This study expands the scope of research on improving innovative behavior and provides a theoretical basis for related research.

1. Introduction

Organizational sustainability has become business organizations’ major focus, and it provides development opportunities, financial viability, competitive advantages, and long-term growth [1]. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly caused by the variant Omicron, continues to threaten human life and leads to organizational management problems worldwide. This creates an environment that is considered to threaten organizational sustainability and the survival of organizations. Additionally, the pandemic has catalyzed organizational management and culture changes and created enormous challenges in an uncertain environment. Most organizations pursue innovation to retain a competitive advantage and maintain organizational sustainability. Many previous studies have highlighted the importance of innovation. For example, Seclen-Luna, Moya-Fernández, and Pereira [2] emphasized that innovation can lead to change, which improves professionalism, service, quality, and care. Long, Blok, VDorrestijn, and Macnaghten [3] highlighted that innovation leads to new business models, products, and changes to socioeconomic systems. Moreover, innovation leads to sustainable entrepreneurship [4], changes in organizations, and improvements in the establishment of competitiveness [5]. Furthermore, innovation is a key factor related to sustainable competitiveness for organizations in both tangible (processes, services, and products) and intangible (organizational culture and leadership) areas [6]. Organizations should perceive the necessity of innovation to survive in challenging business environments and secure sustainable competitive advantages [6]. Such highlights explain the significance of innovation on organizational performance and the organizations’ need for organizational members’ innovative behavior.
As mentioned above, by emphasizing the importance of innovative behavior, this study investigates and verifies a research model that leads to organizational members’ innovative behaviors. Innovation behavior is defined as how organizational members utilize new ideas to increase work efficiency [7]. Hence, it is worth exploring the process of increasing the level of innovative behavior. Although previous studies have explored variables that can influence innovation, this study emphasizes the importance of ethical leadership, which is expected to improve innovative behavior. Ethical leadership is defined as a leader’s value system, decision-making, influence processes, and attitudes, and how these attributes impact organizational members’ behavior [8]. Ethical leadership refers to the social practice by which professional judgments are autonomously exercised, and ethical leadership constitutes three dimensions: justice, care, and critique [9]. Ethical leader concerns about four ethical awareness, which are (a) multiple stakeholders’ perspectives, (b) long-term, not just the short-term, (c) serving the greater good, and (d) means, not just ends [10]. Ethical leader behavior is defined as a leader’s signaling behavior targeting individual followers, clients, or a group of followers comprising enactment of prosocial values combined with the expression of moral emotions [11]. Zahra, Ahmad, and Waheed [12] suggest that social exchange theory [13] provides the basis for the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative work behavior. Social exchange relationship recognition by members of the organization is increased through ethical leaders’ balanced decisions and fairness [14,15], leading to behavior reciprocity by the subordinates [16] and innovative work behavior [12]. Therefore, ethical leadership is a positive element that facilitates innovative behavior.
This study seeks to test whether ethical leadership enhances innovative behavior and determine what factors mediate the process by which ethical leadership induces innovative behavior. Particularly, we argue that employees’ voice behavior mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior. Ethical leaders play a significant role in providing subordinates with opportunities to speak out [17,18]. According to the social learning perspective [16], if leaders actively create fair working environments, they become role models for their followers [18]. Moreover, leaders provide followers with strict ethical standards and foster them in communicating their opinions and ideas concerning methods and ethics to improve the work environment and procedures [18,19]. This explains why ethical leadership enhances organizational members’ voice behaviors. Furthermore, voice behavior is positively related to innovative behavior [20]. In particular, promotive voice behavior is regarded as a strategy for improving organizational innovation [20,21]. This process predicts that ethical leadership enhances innovative behavior.
We argue that innovative behavior changes due to the mediating effect of voice behavior being moderated. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the moderating variable with a moderated mediation effect. We propose psychological safety as a moderator of the mediating effect of voice behavior. Psychological safety allows organizational members to build an atmosphere characterized by mutual respect and interpersonal trust, where they express their different opinions or positions comfortably and are unworried about negative judgment [22,23,24,25]. Moreover, ethical leadership is characterized by ethical values and characteristics, and leaders with such principles perform moral behaviors and do not engage in any inconsistency that affects cognitive trust [26]. In recognition of ethical leadership, which is characterized by fairness and morality, subordinates form cognitive trust in the leader, and this eventually fosters the subordinates’ psychological safety. Therefore, the interaction between ethical leadership and psychological safety is highly likely to increase subordinates’ voice behavior.
Thus, the rationale for conducting this research is as follows:
First, there are relatively few studies on the roles of ethical leadership in determining subordinates’ innovative work behavior and task performance, which demand additional efforts for overall organizational effectiveness [12,27,28]. Therefore, this study aims to identify the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior. In addition, we investigate and reveal the role of ethical leadership in innovative behavior. Furthermore, we express how ethical leadership leads to subordinates’ innovative behavior.
Second, most studies have explored the antecedent variables of innovative behavior [29,30,31,32], verified the mediating roles in inducing innovative behavior [33,34,35,36,37], or focused on moderator variables that moderate innovation behavior level [38,39,40,41,42]. However, the challenges of exploring a framework that includes moderating and mediating roles are considerable. Nevertheless, we broadened the scope of innovative behavior research and simultaneously measured both mediating and moderating effects. Furthermore, we presented and verified the moderated mediation research model.
Third, most studies have focused on the mediating roles of psychological safety and the effect of ethical leadership on performance [43,44,45,46,47]. However, this study identifies the moderating role of psychological safety and examines its moderating effect. Specifically, by presenting the interaction between ethical leadership and psychological safety, we determine how the interaction effect changes the level of innovation behavior that moderates the mediating effect of subordinates’ voice behavior.
Overall, the spotlight of this research is to provide the research model of increasing subordinates’ innovative behavior and demonstrate the significance of this research model. Furthermore, we focus on expanding the scope of research on improving subordinates’ innovative behavior and provide a theoretical basis for related research. Therefore, this research contributes to the scope of innovative behavior.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. Ethical Leadership and Innovative Behavior

We argue that ethical leadership is positively associated with subordinates’ innovative behavior and directly influences it. In terms of social exchange theory, subordinates recognize their leaders’ motivation, support, and they will always respond positively according to the principle of reciprocity. Furthermore, social exchange theory suggests that subordinates perform more effectively when they have healthy relationships with their leaders [48]. If ethical leaders offer meaning to roles of the subordinates in the workplace, make their work more meaningful [49,50], encourage them to be more innovative, and motivate them to be more adaptable to changes [18], then subordinates will perceive the leader’s favorable treatment, establish emotional bonds, and feel obligated toward their leader. Consequently, this process may lead to high motivation and innovative behavior [51,52]. In addition, organizational members’ recognition of social exchange relationships is improved through balanced decisions and fairness of ethical leaders [14,15], leading to subordinates’ reciprocation of their behavior [16] and innovative work behavior [12]. Moreover, ethical leaders communicate with their subordinates by advocating two-way open communication, and such leaders always listen genuinely to their subordinates and encourage them to speak out their concerns and opinions, which in turn stimulates the subordinates to propose novel ideas to enhance the present work strategies, processes, and procedures [53,54]. Therefore, ethical leadership is a positive element that facilitates innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 1.
Ethical leadership will positively influence subordinates’ innovative behavior.

2.2. Ethical Leadership and Voice Behavior

Ethical leadership refers to demonstrating normatively appropriate performance through individual behavior and interpersonal relationships [17]. The authors suggest that ethical leadership promotes subordinates through decision making, reinforcement, and two-way communication. Ethical leadership shows regulated conduct in interpersonal relationships directed toward improving and strengthening organizational members’ ethical behavior [55]. Ethical leaders have attracted attention to ethics [43], and such leaders facilitate subordinates’ ideas and develop a workplace climate of mutual respect where subordinates feel safe and freely express their different views [19,43]. The roles of ethical leaders involve creating a feeling of safety and encouraging subordinates to provide new ideas. Accordingly, subordinates feel safe and can express their opinions and thoughts when these roles are accomplished. Therefore, ethical leadership is expected to enhance subordinates’ voice behavior. Voice behavior refers to an encouraging behavior that emphasizes the expression of constructive challenges and innovative proposals for change rather than merely critical aspects [56]. Individuals’ voice behavior is evident when they choose to speak up on concerns and propose suggestions for improvement [57]. Organizational members’ voice behavior is displayed when they recognize unethical or latent inappropriate behavior and can bravely speak out their ideas and opinions for organizational improvement while recognizing encouragement from ethical leaders [18].
According to social learning theory, individuals learn specific behaviors by observing people they recognize as legitimate in their behaviors. In addition, organizational members observe their leaders and regard their actions as a reference [18,58]. One of the central ways ethical leaders provide an opportunity is for subordinates to speak out [17]. Ethical leaders publicly emphasize appropriate organizational behavior while opposing inappropriate behavior [18]. That is, they speak publicly against inappropriate organizational behaviors and emphasize the need for their subordinates to do the right thing. Hence, these leaders encourage the same actions in their subordinates, who learn such behaviors by observing them [57,59]. Drawing on the social learning perspective [59], if leaders actively create fair working environments, they become role models for their followers [18]. Moreover, leaders provide followers with stringent ethical standards and encourage them to express their opinions and ideas concerning methods and ethics, which helps to improve the work environment and procedures [18,19]. This explains why ethical leadership enhances organizational members’ voice behaviors. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.
Ethical leadership will positively influence subordinates’ voice behavior.

2.3. Voice Behavior and Innovative Behavior

Innovative behavior is a type of behavior in which individuals are willing to express their ideas and concepts [60]. It refers to the concept that organizational members intentionally create and apply new ideas to their work roles to improve group or organizational role performance [61,62]. Moreover, innovative behavior is understood as how organizational members realize, create, generate, apply, promote, and modify new ideas to benefit role performance [63]. We argue that voice behavior promotes innovative behavior. Previous research has emphasized that promotive voice behavior improves organizational innovation [21]. Additionally, employees’ promotive voice behavior is a core variable that generates innovative behavior [20,64]. Therefore, voice behavior is positively associated with innovative behavior [20] and is a form of speech where individuals voluntarily express their opinions or ideas with the aim of organizational profit [65]. Innovative behavior is formed based on organizational members’ constructive ideas, strategies, and creativity. If organizational members voluntarily express their opinions and freely present constructive ideas, technologies, work methods, thoughts, opinions, and issues related to the workplace, their innovative behavior will be induced. Moreover, organizations encourage their members to provide new ideas, and prefer to seek their support and suggestions in the schemes to be implemented in the organization; thus, organizational members’ innovative behavior is created [20]. All these actions are perceived as content included in the voice behavior of organizational members. Indeed, organizational members perceive a work environment characterized by voice behavior as a group role [66], and their innovative behavior is enhanced through their engagement in tasks and motivation to speak up [67,68]. Overall, if a leader provides subordinates with the autonomy to speak up or create a similar environment, they can freely present their innovative opinions, constructive problem-solving methods, and strategies; these behaviors motivate innovation. In contrast, if subordinates’ voice behavior is restricted or they are unable to speak up, they will not present creative ideas or constructive problem-solving methods. As a result, such an organizational culture or climate eventually prevents subordinates’ innovative behavior. Hence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3.
Voice behavior will positively influence subordinates’ innovative behavior.

2.4. The Mediating Effect of Voice Behavior

The organization’s culture or climate may influence organizational member’s voice behavior, and we highlight that there is a solid relationship between leaders’ behavior and subordinates’ voice behavior. In particular, ethical leaders build highly truthful relationships with their subordinates [17]. Leadership entails a relationship between a leader and their subordinates. Ethical leadership is a relational concept that is constructed through and in social interactions with subordinates [69]. If the more a leader acts in the ways subordinates feel ethical leader behavior, they will more trust the leader [69]. Such truthful relationships play a vital role in reducing subordinates’ fear of speaking out their thoughts and ideas, and this ultimately promotes subordinates’ voice behavior. Furthermore, ethical leaders handle external pressure based on their abilities, and display espoused values. This behavior by the leaders gives the impression that the decisions depend on their fundamental values, and subordinates will open up [70]. These roles of ethical leaders encourage subordinates to voluntarily share ideas and speak about their concerns [71,72]. Moreover, the social learning perspective [59] suggests that when leaders create a fair workplace environment, they become role models for their followers [18]. Subordinates are provided with stringent ethical standards from their leaders, and leaders encourage subordinates to express their opinions, including ideas about methods and ethics, to help improve the work environment and procedures [18,19]. Thus, ethical leadership has a positive influence on subordinates’ voice behavior.
Additionally, we predict that voice behavior leads to innovative behavior. As subordinates are stimulated by ethical leaders’ honesty and fairness, they learn to provide plans and ideas through voice behavior. Therefore, subordinates’ creativity is enhanced as the ethical leadership process increases voice behavior [18]. Furthermore, organizational members recognize the work environment in which voice behavior is a group role [66], and their innovative behavior is enhanced through their engagement in tasks and motivation to speak up [67,68]. If organizational culture is established, organizational members’ voice behavior will be supported. Furthermore, even though a new task attempt fails, the subordinate will accept failure and try again without being criticized or having career disadvantages. Based on this, subordinates become more motivated and engage in innovative behavior [6]. These highlights indicate that ethical leadership creates an environment in which subordinates speak up their promotive voices about their constructive ideas and methods pertaining to innovation and solving problems. Eventually, increased subordinates’ voice behavior leads to innovative behavior. Overall, ethical leadership enhances innovative behavior through the mediating role of subordinates’ voice behaviors. Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4.
Voice behavior will positively mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior.

2.5. The Moderated Mediation Effects of Psychological Safety

We emphasize the moderating effect of psychological stability as a factor that increases the role of ethical leadership in subordinates’ voice behavior. Thus, subordinates’ voice behavior is determined by the interaction between ethical leadership and subordinates’ psychological safety. Psychological safety is the degree of the psychological state characterized by mutual respect and interpersonal trust, where organizational members feel comfortable, and involves interpersonal risk taking [22]. Organizational members experience higher levels of psychological safety when they have mutually supportive and trustworthy relationships with their co-workers [23,47]. The subordinate possesses a high level of psychological safety and feels confident that perceiving the interpersonal context may not be a threat. In addition, they trust their colleagues and are not punished or embarrassed for expressing themselves [73]. Therefore, organizational members are not shy or hesitant to express their needs for learning, self-doubt, and concerns about performing effectively in a psychologically safe environment [23,74]. This suggests that psychological safety is positively related to voice behavior [75]. According to these arguments, subordinates with high levels of psychological stability are believed to have less fear of risk taking in terms of being harmed or negatively affected when they present their ideas or opinions. Moreover, subordinates create interpersonal trust and supportive relationships in which they express their concerns, visions, and constructive ideas without fear and negative consequences. This process suggests that subordinates feel a higher level of psychological safety and exhibit higher levels of voice behavior.
In addition, organizations in environments with higher levels of psychological safety tend to tolerate their organizational members. Such organizations facilitate the expressions of organizational members’ immature ideas, and they understand, protect, respect, and praise organizational members, hence reducing the psychological and material costs of staff voice. In this environment, organizational members’ probability of facing negative consequences effectively decreases. Eventually, their promotive voice is improved [20]. Drawing on social exchange theory, if organizational members perceive that their work environment is safe for carrying out interpersonal transactions, they will develop positive perceptions of their team and engage in leadership functions related to overall team performance [76,77]. We suggest that subordinates’ psychological safety is significantly related to leaders’ behaviors and roles. Furthermore, psychological safety is expected to improve when subordinates trust their leaders. In general, subordinates can build a high level of trust in leaders who are consistent and maintain their promises [78]. Ethical leaders are characterized by consistent behavior through ethical roles [79], ethical values, moral behaviors, and consistency, which directly impact cognitive trust [26]. Thus, we emphasize that ethical leadership increases trust in leaders and that a higher level of trust in a leader may encourage subordinates to experience a higher level of psychological stability. Moreover, ethical leaders promote subordinates’ ideas and develop a workplace climate of mutual respect where subordinates feel safe and freely express their different views [19,43]. Ethical leadership plays a significant role in facilitating subordinates’ voice behavior. Likewise, when subordinates recognize psychological safety, their voice behavior becomes more active. Similarly, if subordinates recognize ethical leadership, then trust in their leader increases, and a high level of trust in leaders strengthens subordinates’ psychological safety. Therefore, when subordinates experience increased awareness of ethical leadership and have a higher level of psychological safety, their voice behavior will be more active. This emphasizes the point that the interaction effect of ethical leadership and psychological safety determines the level of subordinates’ voice behavior. Overall, the more subordinates experience a higher level of psychological safety, the stronger the effect of ethical leadership on their voice behavior. This explains why psychological safety is expected to moderate the impact of ethical leadership on subordinates’ voice behavior. In addition, individuals who perceive a work environment characterized by voice behavior as a group role [66] will have their innovative behavior enhanced through engagement in tasks and be more motivated to speak up [67,68]. Therefore, subordinates’ innovative behavior is expected to be determined by their voice behavior.
In this study, voice behavior was selected to mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior. Furthermore, psychological safety was selected as a moderating factor in the relationship between ethical leadership and voice behavior. Therefore, this study emphasizes that psychological safety moderates the mediating role of subordinates’ voice behavior. These theories contribute to our final hypotheses.
Hypothesis 5.
Psychological safety will have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ voice behavior.
Hypothesis 6.
The mediating influence of subordinates’ voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative behavior will be moderated by subordinates’ psychological safety.

3. Methods

3.1. Respondents and Procedures

We conducted a questionnaire survey to demonstrate the research model. Specifically, the research model examines the effect of ethical leadership on innovative behavior and the mediating effect of voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative behavior. Furthermore, the research model also examines the moderating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between ethical leadership and voice behavior. Finally, it tests the moderated mediation effect of psychological safety.
The main purpose of this research is to provide a way to increase subordinates’ innovative behavior. In relation to this, this research reflects the importance and role of ethical leadership in innovative behavior. In addition, the sample selection criteria are as follows: In China, the most important thing for organizational members is considered to be leaders’ moral quality [80], and the traditional Chinese culture emphasizes morality and ethics [81]. In addition, the importance of ethical leadership within Chinese organizations is constantly being emphasized [82]. Hence, we focused on Chinese employees to conduct a survey.
We distributed and collected our sample using an online questionnaire survey. We informed participants that the questionnaire survey was designed to demonstrate ways to increase innovative behavior and that their responses to this survey would be confidential. The respondents included 296 full-time employees of small- and medium-sized enterprises in China. Most of the employees who participated in the survey were subordinates. The major characteristics of the data are as follows: The data showed 129 males (43.6%) and 167 females (56.4%). In terms of age, respondents in their 20s showed the largest proportion, with 172 (51.8%) people. Other specific demographic characteristics are displayed in Table 1.

3.2. Measures

Ethical leadership refers to the demonstration of normatively appropriate performance through the main aspects of individual behavior and interpersonal relationships, and ethical leaders’ promotion of their subordinates through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making [17]. We assessed [83] who used Brown, Treviño, and Harrison’s [17] newly developed instrument to measure ethical leadership. The measurement tool consisted of 10 items. The sample items included “My leader disciplines employees who violate ethical standards” and “My leader sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics”. We used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) to measure ethical leadership.
Voice behavior refers to an encouraging behavior that emphasizes the expression of constructive challenges and innovative proposals for change rather than merely critical aspects [56]. Voice behavior was measured by Van Dyne and LePine’s [56] instrument, based on Whithey and Cooper [84] and Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch [85]. The instrument for voice behavior consisted of six items. We replaced “particular co-worker” with “I”. To self-report, each item began with “I”. Sample items included “I speak up and encourage others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the group” and “I keep myself well informed about issues where his/her opinion might be useful to this work group”. All items used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) to measure employees’ voice behavior.
This research defined psychological safety as the extent to which individuals believe their colleagues, including their leaders and coworkers, will not misunderstand or punish them for taking risks and speaking up their concerns or suggestions [21,86]. We used the psychological safety scale developed by Liang, Farh, and Farh [21] to measure psychological safety, which was adapted from previous research studies [87,88]. The measurement tool consisted of five items. The sample items included “In my work unit, I can express my true feelings regarding my job” and “Nobody in my unit will pick on me, even if I have different opinions”. We used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) to measure psychological safety.
Innovative behavior refers to employees’ capability to produce or adopt useful ideas, implement ideas, and generate novel ideas or solutions [89]. Innovative behavior was measured by Scott and Bruce [89], who developed an innovative behavior scale. The instrument for measuring innovative behavior consisted of six items. “I search out new technologies, processes, techniques, and product idea” and “I investigate and secure funds needed to implement new ideas”. All items used a Likert 5-point scale. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”. Figure 1 illustrates this research model.

3.3. Statistical Analysis

The order of the statistical analysis in this study is as follows. First, a demographic analysis was performed. Second, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Third, a reliability analysis was conducted to check the reliability of the measurement tool. Fourth, descriptive statistics and correlations between variables were analyzed. Finally, hypothesis testing was conducted. To perform demographic, reliability, descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression analyses of the moderation effects, we used the statistical software SPSS ver. 22.0. In addition, CFA and path analyses were performed using AMOS ver. 22.0. Finally, the moderated mediation model was examined using SPSS PROCESS Macro 3.4 Model 7.

4. Results

4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFA was performed using structural equation modeling with AMOS 22.0. First, six models were established to determine the model’s fit index. Model 1 was an expected model, in which four factors were loaded independently and input simultaneously. The results showed X2(p) = 750.393(0.000), X2/df = 2.375, RMSEA = 0.068, IFI = 0.904, CFI = 0.904, PNFI = 0.761, and PGFI = 0.715. Model 2 was designed using all items loaded on a single factor. The results showed X2(p) = 1495.584(0.000), X2/df = 4.602, RMSEA = 0.110, IFI = 0.742, CFI = 0.740, PNFI = 0.641, and PGFI = 0.561. Model 3 was designed by combining ethical leadership and psychological safety (Factor 1) and combining innovative behavior and voice behavior (Factor 2) to set two factors. The results showed X2(p) = 1488.677(0.000), X2/df = 4.581, RMSEA = 0.110, IFI = 0.743, CFI = 0.742, PNFI = 0.642, and PGFI = 0.566. Model 4 was designed by combining ethical leadership and voice behavior (Factor 1) and by combining innovative behavior and psychological safety (Factor 2) to set two factors. The results showed X2(p) = 1363.544(0.000), X2/df = 4.196, RMSEA = 0.104, IFI = 0.771, CFI = 0.770, PNFI = 0.666, and PGFI = 0.586. Model 5 was designed by combining ethical leadership (Factor 1), innovative behavior (Factor 2), and voice behavior and psychological safety (Factor 3) to create three factors. The results showed X2(p) = 1089.382(0.000), X2/df = 3.362, RMSEA = 0.089, IFI = 0.831, CFI = 0.830, PNFI = 0.716, and PGFI = 0.654. Model 6 was designed by combining voice behavior (Factor 1), innovative behavior (Factor 2), and ethical leadership and psychological safety (Factor 3) to create three factors. The results showed X2(p) = 1035.167(0.000), X2/df = 3.195, RMSEA = 0.086, IFI = 0.843, CFI = 0.842, PNFI = 0.726, and PGFI = 0.673. Based on these results, we acknowledge that Model 1 is acceptable with a good fit. Table 2 summarizes the results of the structural model fit index.
The CFA of Model 1 (four-factor model) showed that the scale was a good fit and construct validity. Next, we conducted convergent validity, and the results were as follows: Standardized regression weights of ethical leadership ranged from 0.553 to 0.924, voice behavior ranged from 0.740 to 0.868, innovative behavior ranged from 0.812 to 0.898, and psychological safety ranged from 0.817 to 0.891. Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) for ethical leadership was 0.702, voice behavior was 0.676, innovative behavior was 0.719, and psychological safety was 0.728; these values were all greater than 0.5. The value of composite reliability (CR) of ethical leadership was 0.954, voice behavior was 0.925, innovative behavior was 0.936, and psychological safety was 0.918; all of these values were greater than 0.7. The measurement has significant validity if the AVE of variables is higher than 0.5 and CR is higher than 0.7 [90]. Furthermore, we examined three types of model fit indices: the absolute fit index, the incremental fit index, and the parsimonious adjusted index. First, the absolute fit index was X2(p) = 750.393(0.000), X2/df = 2.375, and RMSEA = 0.068. Second, the incremental fit index was IFI = 0.904 and CFI = 0.904. Third, the parsimonious adjusted index was PNFI = 0.761 and PGFI = 0.715. Based on these results, CFA satisfies acceptability requirements [90]. Therefore, the structural equation model was found to be significant. Table 3 shows the results of the convergent validity.
Common method variance (CMV) threatens the validity of the linkage findings between constructs [91,92]. CMV threatens the results of research in the behavioral and social sciences in that researchers should consider the problem of CMV [93]. We checked the CMV to minimize the bias that occurs in common measures and drew more accurate results. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to check for CMV and confirmed the eigenvalues and total variance values. Ethical leadership accounted for 20.240% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 5.465, innovative behavior accounted for 14.663% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 3.959, voice behavior accounted for 14.303% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 3.862, and psychological safety accounted for 11.873% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 3.206. These results showed that all eigenvalues were higher than 1, and the total variance value was lower than 50%. Our results verified that CMV was not considered a problem in this study.

4.2. Reliability Analysis

A reliability analysis was performed to test the reliability of the measurement tool. We used the value of Cronbach’s alpha to examine the reliability of the variables. The reliability analysis results are summarized as follows: First, ethical leadership was measured using ten items rated on a 5-point Likert scale to assess participants’ degree of recognition related to ethical leadership. The results showed that Cronbach’s alpha for ethical leadership was 0.913. Second, employees’ voice behavior was measured using six items rated on a 5-point Likert scale assessing participants’ degree of speaking up in their workplace. The results showed that Cronbach’s alpha for voice behavior was 0.839. Third, employees’ innovative behavior was measured using six items rated on a 5-point Likert scale assessing participants’ degree of performing innovative behavior in their workplace. The results showed that Cronbach’s alpha for subordinates’ innovative behavior was 0.870. Finally, psychological safety was measured using five items rated on a 5-point Likert scale to assess participants’ feelings of psychological safety in their workplace. The results showed that Cronbach’s alpha for psychological safety was 0.874. All coefficient values of Cronbach’s alpha were confirmed to be higher than 0.7. Nunnally [94] suggested that reliability is significant when its value is higher than 0.7. Thus, the reliability of the variables was significant and valid. Table 4 shows the reliability analysis results.

4.3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Descriptive statistics analysis included the mean and standard deviation (SD). The means for ethical leadership, voice behavior, psychological safety, and innovative behavior were 3.733, 3.716, 3.603, and 3.665, respectively. In addition, the SDs of ethical leadership, voice behavior, psychological safety, and innovative behavior were 0.628, 0.581, 0.724, and 0.611, respectively.
To verify the correlation between variables, we conducted a correlation analysis, and the results are summarized as follows: Ethical leadership was positively associated with subordinates’ voice behavior (r = 0.622, p < 0.001), psychological safety (r = 0.700, p < 0.001), and innovative behavior (r = 0.599, p < 0.001). Furthermore, voice behavior was positively associated with psychological safety (r = 0.536, p < 0.001) and innovative behavior (r = 0.623, p < 0.001). Moreover, psychological safety was positively related to innovative behavior (r = 0.595, p < 0.001). These results indicated that all variables, namely, ethical leadership, voice behavior, psychological safety, and innovative behavior, had a significant positive relationship. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

4.4. Hypothesis Test

We established a total of six hypotheses in this research. First, we verified the effect of ethical leadership on subordinates’ innovative behavior. Second, we verified the effect of ethical leadership on subordinates’ voice behavior. Third, we verified the effect of subordinates’ voice behavior on their innovative behavior. Fourth, we tested the mediating effect of subordinates’ voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative behavior. A path analysis was performed using the AMOS 22.0 program to verify these four hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 established that ethical leadership positively influenced subordinates’ innovative behavior. Ethical leadership had a significant positive influence on subordinates’ innovative behavior (estimate = 0.236, p < 0.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported, and this result suggests that ethical leadership improves subordinates’ innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 2 established that ethical leadership positively influenced subordinates’ voice behavior. Ethical leadership had a significant positive influence on voice behavior (estimate = 0.651, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported, and this result explains why ethical leadership increases subordinates’ voice behavior.
Hypothesis 3 established that subordinates’ voice behavior positively influenced their innovative behavior. Voice behavior had a significant positive influence on subordinates’ innovative behavior (estimate = 0.596, p < 0.001). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported, and this result suggests that voice behavior increases subordinates’ innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 4 established that voice behavior positively mediated the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior. The mediating role of subordinates’ voice behavior was tested using 95% confidence intervals and 5000 bootstrapping re-samples. The indirect effect is 0.546. The bootstrapped confidence intervals were Boot LLCI = 0.255 and Boot ULCI = 0.555. As 0 was not included between Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI, this proves that the bootstrapped confidence interval is significant. Furthermore, the model fit was checked. First, the absolute fit index was X2(p) = 452.967(0.000), X2/df = 2.198, and RMSEA = 0.064. Second, the incremental fit index was IFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.920, and CFI = 0.929. Third, the parsimonious adjusted index was PNFI = 0.783 and PGFI = 0.717. According to these results, the model fit of the path analysis satisfies the acceptability requirements [77]. These results indicate that the mediating effect of voice behavior was significant. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported. This finding suggests that ethical leadership increases innovative behavior through voice behavior, and Table 6 shows the results of the path analysis.
Fourth, we tested the moderating role of subordinates’ psychological safety on the relationship between ethical leadership and their voice behavior. Multiple regression analysis was conducted using SPSS ver. 22.0 to verify the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 5 established that subordinates’ psychological safety positively moderated the effect of ethical leadership on subordinates’ voice behavior. The results showed that psychological safety significantly moderated the effect of ethical leadership on voice behavior (β = 0.136, p < 0.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported. Consequently, this result explains that the interaction between ethical leadership and subordinates’ psychological safety leads to a higher degree of subordinates’ voice behavior. Table 7 shows the results of the moderating effect of psychological safety.
Figure 2 shows the graph related to the moderating effect of psychological safety, and it explains why employees with high levels of ethical leadership reported greater voice behavior when their perception of psychological safety was high.
Finally, Hypothesis 6 established that psychological safety moderated the mediating influence of subordinates’ voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovation behavior. The moderated mediation model was examined using SPSS PROCESS Macro 3.4 Model 7 and was tested using 95% confidence intervals and 5000 bootstrapping re-samples. When the significance of the mediating effect was established, the conditional indirect effect was evaluated to verify whether the effect of mediation depended on the moderating variable [95,96]. Hence, the conditional indirect effect of ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior was evaluated by analyzing the index of the moderated relationship at three different moderator levels: −1 DS, mean (M), and +1 DS. Concerning the –1 DS level, the conditional indirect effect was 0.1437, Boot SE = 0.0386, Boot LLCI = 0.0712, and Boot ULCI = 0.2220. Regarding the level of M, the conditional indirect effect was 0.1891, Boot SE = 0.0386, Boot LLCI = 0.1218, and Boot ULCI = 0.2636. In terms of the +1 DS level, the conditional indirect effect was 0.2345, Boot SE = 0.1475, Boot LLCI = 0.1475, and Boot ULCI = 0.3342. Since 0 was not included between Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI at the level of −1 SD (standard deviation), mean level (M), and mean +1 SD (standard deviation) confidence intervals, it was concluded that statistical significance was confirmed. Furthermore, the index of moderated mediation was 0.0627, Boot SE = 0.0324, Boot LLCI = 0.0052, and Boot ULCI = 0.1329. As 0 was not included between Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI, this proved that the bootstrapped confidence interval was significant. Overall, the moderated mediation effect of psychological safety was significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is supported. Table 8 shows a moderated mediation effect on psychological safety.

5. Discussion

This study explored how to induce innovative behavior among full-time employees from small and medium-sized enterprises in China. We focused on subordinates’ innovative behavior in SMEs because they should be highly aware of the importance of innovation and reinforce it [97]. The roles of ethical leadership and the mediating role of subordinates’ voice behavior in the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior were identified to facilitate subordinate’s innovative behavior. To increase the effect of ethical leadership on subordinates’ voice behavior, we verified the moderating role of ethical leadership on their voice behavior. Moreover, we demonstrated the moderating effect of subordinates’ psychological safety. Finally, this study demonstrated that subordinates’ psychological safety moderates the mediating effect of subordinates’ voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior. Based on these findings, we provide theoretical and practical implications and present directions for future research on innovative behavior and organizational sustainability.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

There are relatively few studies related to ethical leadership, particularly in determining subordinates’ innovative work behavior and task performance, which demand additional efforts for overall organizational effectiveness [12,27,28]. It is worth considering that ethical leadership directly relates to subordinates’ innovative behavior. This study’s primary contributions lie in exploring and identifying how ethical leadership leads to innovative behavior. We did not simply focus on the direct influence of ethical leadership on subordinates’ innovative behavior but rather specifically identified which key variable acts in the process of ethical leadership by inducing subordinates’ innovative behavior.
First, it was predicted that voice behavior plays a vital role in the ethical behavior process, increasing innovative behavior. Therefore, the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ voice behavior and the effect of ethical leadership on voice behavior was investigated and verified, respectively. The results show that ethical leadership positively influences subordinates’ voice behavior, implying that subordinates’ voice behavior becomes more active when leaders perform ethical leadership. This results from leaders providing followers with stringent ethical standards and encouraging them to express their opinions and ideas regarding methods and ethics to improve the work environment and procedures [18,19]. Subordinates’ voices are especially dependent on their leaders’ behavior for two major reasons [98,99]. First, subordinates improve their voices to enable their leaders to focus on particular organizational problems and allocate resources to solve such problems. Second, leaders have control over penalties or benefits; thus, subordinates’ voice behavior depends on their leaders’ behavior [72,100]. For two reasons, when the leader is open and gives subordinates opportunities to raise their voice about the organization or freely suggest ways to solve problems, subordinates’ voice behavior is considered to increase. Overall, subordinates receive encouragement from ethical leaders to express their ideas, concerns, and opinions, thus improving the environmental procedures of the workplace. In addition, ethical leaders emphasize ethics and advocate against unethical behavior. According to social learning theory, subordinates freely express their thoughts, vision, and ideas when they recognize ethical behavior, and ethical leaders become role models.
Second, we identified the relationship between voice behavior and innovative behavior and tested the influence of voice behavior on innovative behavior. Voice behavior was verified to have a significant positive influence on innovative behavior. This implies that subordinates’ voice behavior gives rise to their level of innovative behavior. Theoretically, an individual’s voice behavior promotes new and active thinking methods that facilitate robust creativity evaluations. Leaders evaluate their subordinates as highly creative and display voice behavior when they provide their opinions for organizational benefit [18]. If organizational members are aware of a work environment characterized by voice behavior as a group role [66], their innovative behavior is fostered through their engagement in tasks and high motivation to speak up [67,68]. In an organizational environment where organizational members have the opportunity to express themselves, they can present their problem-solving solutions, improvement plans, constructive ideas, the need for innovation, and the pursuit of innovation. This implies that innovative behavior is expected to be formed.
Third, we verified the mediating effect of voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative behavior. The results show that voice behavior significantly mediates ethical leadership and innovative behavior. This finding suggests that ethical leadership positively influences innovative behavior through voice behavior. Ethical leaders create highly truthful relationships with subordinates [17], and these types of relations between ethical leaders and subordinates decrease subordinates’ fear of speaking out. When subordinates trust a leader, they can build confidence that their leader will not harm them and be more willing to take risks. In addition, the social learning perspective [59] suggests that if a leader creates a fair workplace environment, they will become a role model for their followers [18]. Subordinates are provided with stringent ethical standards from their leaders, who encourage them to express their opinions or ideas about methods and ethics to improve the work environment and procedures [18,19]. Therefore, ethical leadership fosters subordinates’ voice behavior. If organizational culture is established where organizations or leaders support subordinates’ voice behavior, even though their attempts at new tasks fail, subordinates can accept failure and try again without criticism or career disadvantages. In such an environment, subordinates become more motivated and engage in innovative behavior [6]. Overall, ethical leaders help subordinates speak up and provide an environment in which they are more likely to engage in voice behavior. Voice behavior ultimately promotes innovation and serves as a mechanism that reflects how ethical leadership impacts individual creativity [18]. Our findings support those of Chen and Hou [18]. Therefore, we suggest that subordinates’ voice behavior plays a significant role in ethical leadership, leading to innovative behavior.
Fourth, the moderating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between ethical leadership and speaking behavior was verified. The results indicate that psychological safety has a significant positive moderating effect on the relationship between ethical leadership and voice behavior. Drawing on social exchange theory, if organizational members perceive that their work environment is safe for carrying out interpersonal transactions, they develop a positive team perception and engage in leadership functions for overall team performance [76,77]. In such an environment, subordinates experience psychological safety and eventually trust their leaders or organizations. Moreover, ethical leaders promote subordinates’ ideas and develop a climate of mutual respect in which subordinates in such workplaces feel safe and express their different views [19,43]. When subordinates recognize psychological safety, their voice behavior becomes more active. Suppose subordinates recognize ethical leadership; the trust in their leader increases in such a situation. A high level of trust in leaders strengthens subordinates’ psychological safety. Therefore, when subordinates have increased awareness of ethical leadership and a higher level of psychological safety, their voice behavior will be more active. This implies that subordinates become more active when they recognize ethical leadership and trust their leaders. In addition, subordinates in psychologically safe environments feel confident that perceiving the surrounding interpersonal context may not be threatening. Moreover, subordinates trust their colleagues and are not punished or embarrassed for expressing themselves [73]. Based on this, they feel free to express needs for learning, self-doubts, and concerns about performing effectively in a psychologically safe environment [23,74]. Drawing on the above suggestions, subordinates with high levels of ethical leadership exhibit higher levels of voice behavior when they perceive greater psychological safety.
Furthermore, to demonstrate whether the level of psychological safety moderates the mediating effect of voice behavior, this study verified the moderated mediation effect of subordinates’ psychological safety. The results showed that psychological safety had a significant moderated mediation effect. This implies that voice behavior is moderated by the interaction between ethical leadership and psychological safety; ultimately, the mediating effect can be moderated. Attempts to verify the moderated mediation effect of psychological safety took a more integrated approach to inducing innovative behavior, which provided a foundation for exploring or searching for ways to induce more efficient innovative behaviors in the future.

5.2. Practical Implication

In addition to the aforementioned theoretical contributions, we present the following practical implications based on the theory and results of our research. First, ethical leadership qualities are the core qualities that Chinese organizational members consider most important [80]. In other words, traditional Chinese culture emphasizes morality and ethics [81]. Therefore, organizations in China have consistently emphasized the importance of ethical leadership. Leaders should have ethical qualities and provide opportunities to speak up on their constructive vision, ideas, and opinions. Moreover, they should be fair and participate in decision making. Through ethical leadership, subordinates’ attitudes change positively. In addition, previous research proved that ethical leadership is positively associated with prosocial silence, organizational commitment, and academically positive behaviors [101]. Our findings highlight that ethical leadership plays a vital role in improving individual and organizational performance.
Second, ethical leadership comprises two parts [17]. One is the quality of a leader, which is characterized by honesty, trust, fairness, and consideration. The other aspect is the manager’s role, which is centered on communication, reinforcement, and role models. Subordinates must be aware of these two aspects, as we believe that both enhance trust in leaders. Notably, previous studies have verified the importance of trust in leaders. For example, trust in leaders is positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior [102], relationship commitment, team satisfaction, and perceived task performance. However, it is also negatively associated with stress [103], job performance, and leader trust in followers [104]. This suggests that ethical leadership increases trust in leaders, which eventually promotes performance in various aspects.
Third, leaders’ behaviors and roles enhance subordinates’ voice behavior. Therefore, leaders should provide a working environment in which organizational members can speak. Such an environment can reduce subordinates’ sense of harm and build confidence in speaking out without fear of negative consequences. This recognition allows subordinates to freely present their opinions, needs, feelings, thoughts, innovative strategies, visions, and problem-solving methods. These proposals on voice behavior can ultimately contribute to organizational growth, sustainability, innovation, and survival.
Fourth, psychological safety is one of the most critical factors in determining organizational members’ attitudes and behaviors. If organizational members feel psychologically stable, their sense of belonging to their organization will be enhanced, leading to organizational satisfaction. Furthermore, as organizational members’ identity increases, they are likely to consider the organization’s goals as their own. In addition, organizational members with a high level of psychological safety are expected to increase their commitment to the organization. Previous research has proved that psychological safety is positively related to feelings of vitality and creative work involvement [105], knowledge sharing [106], and team performance [107]. Therefore, organizations and leaders should ensure that organizational members perceive psychological safety.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

Although our research provides noteworthy contributions regarding the verification effect of voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative behavior, it also has limitations, which are detailed below. In addition, we present directions for future research related to organizational sustainability, survival, and innovative behavior.
First, this study focused only on the mediating effect of voice behavior in ethical leadership leading to innovative behavior. However, we consider that various variables mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior in addition to voice behavior. We argue that trust in leaders (affective and cognitive trust), leader-member exchange (LMX), leader identification, organizational identification, and creativity are expected to mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ innovative behavior. Based on the above thoughts, we recommend proving these mediating variables in future studies.
Second, this research verified the role of ethical leadership as a variable that induces innovative behavior. In addition to ethical leadership, future research should clarify the role of ethical climate and explore the outcome variables through ethical climate. Ethical climate refers to the shared recognition of leaders and followers about what constitutes both ethical and unethical actions in the organization [108]. Therefore, it is worth investigating how the ethical climate functions in organizations.
Third, to examine the significance of the moderating effect of psychological safety, we should divide it into two groups: high-level perceived ethical leadership and low-level perceived ethical leadership. Specifically, it is necessary to measure the level of psychological safety of organizational members with a high perception of ethical leadership and a group with a low perception of ethical leadership. Additionally, the difference in the moderated level of voice behavior should be verified through the interaction between ethical leadership and subordinates’ psychological safety in the two groups. Furthermore, previous research has demonstrated that perceived organizational support moderates the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between LMX and innovative behavior [109]. We expect that it is worth verifying the level of voice behavior through the interaction between ethical leaders and perceived organizational support. Specifically, it is assumed that perceived organizational support moderates the mediating effect of voice behavior on the relationship between ethical leadership and innovative behavior. Hence, future research should examine the moderating role of organizational support perception to verify this process.
Fourth, only psychological safety was selected as a moderating variable in the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ voice behavior. Nevertheless, we should further explore other moderating variables related to individual and organizational aspects, in addition to psychological safety. Regarding the individual aspect, it is necessary to focus on organizational members’ self-efficacy, personal competency, personality, leader support, person-leader fit, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation. Regarding the organizational aspect, future research should explore moderators, such as organizational support, person–organization fit, innovative organizational climate, and person–culture fit. We suggest that future research should identify these moderators’ roles and verify their moderating effects.
Fifth, this study did not explore the positive or negative antecedent variables influencing innovative behavior. We suggest that future research explore which variables facilitate innovation behavior. Furthermore, it is worth exploring which organizational culture and leadership style reduce innovative behavior. In addition to innovation behavior, researchers should explore ways to enhance creative performance. The previous study emphasized the importance of creative performance [110]. Thus, future research should validate that ethical leadership induces creative performance.
Sixth, voice behavior is divided into promotive and prohibitive voice behavior [21]. However, this study only examined the aspect of promotive voice. Promotive voice behavior is defined as organizational members proposing innovative suggestions and solutions using the motivation of cooperation to enhance organizational states [20]. On the other hand, prohibitive voice behavior is defined as employees’ voices proposing preventive suggestions that can hinder the norms of organizational development. Promotive voice behavior protects organizations from potential crises and risks to avoid negative results [20]. Future research should verify the role of prohibitive voice behavior to expand our findings on promotive voice behavior.
Seventh, we emphasize the importance of LMX and perceived organizational and leader support to promote organizational members’ voice and innovative behavior. If organizational members perceive organizational support and creative favorable relations with their leaders, they will typically form a high level of attachment to their organizations and leader, and they will also be more willing to work harder [111]. Therefore, organizations should support organizational members in performing voice and innovative behavior. Furthermore, a high level of LMX quality should promote organizational members’ voice and innovative behavior. In future research, it will be necessary to explore ways to increase members’ voice and innovative behaviors by using LMX and organizational support.
Finally, most of the employees who participated in the survey were subordinates. The survey was conducted using a method of self-reporting. We consider that the method of self-reporting leads to a problem that a variable’s correlation is too high. Although we conducted CMV testing, we consider that there should be existing common method bias (CMB). Future research is necessary to proceed and design a way to collect data to avoid the problem of CMB. Therefore, leaders should report subordinates’ voice and innovative behavior. Additionally, subordinates should report their psychological safety and leaders’ ethical leadership.

6. Conclusions

We consolidated the research findings linking ethical leadership, voice behavior, psychological safety, and innovative behavior based on relatively few existing studies that have examined ethical leadership in determining subordinates’ innovative work behavior. We aimed to identify this theory and examine the role of ethical leadership in increasing innovative behavior. In addition, we extended this to the field of research on innovative behavior and simultaneously measured both mediating and moderating effects. Moreover, we verified the moderated mediation research model to improve innovative behavior, which increases organizational sustainability and survival. Finally, we are aware of the need for future research to provide more theoretical perspectives that explain the types of outcomes that depend on innovative behavior.

Author Contributions

Data curation, C.Q.; Methodology and draft, X.J.; Review and editing, S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dey, M.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Mahmood, M.; Uddin, M.A.; Biswas, S.R. Ethical leadership for better sustainable performance: Role employee values, behavior and ethical climate. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 337, 130527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Seclen-Luna, J.P.; Moya-Fernández, P.; Pereira, Á. Exploring the effects of innovation strategies and size on manufacturing firms’ productivity and environmental impact. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Long, T.B.; Blok, V.; Dorrestijn, S.; Macnaghten, P. The design and testing of a tool for developing responsible innovation in start-up enterprises. J. Responsible Innov. 2020, 7, 45–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Triantafillidou, E.; Tsiaras, S. Exploring entrepreneurship, innovation and tourism development from a sustainable perspective: Evidence from Greece. J. Int. Bus. Entrep. Dev. 2018, 11, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Al-kalouti, J.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, N.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Upadhyay, A.; Zwiegelaar, J.B. Investigating innovation capability and organizational performance in service firms. Strateg. Change 2020, 29, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lee, W.R.; Choi, S.B.; Kang, S.W. How leaders’ positive feedback influences employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of voice behavior and job autonomy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wan, X.; Fan, X. The dual impact of challenging stressor on employee’s innovation behavior: The mediating role of feedback seeking behavior and emotional exhaustion. Int. J. Sci. 2016, 6, 209–215. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rathore, N.; Singh, A. Determinants and outcomes of ethical leadership in universities: A scale development. Int. J. Leadersh. 2018, 6, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
  9. Langlois, L.; Lapointe, C.; Valois, P.; De Leeuw, A. Development and validity of the ethical leadership questionnaire. J. Educ. Adm. 2014, 52, 310–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Treviño, L.K.; Brown, M.; Hartman, L.P. A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Hum. Relat. 2003, 56, 5–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Banks, G.C.; Fischer, T.; Gooty, J.; Stock, G. Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 2021, 32, 101471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zahra, T.T.; Ahmad, H.M.; Waheed, A. Impact of ethical leadership on innovative work behavior: Mediating role of self-efficacy. J. Behav. Sci. 2017, 27, 93–107. [Google Scholar]
  13. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mayer, D.M.; Kuenzi, M.; Greenbaum, R.; Bardes, M.; Salvador, R. How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickledown model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 2009, 108, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brown, M.E.; Trevino, L.K. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 595–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Avey, J.B.; Palanski, M.E.; Walumbwa, F.O. Whenleadership goes unnoticed: The moderating role of follower selfesteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and follower behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brown, M.E.; Treviño, L.K.; Harrison, D.A. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 2005, 97, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, A.S.Y.; Hou, Y.H. The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination. Leadersh. Q. 2016, 27, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Walumbwa, F.O.; Schaubroeck, J. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1275–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Miao, R.; Lu, L.; Cao, Y.; Du, Q. The high-performance work system, employee voice, and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Liang, J.; Farh, C.I.; Farh, J.L. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Edmondson, A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 42, 350–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Kahn, W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724. [Google Scholar]
  24. West, M.A.; Anderson, N.R. Innovation in top management teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vandekerkhof, P.; Steijvers, T.; Hendriks, W.; Voordeckers, W. Socio-emotional wealth separation and decision-making quality in family firm TMTs: The moderating role of psychological safety. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 55, 648–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ghanem, B.M. Ethical leadership in education and its relation to education management ethics. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2018, 4, 243–256. [Google Scholar]
  27. Amabile, T.M.; Conti, R.; Coon, H.; Lazenby, J.; Herron, M. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 1154–1184. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ireland, R.D.; Hitt, M.A. Achieving and maintaining strategic ompetitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic eadership. Acad. Manag. Exec. 2005, 19, 63–77. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cingöz, A.; Akdoğan, A.A. An empirical examination of performance and image outcome expectation as determinants of innovative behavior in the workplace. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 24, 847–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lyndon, S.; Rawat, P.S.; Varghese, B.S. Influence of Thriving on Innovative Behavior at Workplace. Indian J. Ind. Relat. 2018, 53, 519–528. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hee, C.; Young, J. Effects of psychological ownership, self-leadership, and social exchange relationships on innovative behavior of military hospital personnel. Korean J. Occup. Health Nurs. 2019, 28, 166–175. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rahman, Z.; Shah, F.A.; Zahir, S. Minor and Serious Cyber-Loafing Impact on Innovative Behavior. J. Manag. Sci. 2020, 14, 92–102. [Google Scholar]
  33. Widyani, A.A.D.; Sarmawa, I.W.G.; Dewi, I.G.A.M. The roles of knowledge sharing in mediating the effect of self-efficacy and self-leadership toward innovative behavior. J. Manaj. Dan Kewirausahaan 2017, 19, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Doğru, Ç. The relationship between perceived support and innovative behavior: Analyzing the mediating role of work engagement. İşletme Araştırmaları Derg. 2018, 10, 384–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sun, Y.; Huang, J. Psychological capital and innovative behavior: Mediating effect of psychological safety. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2019, 47, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alshebami, A.S. The Influence of Psychological Capital on Employees’ Innovative Behavior: Mediating Role of Employees’ Innovative Intention and Employees’ Job Satisfaction. SAGE Open 2021, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yamak, O.U.; Eyupoglu, S.Z. Authentic leadership and service innovative behavior: Mediating role of proactive personality. SAGE Open 2021, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chang, H.T.; Chou, Y.J.; Liou, J.W.; Tu, Y.T. The effects of perfectionism on innovative behavior and job burnout: Team workplace friendship as a moderator. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 96, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hong, W.K.; Ahn, K.Y. The Relationship Between Empowerment and Innovative Behavior, and the Moderating Effect of Psychological Ownership in Small Musiness. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Ventur. Entrep. 2016, 11, 145–155. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ul Haq, M.A.; Usman, M.; Hussain, J. Enhancing employee innovative behavior: The moderating effects of organizational tenure. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. PJCSS 2017, 11, 814–832. [Google Scholar]
  41. Takaishi, K.; Sekiguchi, K.; Kono, H.; Suzuki, S. Interactive effects of work autonomy and proactive personality on innovative behavior. Asian Bus. Res. 2019, 4, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fatemi, S.Z.; Sadeghian, S.; Ganji, S.F.G.; Johnson, L.W. Do different genders’ knowledge sharing behaviors drive different innovative behavior? The moderating effect of social capital. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2011, 25, 592–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sağnak, M. Ethical leadership and teachers’ voice behavior: The mediating roles of ethical culture and psychological safety. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2017, 17, 1101–1117. [Google Scholar]
  44. Malik, M.S.; Nawaz, M.K. The role of ethical leadership in whistleblowing intention among bank employees: Mediating role of psychological safety. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2018, 7, 238–252. [Google Scholar]
  45. Talib, M.; Bibi, Z.; Zaman, N.U. Mediating Effect of Psychological Safety on the relationship between Ethical Leadership and Employee’s Work Passion: Case Study of HEI’s of Baluchistan, Quetta. J. Manag. Sci. 2019, 14, 192–202. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ahmad, I.; Umrani, W.A. The impact of ethical leadership style on job satisfaction: Mediating role of perception of Green HRM and psychological safety. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 534–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Men, C.; Fong, P.S.; Huo, W.; Zhong, J.; Jia, R.; Luo, J. Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: A moderated mediation model of psychological safety and mastery climate. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 166, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liden, R.C.; Sparrowe, R.T.; Wayne, S.J. Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1997, 15, 47–119. [Google Scholar]
  49. Den Hartog, D.N. Ethical leadership. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015, 2, 409–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ahmed Iqbal, Z.; Abid, G.; Contreras, F.; Hassan, Q.; Zafar, R. Ethical leadership and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of individual attributes. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, G.; Kanfer, R. Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Res. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 223–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dhar, R.L. Ethical leadership and its impact on service innovative behavior: The role of LMX and job autonomy. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Martins, E.C.; Terblanche, F. Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2003, 6, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tu, Y.; Lu, X. How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 116, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Al Halbusi, H.; Williams, K.A.; Ramayah, T.; Aldieri, L.; Vinci, C.P. Linking ethical leadership and ethical climate to employees’ ethical behavior: The moderating role of person–organization fit. Pers. Rev. 2021, 50, 159–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Van Dyne, L.; LePine, J.A. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 108–119. [Google Scholar]
  57. Avey, J.B.; Wernsing, T.S.; Palanski, M.E. Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 107, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Stouten, J.; van Dijke, M.; Mayer, D.M.; De Cremer, D.; Euwema, M.C. Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects of ethical leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2013, 24, 680–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jiun-Lan, H.S.U.; Jeng-Hwan, W.A.N.G. Exploring the effects of organizational justice on employees’ innovative behavior in Hospitality Industry from the aspect of organizational support. Rev. Cercet. Si Interv. Soc. 2015, 49, 113–126. [Google Scholar]
  61. Janssen, O. The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2005, 78, 573–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hadi, T.P.; Tola, B.; Akbar, M. The Effect of Transformational Leadership and Work Motivation on Innovative Behavior. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Manag. 2019, 3, 100–108. [Google Scholar]
  63. Thurlings, M.; Evers, A.T.; Vermeulen, M. Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Rev. Educ. Res. 2015, 85, 430–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kanter, R.M. Chapter 7. When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 1996, 10, 93–131. [Google Scholar]
  65. Davidson, T.; Van Dyne, L.; Lin, B. Too attached to speak up? It depends: How supervisor–subordinate guanxi and perceived job control influence upward constructive voice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 2017, 143, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kremer, H.; Villamor, I.; Aguinis, H. Innovation leadership: Best-practice recommendations for promoting employee creativity, voice, and knowledge sharing. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53, 1024–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nazir, S.; Shafi, A.; Asadullah, M.A.; Qun, W.; Khadim, S. Linking paternalistic leadership to follower’s innovative work behavior: The influence of leader–member exchange and employee voice. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 24, 1354–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Akker, V.D.L.; Heres, L.; Lasthuizen, K.; Six, F.E. Ethical leadership and trust: It’s all about meeting expectations. Int. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2009, 5, 102–122. [Google Scholar]
  70. Cha, S.; Edmondson, A. When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wood, S.; Wall, T. Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource management performance studies. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2007, 18, 1335–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yousaf, K.; Abid, G.; Butt, T.H.; Ilyas, S.; Ahmed, S. Impact of ethical leadership and thriving at work on psychological well-being of employees: Mediating role of voice behaviour. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2019, 17, 194–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, Y.X.; Fang, Y.L.; Wei, K.K.; Chen, H.P. Exploring the role of psychological safety in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2010, 30, 425–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hirak, R.; Peng, A.C.; Carmeli, A.; Schaubroeck, J.M. Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. Leadersh. Q. 2012, 23, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Opoku, M.A.; Choi, S.B.; Kang, S.W. Psychological Safety in Ghana: Empirical Analyses of Antecedents and Consequences. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Homans, G.C. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 1958, 63, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hans, S.; Gupta, R. Job characteristics affect shared leadership: The moderating effect of psychological safety and perceived self-efficacy. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2018, 39, 730–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mo, S.; Shi, J. Linking ethical leadership to employee burnout, workplace deviance and performance: Testing the mediating roles of trust in leader and surface acting. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 144, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nemr, M.A.A.; Liu, Y. The impact of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behaviors: Moderating role of organizational cynicism. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1865860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bass, B.M.; Steidlmeier, P. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadersh. Q. 1999, 10, 181–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhu, W.; Zheng, X.; He, H.; Wang, G.; Zhang, X. Ethical leadership with both “moral person” and “moral manager” aspects: Scale development and cross-cultural validation. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 158, 547–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jin, X.; Jang, E.M. The Influence of Ethical Leadership on Organizational members’ Innovative Behavior: The Serial Multiple Mediating Effects of Trust in Leader and Voice Behavior. J. Digit. Converg. 2022, 20, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  83. Taylor, S.G.; Pattie, M.W. When does ethical leadership affect workplace incivility? The moderating role of follower personality. Bus. Ethics Q. 2014, 24, 595–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Whithey, M.J.; Cooper, W.H. Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Adm. Sci. Q. 1989, 34, 521–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Van Dyne, L.; Graham, J.W.; Dienesch, R.M. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, opera-tionalization, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 765–802. [Google Scholar]
  86. Detert, J.R.; Burris, E.R. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 869–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Brown, S.P.; Leigh, T.W. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Scott, S.G.; Bruce, R.A. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 580–607. [Google Scholar]
  90. Jin, X.; Hahm, S. Using Online Information Support to Decrease Stress, Anxiety, and Depression. KSII Trans. Internet Inf. Syst. TIIS 2021, 15, 2944–2958. [Google Scholar]
  91. Reio Jr, T.G. The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2010, 9, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Williams, L.J.; Brown, B.K. Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources research: Effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1994, 57, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Nunnally, J. Psychometric Methods; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  95. Hayes, A.F. An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  96. Hayes, A.F.; Preacher, K.J. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 2014, 67, 451–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Bodlaj, M.; Čater, B. The impact of environmental turbulence on the perceived importance of innovation and innovativeness in SMEs. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Emerson, R.M. Power-dependence relations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1962, 27, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Salancik, G.R.; Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm. Sci. Q. 1978, 23, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Depret, E.F.; Fiske, S.T. Social Cognition and Power: Some Cognitive Consequences of Social Structure as a Source of Control Deprivation. In Control Motivation and Social Cognition; Weary, G., Gleicher, F., Marsh, R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 176–202. [Google Scholar]
  101. Imam, A.; Kim, D.Y. Ethical leadership and improved work behaviors: A moderated mediation model using prosocial silence and organizational commitment as mediators and employee engagement as moderator. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 158, 547–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jin, X.; Hahm, S.W. The effect of employee’s perception of supervisor’s characteristics on organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of trust in supervisor. Int. Inf. Inst. Inf. 2017, 20, 5143–5152. [Google Scholar]
  103. Costa, A.C.; Roe, R.A.; Taillieu, T. Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2001, 10, 225–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Palanski, M.E.; Yammarino, F.J. Impact of behavioral integrity on follower job performance: A three-study examination. Leadersh. Q. 2011, 22, 765–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kark, R.; Carmeli, A. Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2009, 30, 785–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Y. Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and follower creativity: A cross-level investigation. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Bradley, B.H.; Postlethwaite, B.E.; Klotz, A.C.; Hamdani, M.R.; Brown, K.G. Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 97, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Fein, E.C.; Tziner, A.; Vasiliu, C. Perceptions of ethical climate and organizational justice as antecedents to employee performance: The mediating role of employees’ attributions of leader effectiveness. Eur. Manag. J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Choi, W.S.; Kang, S.W.; Choi, S.B. Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: An Empirical Study of Moderated Mediation Model of Self-Efficacy, Perceived Organizational Support, and Leader–Member Exchange. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Choi, S.B.; Ullah, S.M.E.; Kang, S.W. Proactive Personality and Creative Performance: Mediating Roles of Creative Self-Efficacy and Moderated Mediation Role of Psychological Safety. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wu, T.J.; Yuan, K.S.; Yen, D.C. Leader-member exchange, turnover intention and presenteeism—The moderated mediating effect of perceived organizational support. Curr. Psychol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 05125 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 14 05125 g001
Sustainability 14 05125 g002 550
Figure 2. The moderating effect of psychological safety.
Figure 2. The moderating effect of psychological safety.
Sustainability 14 05125 g002
Table
Table 1. Data characteristics.
Table 1. Data characteristics.
Number of RespondentsPercentage of Respondents
Total respondents296100
GenderMale12943.6
Female16756.4
Age20–2917258.1
30–397023.6
40–494414.9
50–5993.0
60 and over10.3
EducationHigh school graduate6120.6
Bachelor’s degree17759.8
Master’s degree4816.2
Doctorate degree103.4
Service Year1–210736.1
3–56622.3
6–86522.0
9–11227.4
12 and over3612.2
Table
Table 2. Summary of structural model fit results.
Table 2. Summary of structural model fit results.
Modelχ2(p)χ2/dfRMSEAIFICFIPNFIPGFI
Model 1
(Expected Model of four-factor a)		750.393(0.000)2.3750.0680.9040.9040.7610.715
Model 2
(one-factor b)		1495.584(0.000)4.6020.1100.7420.7400.6410.561
Model 3
(two-factor c)		1488.677(0.000)4.5810.1100.7430.7420.6420.566
Model 4
(two-factor d)		1363.544(0.000)4.1960.1040.7710.7700.6660.586
Model 5
(three-factor e)		1089.382(0.000)3.3620.0890.8310.8300.7160.654
Model 6
(three-factor f)		1035.167(0.000)3.1950.0860.8430.8420.7260.673
Note: a = Ethical leadership, Psychological safety, Voice behavior, and Innovative behavior. b = All items were loaded on a single factor. c = Ethical leadership & Psychological safety, Innovative behavior & Voice behavior. d = Ethical leadership & Voice behavior, Innovative behavior & Psychological safety. e = Ethical leadership, Innovative behavior, Voice behavior & Psychological safety. f = Voice behavior, Innovative behavior, Ethical leadership & Psychological safety.
Table
Table 3. The results of convergent validity.
Table 3. The results of convergent validity.
VariablesEstimateSECRpStandardized
Regression
Weights		AVECR
Ethical Leadership
(A)		A11 0.8740.7020.954
A20.8990.04420.433***0.802
A31.0220.03330.713***0.924
A40.9040.04420.356***0.801
A50.8810.03723.896***0.855
A60.9730.03428.252***0.903
A71.1700.04426.47***0.885
A80.8080.03622.615***0.837
A90.4930.04510.907***0.553
A100.8670.03326.313***0.883
Voice Behavior
(B)		B11 0.8660.6760.925
B20.9230.04222.082***0.821
B30.8430.03524.351***0.868
B40.7550.03720.582***0.812
B50.6910.04116.919***0.740
B60.7960.03820.909***0.819
Innovative Behavior
(C)		C11 0.8980.7190.936
C20.8560.03425.286***0.874
C30.9150.03724.416***0.863
C40.8640.04120.838***0.812
C50.8080.03821.479***0.823
C60.7850.03820.914***0.813
Psychological Safety
(D)		D11 0.8500.7280.918
D20.890.04221.215***0.825
D30.9590.03726.059***0.891
D41.0030.04025.095***0.880
D50.8360.04020.768***0.817
Model Fit IndexX2(p) = 750.393(0.000), X2/df = 2.375, RMSEA = 0.068, IFI = 0.904, CFI = 0.904, PNFI = 0.761, PGFI = 0.715
Note: ***: p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Reliability analysis results.
Table 4. Reliability analysis results.
VariablesItemCronbach’s Alpha
Ethical Leadership
(A)		1. My leader listens to what employees have to say.0.913
2. My leader disciplines employees who violate ethical standards.
3. My leader conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner.
4. My leader has the best interests of employees in mind.
5. My leader makes fair and balanced decisions.
6. My leader can be trusted.
7. My leader discusses business ethics or values with employees.
8. My leader sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics.
9. My leader defines success not just by results but also the way they are obtained.
10. My leader when making decisions, asks “What is the right thing?”
Voice Behavior
(B)		1. I make recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group.0.839
2. I speak up and encourages others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the group.
3. I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in this group even if my opinion is different
and others in the group disagree with me.
4. I keep myself well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to this work group.
5. I get involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in this group.
6. I speak up in this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.
Innovative Behavior
(C)		1. I Search out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas.0.870
2. I generate creative ideas.
3. I promote and champion ideas to others.
4. I investigates and secure funds needed to implement new ideas.
5. I develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas.
6. I am innovative.
Psychological Safety
(D)		1. In my workplace, I can express my true feelings regarding my job.0.874
2. In my workplace, I can freely express my thoughts.
3. In my workplace, expressing your true feelings is welcomed.
4. Nobody in my workplace will pick on me even if I have different opinions.
5. I am worried that expressing true thoughts in my workplace would do harm to myself.
Table
Table 5. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.
MeanSDEthical
Leadership		Voice
Behavior		Psychological SafetyInnovative
Behavior
Ethical
Leadership		3.7330.628-
Voice
Behavior		3.7160.5810.622 ***-
Psychological
Safety		3.6030.7240.700 ***0.536 ***-
Innovative
Behavior		3.6650.6110.599 ***0.623 ***0.595 ***-
Note: ***: p < 0.001.
Table
Table 6. The results of path analysis.
Table 6. The results of path analysis.
PathEstimateSECRpModel fit
Ethical
Leadership		→Voice
Behavior		0.6510.0738.907***X2(p) = 452.967(0.000), X2/df = 2.198, RMSEA = 0.064,
IFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.920, CFI = 0.929,
PNFI = 0.783, PGFI = 0.717
Voice
Behavior		→Innovative
Behavior		0.5960.0956.260***
Ethical
Leadership		→Innovative
Behavior		0.2360.0763.1090.002
Mediating EffectIndirect effectBoot
LLCI		Boot
ULCI		Significant
Ethical Leadership→Voice Behavior→
Innovative Behavior		0.3920.2550.5550.003
Note: ***: p < 0.001.
Table
Table 7. The result of the moderating effect of psychological safety.
Table 7. The result of the moderating effect of psychological safety.
Dependent Variable: Voice Behavior
Model 1Model 2Model 3
βtβtβtVIF
Ethical
Leadership(A)		0.622 ***13.6190.484 ***7.6820.476 ***7.6571.962
Psychological Safety(B) 0.197 **3.1340.205 **3.3041.962
Interaction (A × B) 0.136 **3.0731.002
R2(Adjusted R2)0.387(0.385)0.407(0.403)0.425(0.419)
ΔR2 (ΔAdjusted R2)-0.020(0.018)0.018(0.016)
F185.478 ***100.434 ***72.034 ***
Note: ***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01.
Table
Table 8. The moderated mediation effect of psychological safety.
Table 8. The moderated mediation effect of psychological safety.
Dependent Variable: Innovative Behavior
ModeratorLevelConditional Indirect EffectBoot
SE		Boot
LLCI		Boot
ULCI
Psychological
Safety		−1 SD (−0.7237)0.14370.03860.07120.2220
M0.18910.03680.12180.2636
+1 SD (+0.7237)0.23450.14750.14750.3342
Index of moderated mediation
IndexBoot
SE		Boot
LLCI		Boot
ULCI
0.06270.03240.00520.1329
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jin, X.; Qing, C.; Jin, S. Ethical Leadership and Innovative Behavior: Mediating Role of Voice Behavior and Moderated Mediation Role of Psychological Safety. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5125. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095125

AMA Style

Jin X, Qing C, Jin S. Ethical Leadership and Innovative Behavior: Mediating Role of Voice Behavior and Moderated Mediation Role of Psychological Safety. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5125. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095125

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jin, Xiu, Chenglin Qing, and Shanyue Jin. 2022. "Ethical Leadership and Innovative Behavior: Mediating Role of Voice Behavior and Moderated Mediation Role of Psychological Safety" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5125. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095125

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop