Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

Education SciencesEducation Sciences
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

4 June 2026

The Relationship Between Chinese Ethical Leadership and University Teachers’ Salary Satisfaction

,
,
and
1
Center for Western Teacher Education Research, College of Teacher Education, College of Physics and Electronic Engineering, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730071, China
2
School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
3
College of Chinese Language and Literature, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730071, China
4
School of Psychology, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
Educ. Sci.2026, 16(6), 890;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16060890
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study examines the influence mechanism of Chinese ethical leadership on university teachers’ salary satisfaction by constructing a moderated mediation model. We randomly collected questionnaire data from 958 university teachers in Gansu Province, China. Key results are as follows: (1) Chinese ethical leadership, trust in colleagues and leaders, salary satisfaction, and workplace mindfulness are significantly positively correlated. (2) Trust in colleagues and leaders partially mediates the relationship between Chinese ethical leadership and salary satisfaction. (3) Workplace mindfulness negatively moderates the link between ethical leadership and trust, with higher mindfulness weakening this positive effect. (4) The moderated mediation effect is significant, as the mediating effect of trust declines with increasing mindfulness. These findings uncover the unique pathway of ethical leadership in shaping faculty salary satisfaction and provide empirical evidence and practical guidance for university management optimization.

1. Introduction

In the context of the global trend toward high-quality higher education, the stability and vitality of university teaching staff have become key determinants of educational quality and competitiveness (Areepattamannil, 2024). Salary satisfaction, a core dimension of occupational well-being, directly reflects university teachers’ perception of material returns and is a key predictor of their work engagement, organizational commitment, and turnover intention (Ahmad et al., 2017; Kristanti et al., 2021; Zayed et al., 2022). For university teachers specifically, salary satisfaction is a multidimensional construct sensitive to both individual cognitive appraisal and organizational contextual factors, encompassing procedural justice, distributive justice, and interpersonal relationships (Nandan et al., 2018). Meta-analytic evidence confirms that distributive and procedural justice perceptions are its strongest antecedents (Judge et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2006). Unlike employees in other industries, university teachers prioritize salary fairness and organizational emotional recognition due to their strong professional identity (Khudhair et al., 2020). As China continues to reform its university personnel and salary systems (Xia et al., 2024), exploring the antecedents and influence mechanisms of teachers’ salary satisfaction has become an urgent research agenda.
As a core organizational contextual factor, leadership has a crucial impact on employees’ work attitudes and behaviors (Ingsih et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2024). Social Exchange Theory (SET; Blau, 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) posits that organizational relationships operate on the principle of reciprocity: employees who perceive care, respect, and fair treatment from leaders generate positive psychological returns and exhibit favorable work attitudes, including higher salary satisfaction. Complementing SET, Social Learning Theory (SLT; Rumjaun & Narod, 2025) explains how individuals form perceptions by observing and imitating leaders as role models. SET accounts for why ethical leadership generates positive attitudes (reciprocal exchange), while SLT explains how this process unfolds (observational learning). Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) theory (Kabat-Zinn, 1982) provides the boundary condition: it defines workplace mindfulness as nonjudgmental awareness of present-moment experiences (K. W. Brown & Ryan, 2003) and suggests that highly mindful individuals may process leadership behaviors through detached observation, potentially attenuating the trust-generating effects predicted by SET and SLT (Hülsheger et al., 2013).
Ethical leadership, defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (M. E. Brown et al., 2005), represents an important branch of positive leadership research. Since its formative conceptualization (Treviño et al., 2003), ethical leadership has attracted substantial scholarly attention, with meta-analytic evidence confirming its criterion-related and incremental validity in predicting positive employee attitudes and behaviors (Ng & Feldman, 2015). Hoch et al. (2018) further demonstrated that ethical leadership accounts for unique variance in follower outcomes beyond that explained by transformational leadership. However, leadership theories developed in Western contexts often require cultural adaptation to fully capture their meaning and functioning in non-Western settings (Bai & Wendy Pan, 2022). In the Chinese context, ethical leadership integrates Confucian values of benevolence (ren), righteousness (yi), propriety (li), and trustworthiness (xin) with the emphasis on procedural fairness (J. Li & Zhu, 2019; Lin & Huang, 2014; Wang & Xiang, 2025). Chinese university teachers, operating within Fei et al.’s (1992) “differential mode of association” (chaxugeju), may prioritize relationship-based trust and distributive justice when evaluating ethical leadership. We adopt J. Li and Zhu’s (2019) validated instrument, which operationalizes this contextualized approach while maintaining conceptual continuity with M. E. Brown et al.’s (2005) framework.
Despite these theoretical foundations, three critical gaps remain. First, the relationship between ethical leadership and salary satisfaction requires further examination in Chinese higher education. Although Western studies have documented positive associations (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013; Takách, 2020), empirical evidence from Chinese settings remains scarce, and Western conceptualizations may not capture culturally salient elements—such as relational orientation and distributive justice preferences—that shape Chinese teachers’ interpretation of leadership behavior (Y. Li et al., 2018; Ma & Muhammad, 2025; Wang & Xiang, 2025). Second, the mediating mechanisms connecting ethical leadership to salary satisfaction through trust remain incompletely understood. Prior research has yielded inconsistent results regarding organizational trust as a mediator (Chen et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2021), largely because existing studies treat trust as unidimensional, conflating vertical trust in leaders (Mayer et al., 1995) with horizontal trust in colleagues (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Disaggregating these dimensions can clarify the specific pathways from ethical leadership to salary satisfaction (Burke et al., 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Third, the boundary conditions of this relationship remain poorly understood: despite mindfulness’s established role in shaping social cue processing (K. W. Brown & Ryan, 2003; Hülsheger et al., 2013), few studies have examined it as a moderator in the ethical leadership-trust nexus, particularly for university teachers whose professional culture emphasizes critical thinking (Bari et al., 2023; Lemoine et al., 2019).
This study addresses these gaps by proposing an integrated moderated mediation model that combines three innovations: (1) it applies a contextualized, Confucian-inflected conceptualization of ethical leadership to Chinese university settings; (2) it disaggregates organizational trust into vertical (trust in leaders) and horizontal (trust in colleagues) dimensions to clarify mediating pathways; and (3) it tests whether workplace mindfulness moderates the ethical leadership-trust link, thereby affecting the overall indirect effect. By integrating SET, SLT, Confucian ethics, and MBSR into a unified framework, this study offers a theoretically coherent, contextually grounded account of leadership effectiveness in Chinese higher education. Accordingly, this study aims to answer the following research questions: (1) Does Chinese ethical leadership positively influence university teachers’ salary satisfaction? (2) Do trust in colleagues and trust in leaders mediate this relationship, and what are the relative contributions of each trust dimension? (3) Does workplace mindfulness moderate the relationship between Chinese ethical leadership and trust dimensions, and consequently, the overall mediating effect?

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Ethical Leadership and University Teachers’ Salary Satisfaction

Ethical leadership research has consistently demonstrated positive effects on employee attitudes, including salary and pay satisfaction, across diverse cultural and organizational contexts (Hoch et al., 2018; Ng & Feldman, 2015; Ramlawati et al., 2023; Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013). M. E. Brown et al. (2005) conceptualized ethical leadership as a social learning process wherein leaders serve as visible role models whose normatively appropriate conduct is observed, internalized, and emulated by followers. Treviño et al. (2003), in their qualitative investigation, found that perceived executive ethical leadership is characterized by a combination of moral person characteristics (trustworthiness, concern for people) and moral manager behaviors (rewarding ethical conduct, communicating about ethics), both of which shape follower perceptions of organizational fairness.
Meta-analytic evidence confirms that justice perceptions constitute the strongest predictors of pay satisfaction across occupations and cultures (Judge et al., 2010; Takách, 2020; Williams et al., 2006). Ethical leaders enhance salary satisfaction by fostering procedural justice—including transparent salary decision-making—and distributive justice in compensation decisions (Ghany, 2022; Heneman & Schwab, 1985). Malmrud et al. (2020), surveying Swedish employees, further confirmed that ethical leaders’ fair distribution of rewards predicts higher salary satisfaction, particularly in collectivist-leaning cultures.
In the Chinese cultural context, the integration of Confucian values with ethical leadership provides additional explanatory power. Chinese ethical leadership—conceptualized here as a culturally contextualized variant of M. E. Brown et al.’s (2005) framework—emphasizes “benevolence” (caring for subordinates’ well-being), “righteousness” (fairness in resource allocation), and consistency between words and deeds (Zhu et al., 2019). These characteristics resonate with Chinese employees’ cultural preferences for relationship-based interactions and distributive justice. Empirically, Yang (2014) found that ethical leadership positively predicts overall job satisfaction, with salary satisfaction as a key sub-dimension. Xu et al. (2016) verified that the fairness and impartiality dimension of ethical leadership directly relates to employees’ distributive justice perceptions regarding salary in Chinese organizations.
The mechanisms connecting Chinese ethical leadership to salary satisfaction operate through the complementary lenses of SET and SLT. Through SET, ethical leaders’ “ethical care” (e.g., adjusting workloads for teachers with family responsibilities) and fair salary distribution constitute valuable social resources that activate reciprocity norms (Blau, 2017; Cook, 2015; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Ghany, 2022). Through SLT, ethical leaders serve as role models whose fair and caring behaviors are observed and internalized by teachers. Leaders who transparently communicate salary decision criteria and ensure equitable promotion opportunities demonstrate normatively appropriate conduct that followers emulate, internalize, and reward with trust and satisfaction (M. E. Brown et al., 2005; Rumjaun & Narod, 2025). Confucian values enrich this framework: “benevolence” (ren) meets teachers’ relational emotional needs, while “righteousness” (yi) satisfies their distributive justice expectations, creating a dual pathway unique to the Chinese context. Therefore, this study proposes:
H1. 
There is a positive association between Chinese ethical leadership and university teachers’ salary satisfaction.

2.2. The Mediating Role of Trust in Colleagues and Leaders

Organizational trust is a well-established mediator between ethical leadership and employee attitudes (Engelbrecht et al., 2014; Javed et al., 2018; Yoon, 2018). Their integrative model identifies three trustworthiness antecedents—ability, benevolence, and integrity—that shape trust formation in leader-follower relationships (Burke et al., 2007). In educational settings, Bryk and Schneider (2002) established that trust in colleagues (horizontal trust) and trust in school leaders (vertical trust) are empirically distinguishable dimensions that jointly shape teachers’ professional engagement and commitment. This dual-dimensional trust framework is particularly relevant for university settings, where teachers operate in highly collaborative professional environments and interact with both administrative leaders and academic peers (Bellibaş et al., 2025; Handford & Leithwood, 2013; Salanova et al., 2021).
Chinese ethical leadership fosters both forms of trust through complementary mechanisms. Ethical leaders cultivate vertical trust by being fair and impartial in salary adjustments and promotions, which reduces uncertainty about organizational decisions and signals leader integrity (Malik et al., 2023; Mayer et al., 1995; Yuan et al., 2023). Snell et al. (2022) argued that Junzi virtues—the Confucian ethical principles of benevolence (ren), righteousness (yi), propriety (li), wisdom (zhi), and trustworthiness (xin)—serve as a foundational mechanism for cultivating organizational harmony. Simultaneously, ethical leaders foster horizontal trust by modeling collaborative behaviors, such as encouraging interdisciplinary research, which reduces interpersonal competition and enhances mutual trust among teachers (Bedi et al., 2016). The “ethical care” dimension of ethical leadership indirectly promotes trust in colleagues by fostering a sense of professional community in universities (Buonomo et al., 2021; Wisker & Masika, 2017).
Trust in leaders mitigates teachers’ skepticism about salary distribution, even when salary levels are moderate, as trusted leaders are perceived as making decisions in the best interest of the team (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2002; D. Kang et al., 2011). Trust in colleagues fosters a harmonious work environment in which teachers are less likely to engage in competitive salary comparisons instead of focusing on collaborative goals that enhance job satisfaction (Card et al., 2010). In educational contexts, teachers who trust their colleagues report higher satisfaction with organizational outcomes because horizontal trust creates a professional climate of mutual support that buffers against distributive dissatisfaction (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Saygi et al. (2011) empirically found that trust in leaders and trust in colleagues both significantly predict university teachers’ salary satisfaction. Guo (2022) further verified that organizational trust mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and pay equity perception in Asian educational institutions.
Theoretically, SLT posits that teachers internalize trustworthiness modeled through fair and cooperative behaviors, which they subsequently emulate in their own interactions with leaders and colleagues (M. E. Brown et al., 2005; Rumjaun & Narod, 2025). SET suggests that trust represents the psychological outcome of favorable social exchange: teachers who perceive their leaders and colleagues as trustworthy reciprocate with positive attitudes toward organizational outcomes, including salary (Blau, 2017; Cook, 2015; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Confucian values of “faith” (xin) and “benevolence” (ren) further amplify this mediating role, as relationship-based trust carries greater psychological weight than rule-based trust in Chinese organizational culture (L. Kang et al., 2015).
Based on the empirical evidence and theoretical logic connecting ethical leadership, trust, and salary satisfaction, this study posits the following hypothesis:
H2. 
Trust in colleagues and leaders mediates the relationship between Chinese ethical leadership and university teachers’ salary satisfaction.

2.3. The Moderating Role of Workplace Mindfulness

Workplace mindfulness, defined as nonjudgmental attention to present experiences (Gunasekara & Zheng, 2019), has emerged as a key trait that moderates the impact of organizational contextual factors on employee attitudes (Hülsheger et al., 2013). MBSR theory (Kabat-Zinn, 1982) provides the foundational framework, positing that mindfulness fosters “decoupling”—the ability to separate immediate emotional reactions from objective cognitive appraisal of stimuli (K. W. Brown & Ryan, 2003). Highly mindful individuals process information with reduced emotional bias, maintaining equanimity toward both positive and negative social cues. This decoupling mechanism is theoretically expected to moderate the relationship between ethical leadership and trust, as highly mindful teachers attribute ethical leadership behaviors to organizational norms rather than personal trustworthiness. This aligns with MBSR’s “independence” mechanism: mindful individuals rely more on internal regulatory resources and less on external social validation for their psychological well-being and interpersonal judgments (K. W. Brown & Ryan, 2003). For university teachers, whose professional identity is built upon intellectual autonomy and evidence-based reasoning, this independence mechanism may be particularly pronounced (Bazely, 2019; J. Li & Zhu, 2019).
Hülsheger et al. (2013) found that mindfulness negatively moderates the transformational leadership–emotional exhaustion relationship. Liu et al. (2023) similarly demonstrated that mindfulness diminishes the positive influence of ethical leadership on organizational commitment, and Bazely (2019) found that university professors who are highly mindful are more likely to evaluate organizational outcomes based on objective criteria rather than interpersonal factors, thereby reducing the influence of leadership behavior on trust.
MBSR’s architecture further posits that mindfulness facilitates accurate rather than positive perception—mindful individuals process stimuli with reduced bias, which may attenuate both positive and negative distortions (K. W. Brown & Ryan, 2003). In the context of ethical leadership, where the valence is already positive, decoupling manifests as attenuation: highly mindful teachers perceive ethical leadership accurately but with diminished emotional resonance, reducing the trust-building impact. This clarifies why mindfulness may operate differently depending on the valence of the leadership behavior and the mechanism under examination.
High-mindfulness teachers maintain a decoupled stance toward leaders’ ethical behaviors, viewing transparent salary decisions and benevolent care as standard organizational procedures rather than exceptional acts of personal trustworthiness (K. W. Brown & Ryan, 2003), resulting in attenuated affective trust formation. Conversely, low-mindfulness teachers are more susceptible to emotional cues; they interpret ethical leadership behaviors as evidence of leaders’ personal trustworthiness and colleagues’ cooperativeness, strengthening the positive impact of ethical leadership on both vertical and horizontal trust (Hugh-Jones et al., 2018; Stedham & Skaar, 2019; Verdorfer, 2016).
This moderating effect is particularly relevant for university professors, who, as knowledge-based professionals, have strong professional autonomy and rational thinking abilities (J. Li & Zhu, 2019). Empirically, Stedham and Skaar (2019) confirmed that workplace mindfulness negatively moderates the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational trust in university settings—a finding that directly supports the MBSR-based decoupling mechanism proposed here.
Based on the above literature and theoretical logic, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H3. 
Workplace mindfulness negatively moderates the relationship between Chinese ethical leadership and trust in colleagues and leaders.

2.4. The Moderated Mediation Effect

According to Hayes (2018), a moderated mediation effect exists when a moderator influences the strength of a mediating pathway. Integrating H2 and H3, workplace mindfulness is expected to moderate the first stage of the mediation model (Chinese ethical leadership → trust in colleagues and leaders), which would conditionally affect the overall indirect effect on salary satisfaction. The logic of this moderated mediation follows directly from the preceding hypotheses: if trust mediates the ethical leadership–salary satisfaction relationship (H2), and if mindfulness attenuates the ethical leadership–trust relationship (H3), then the mediating pathway through trust should be stronger when mindfulness is low and weaker when mindfulness is high.
Sharma and Kumra (2022) found that workplace mindfulness interacts with organizational justice by shaping the mediating role of work-related psychological resources, while Liu et al. (2023) demonstrated that mindfulness moderates the indirect effect of leadership behavior on job satisfaction via trust in Chinese organizations.
Thus, when mindfulness is low, SET’s reciprocity mechanism and SLT’s role-modeling process operate with minimal attenuation, producing a substantial mediating effect on salary satisfaction; when mindfulness is high, MBSR’s decoupling mechanism attenuates the positive effect of ethical leadership on trust, reducing the mediating pathway’s strength. This conditional indirect effect represents the integrative contribution of the proposed model, combining contextualized ethical leadership, dual-dimensional trust mediation, and mindfulness moderation within a unified analytical framework that advances understanding of how leadership influences teacher attitudes in Chinese higher education.
Based on the above integrative logic, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H4. 
Workplace mindfulness moderates the mediating effect of trust in colleagues and leaders between Chinese ethical leadership and university teachers’ salary satisfaction. In other words, a significant moderated mediation effect exists.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

Twelve universities in Gansu Province were randomly selected as research sites. Questionnaires were distributed to faculty members through the internal communication networks of these universities. After data collection, we examined the demographic characteristics of the sample to assess representativeness. A total of 965 questionnaires were distributed, and 958 valid responses were obtained, yielding a response rate of 99.27%. The specific demographic variables are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic Variables.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Chinese Ethical Leadership Scale

The Chinese Ethical Leadership Scale was developed by Zhu et al. (2019). It consists of 16 items across four dimensions: moral characteristics, moral cognition, moral role models, and moral atmosphere. Each item is scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A higher total or average score on the scale indicates that the individual’s university is more inclined toward Chinese-style ethical leadership.
In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.98, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four dimensions were 0.95, 0.91, 0.95, and 0.94, respectively. To verify the construct validity of this scale, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation. The four-factor model exhibited excellent fit: χ2(98) = 245.921, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.981, TLI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.040 (90% CI: 0.036, 0.043), SRMR = 0.015. All standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.840 to 0.937 (ps < 0.001), indicating strong convergent validity.

3.2.2. University Faculty Salary Satisfaction Scale

The University Faculty Salary Satisfaction Scale was developed by J. Li and Hu (2022). It consists of 21 items across five dimensions: satisfaction with salary level, satisfaction with benefits, satisfaction with salary increases, satisfaction with compensation structure, and satisfaction with compensation management. Each item is scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). A higher total or average score on the scale indicates greater satisfaction among university faculty with their compensation and benefits.
In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.98, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the five dimensions were 0.91, 0.94, 0.97, 0.93, and 0.93, respectively. CFA results confirmed the five-factor structure of the scale with good model fit: χ2(179) = 521.303, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.045 (90% CI: 0.042, 0.048), SRMR = 0.025. Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.854 to 0.934 (ps < 0.001), supporting the scale’s construct validity.

3.2.3. Trust in Colleagues and Direct Leaders Scale (TCDLS)

We used the Trust in Colleagues and Direct Leaders Scale developed by Costigan et al. (1998). The scale has been utilized and has been tested by Chinese researchers to show good reliability and validity (N. Li & Yan, 2007). The scale contains 11 items (e.g., “In contact with this person, I can communicate my thoughts, feelings, etc. with him without any constraints”). The scale includes two dimensions, emotional trust and rational trust. In our study, we removed one item under the rational trust dimension, as it caused ambiguity in the pre-test. Therefore, the formal scale of this study contained 10 items, with 5 items each for emotional trust and rational trust. Each item was rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, with higher scores on the scale indicating that individuals have higher levels of trust in their colleagues and direct leaders. Note that the scale instructions explicitly asked respondents to provide an integrated rating averaging their trust in both colleagues and leaders.
In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.96, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the two dimensions were 0.93 and 0.95, respectively. CFA was performed on the modified 10-item scale to assess construct validity. The two-factor model achieved acceptable fit: χ2(34) = 219.655, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.957, TLI = 0.943, RMSEA = 0.075 (90% CI: 0.069, 0.082), SRMR = 0.028. All standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.807 to 0.903 (ps < 0.001), and the scale structure remained robust after item removal, confirming the validity of the modified instrument.

3.2.4. Workplace Mindfulness Scale (WMS)

The Workplace Mindfulness Scale employed in this study was proposed and compiled by Professor Xiaoming’s research team at Tsinghua University’s School of Economics and Management (Zheng et al., 2023). “Workplace mindfulness” is defined as an individual’s ability to maintain receptive awareness and attention to both their current inner experience and the external work environment. The scale comprises 18 items (e.g., I can clearly perceive my inner feelings while performing my work tasks.), including Awareness. The scale consists of three dimensions: Awareness, Attention, and Acceptance. Each item is scored on a Likert-5 scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with the higher the total score of the scale, the higher the individual’s level of mindful thinking in the workplace.
In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.95, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the three dimensions were 0.91, 0.93, and 0.91, respectively. CFA results supported the three-factor structure of the Workplace Mindfulness Scale with acceptable model fit: χ2(132) = 666.489, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.912, RMSEA = 0.065 (90% CI: 0.061, 0.069), SRMR = 0.050. Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.656 to 0.863 (ps < 0.001), providing strong evidence of construct validity.

4. Results

4.1. Common Method Bias Test

Given the cross-sectional self-report design, we adopted both procedural and statistical strategies to address potential common method bias (CMB; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Procedurally, we ensured respondent anonymity, used varied scale anchors and formats, and embedded attention-check items to reduce response bias.
Statistically, three complementary approaches were employed. First, Harman’s single-factor test extracted eight factors, with the first factor accounting for only 23.6% of the total variance (well below the 40% threshold for severe CMB). Second, a single-factor CFA model showed extremely poor fit (CFI = 0.414, TLI = 0.395, RMSEA = 0.148, SRMR = 0.193), confirming no single common factor dominated the data. Third, the common method factor (CMF) approach revealed that adding an uncorrelated method factor produced negligible changes in fit indices (ΔRMSEA = 0.004, ΔSRMR = 0.000, ΔCFI = 0.02, ΔTLI = 0.02), with all indices remaining within acceptable ranges. Collectively, these results indicate that CMB does not seriously distort the structural relationships in this study.

4.2. Descriptive and Correlation Analysis

Pearson’s correlation analysis was employed to examine the relationships among the continuous variables. The results showed that the positive correlations between Ethical Leadership in China, trust in colleagues and leaders, university faculty salary satisfaction, and workplace mindfulness were all statistically significant (all ps < 0.01), thereby meeting the prerequisites for testing mediation and moderation effects. See Table 2 for details.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Variables.

4.3. Testing for Mediating Effects

After controlling for university faculty members’ gender, age, marital status, political affiliation, professional title, highest level of education, number of children, and annual income which were set as covariates, we conducted a simple mediation analysis using Model 4 in Process 3.4. The results showed that gender, age, marital status, highest level of education, and annual income did not significantly predict the outcome (all ps > 0.01). Chinese ethical leadership exerts a significant influence on university faculty members’ salary satisfaction through two distinct pathways: In the direct pathway, the effect of Chinese ethical leadership on salary satisfaction was significant (β = 0.328, t = 9.907, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.263, 0.393); in the mediating path involving trust in colleagues and leaders, the effect of Chinese ethical leadership on trust in colleagues and leaders was significant (β = 0.543, t = 19.661, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.489, 0.597), and trust in colleagues and leaders significantly influences university faculty members’ salary satisfaction (β = 0.268, t = 8.156, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.203, 0.332). See Table 3 for details. We continued to use the bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method and repeated the sampling 5000 times to estimate the effect size, standard error, and 95% confidence interval for each path effect. The results showed that all path coefficients in the simple mediation model fell within the 95% confidence intervals, and none of the confidence intervals included zero, indicating that the sequential mediation model holds. See Table 4 for details.
Table 3. Regression Analysis Results for the Simple Mediation Model.
Table 4. Strength of Each Path in the Mediation Effect.

4.4. Testing for Moderated Mediation Effects

First, the variables were centered. Then, while controlling for background variables of university faculty (consistent with the simple mediation effect), we used PROCESS 3.4 to test for moderated mediation.
We estimated the 95% confidence interval by repeatedly sampling 5000 bootstrap samples using a bias-corrected bootstrap method. To examine the potential role of workplace mindfulness in the mediating path, we first analyzed Model 59 in PROCESS 3.4. The results revealed that the moderating effect of workplace mindfulness was significant in the first half of the mediating path but not significant in the direct path or the second half of the mediating path. Based on these findings, we then used Model 7 in PROCESS 3.4 to test for moderated mediation. The results showed that the direct effect of ethical leadership on university faculty salary satisfaction was significant (β = 0.33, t = 9.91, p < 0.001), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.26, 0.39]; the predictive effect on university faculty’s trust in colleagues and leaders was significant (β = 0.39, t = 6.53, p < 0.001), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.36, 0.45]; and trust in colleagues and leaders had a significant predictive effect on university faculty members’ salary satisfaction (β = 0.27, t = 8.15, p < 0.001), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.20, 0.33]. Workplace mindfulness had a significant predictive effect on trust in colleagues and leaders (β = 0.36, t = 13.18, p < 0.001), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.31, 0.41]. The interaction term between workplace mindfulness and Chinese ethical leadership significantly predicted university faculty members’ trust in colleagues and leaders (β = −0.06, t = −2.73, p < 0.010), with a 95% confidence interval of [−0.10, −0.02]. The index of moderated mediation was −0.015, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval of [−0.029, −0.001], indicating that workplace mindfulness significantly moderates the indirect effect of Chinese ethical leadership on salary satisfaction through trust in colleagues and leaders. Therefore, workplace mindfulness significantly moderates the first stage of the mediating pathway linking Chinese ethical leadership to university teachers’ salary satisfaction via trust in colleagues and leaders, thereby establishing a moderated mediation model. The specific results are shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Test Results for the Moderated Mediation Effect.
Simple slope analyses were conducted at three levels of workplace mindfulness: low (M − 1SD), moderate (M), and high (M + 1SD). All reported simple slopes are unstandardized coefficients based on the default output of PROCESS Model 7. When workplace mindfulness levels are high (M + 1SD), the effect of Chinese ethical leadership on university faculty members’ trust in colleagues and leaders is significant (β = 0.27, p = 0.011); When workplace mindfulness levels are moderate (M), the effect of Chinese ethical leadership on university faculty members’ trust in colleagues and leaders is significant (β = 0.39, p < 0.001); When workplace mindfulness levels are low (M − 1SD), the effect of Chinese ethical leadership on university faculty members’ trust in colleagues and leaders is significant (β = 0.51, p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 1 below. Furthermore, due to the moderating effect of workplace mindfulness, the mediating role of trust in colleagues and leaders between Chinese ethical leadership and university faculty members’ salary satisfaction also changes, as shown in Table 6 below. As the level of workplace mindfulness increases, the mediating effect of trust gradually attenuates, declining from 0.120 at low mindfulness to 0.091 at high mindfulness. This indicates that the moderating effect of workplace mindfulness significantly weakens the mediating role of trust in colleagues and leaders.
Figure 1. Simple slope plot of the moderating effect of workplace mindfulness on the relationship between ethical leadership and trust in colleagues and leaders in China.
Table 6. Changes in the Mediating Effects of Trust in Colleagues and Leaders Under the Influence of Moderation.

5. Discussion

This study proposes a moderated mediation model to explore how Chinese ethical leadership relates to university teachers’ salary satisfaction. The results provide support for the proposed moderated mediation model, suggesting several patterns worthy of discussion. We organize our interpretation around the three core findings below, grounding each in the theoretical frameworks that informed the study and situating the interpretations within the specific context of Chinese higher education.

5.1. Chinese Ethical Leadership and Salary Satisfaction

Chinese ethical leadership was significantly positively associated with university teachers’ salary satisfaction (H1 supported), which points toward the potential cultural contextualization of ethical leadership theory. This finding is consistent with prior empirical studies documenting positive associations between ethical leadership and various employee attitudes (Bedi et al., 2016; M. E. Brown et al., 2005; Chin, 2013) and can be understood through the complementary lenses of Social Exchange Theory (SET), Social Learning Theory (SLT), and Confucian Ethical Theory. From the SET perspective, the “ethical care” dimension of Chinese ethical leadership—rooted in Confucian “ren” (benevolence)—activates teachers’ felt obligation to reciprocate leaders’ personalized concern with positive work attitudes, including a greater willingness to appreciate the salary system as fair and adequate. This reciprocity mechanism is particularly salient in the Chinese context, where relationship-based exchanges (guanxi) often carry greater psychological weight than contractual obligations (Fei et al., 1992). From the SLT perspective, leaders who embody “fairness and impartiality” (yi, or righteousness) serve as role models whose behavior teachers observe and internalize, shaping their cognitive evaluation of salary decisions as procedurally and distributionally just (Treviño et al., 2003).
It is important to note that our study does not claim that Western ethical leadership is inherently limited or that Chinese ethical leadership represents a superior formulation. Rather, our findings suggest that the expression and salience of ethical leadership dimensions may differ across cultural contexts. Whereas Western ethical leadership research has historically emphasized procedural justice and normative compliance (Colquitt et al., 2013; Treviño et al., 2003), the Chinese configuration examined here integrates emotional care and distributive justice more prominently, which resonates with the relationship-oriented cognitive patterns of Chinese teachers. These findings are suggestive of cultural contextualization rather than definitive proof of cultural specificity, as the present study did not conduct direct cross-cultural comparisons. Future comparative research across Chinese and Western higher education institutions would be needed to substantiate claims of cultural distinctiveness.

5.2. Trust in Colleagues and Leaders as a Mediator

Trust in colleagues and leaders was found to partially mediate the association between Chinese ethical leadership and salary satisfaction (H2 supported), contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the intervening mechanisms through which ethical leadership may operate. This result is broadly consistent with meta-analytic evidence on trust in leadership (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) and aligns with the integrative model of organizational trust proposed by Mayer et al. (1995), which posits that trustworthiness perceptions (ability, benevolence, integrity) serve as foundational antecedents of trust formation that subsequently influence workplace attitudes.
The dual-dimensional trust construct employed in this study—encompassing both vertical trust (trust in leaders) and horizontal trust (trust in colleagues)—offers a more comprehensive representation of the relational fabric in Chinese university settings than single-dimensional organizational trust measures. Vertical trust captures the dyadic reciprocity between teachers and their leaders, grounded in leaders’ demonstrated integrity and consistent fairness (the SET reciprocity mechanism). When teachers perceive their leaders as embodying Confucian ethical virtues, they develop confidence in the leader’s intentions regarding salary allocation, which shapes their satisfaction with actual salary outcomes. Horizontal trust reflects the peer-level relational climate fostered by ethical leadership, wherein teachers observe collaborative norms modeled by their leaders and extend trust to colleagues as fellow members of a morally coherent community (the SLT observational learning mechanism). This dimension resonates with Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) concept of “relational trust” in educational organizations, which emphasizes the cumulative effect of mutual respect, competence, and personal regard among all members of a school community. The relative advantage of this dual-dimensional trust construct in the Chinese context may lie in its correspondence to the “differential mode of association” (chaxu geju) described by Fei et al. (1992), wherein interpersonal relationships are organized in concentric circles of varying intimacy and obligation. By separately assessing vertical and horizontal trust, the model acknowledges that teachers’ relational experiences with leaders and colleagues involve distinct interaction patterns, emotional investments, and reciprocity expectations, each contributing uniquely to the overall process through which ethical leadership relates to salary satisfaction.

5.3. Workplace Mindfulness as a Boundary Condition

Workplace mindfulness was found to negatively moderate the association between Chinese ethical leadership and trust in colleagues and leaders (H3 supported), and further to attenuate the mediating effect of trust (H4 supported). This finding offers a tentative contribution to understanding the boundary conditions of ethical leadership’s relational dynamics, though several nuances warrant careful theoretical interpretation. From the perspective of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) theory (Kabat-Zinn, 1982), mindfulness cultivates a metacognitive capacity termed “decentering”—the ability to observe one’s thoughts, emotions, and external events as transient mental contents rather than immediate reflections of reality (Shapiro et al., 2006). For high-mindfulness teachers, this decentering capacity may enable a more detached and objective processing of leadership behaviors, reducing the extent to which positive leader actions automatically translate into affective trust responses. Rather than emotionally “resonating” with a leader’s benevolent gesture, the mindful teacher may acknowledge the gesture while simultaneously recognizing its contextual embeddedness, tempering the immediate trust response that SET and SLT would predict for less mindful individuals. In contrast, low-mindfulness teachers, lacking this decentering buffer, appear more susceptible to the affective pull of ethical leadership, allowing leader behaviors to more directly shape their trust perceptions. This interpretation finds support in prior research documenting mindfulness as an attenuating boundary condition. Hülsheger et al. (2013) demonstrated that mindfulness weakened the positive association between transformational leadership and follower job satisfaction, suggesting that mindful individuals rely less on external leadership cues for their attitudinal formation. Similarly, Liu et al. (2023) found that mindfulness attenuated the positive effect of ethical leadership on organizational commitment, consistent with the present pattern.
However, it is important to contextualize these findings within the broader mindfulness literature, which also contains evidence of mindfulness enhancing leadership effectiveness through improved leader-follower interactions (Reb et al., 2014). The direction of moderation may depend critically on the nature of the outcome variable: for affective outcomes such as trust and emotional commitment, mindfulness appears to function as a “stabilizer” that reduces external emotional dependence; for cognitive outcomes such as decision quality or stress appraisal, mindfulness may amplify positive influences by enhancing clarity and perspective-taking. Several caveats are essential in interpreting this moderation finding.
First, the moderation coefficient was modest in magnitude, indicating that mindfulness attenuates but does not eliminate the positive association between ethical leadership and trust. At high levels of workplace mindfulness, the indirect effect decreased from 0.120 to 0.091 (a reduction of approximately 24%), suggesting that trust mediation operates even among highly mindful teachers, albeit at a reduced strength. This attenuation, while consistent with theoretical predictions, should be interpreted with caution given the small effect size. Second, this pattern was observed within the specific context of Chinese higher education, where professional autonomy and intellectual independence are valued characteristics of university faculty (Jing & Savas, 2009); whether this moderation pattern generalizes to other occupational populations (e.g., corporate employees, primary school teachers) remains an open empirical question. Third, the negative moderation should not be interpreted as suggesting that mindfulness is detrimental to organizational functioning; rather, it points to a more complex mechanism whereby mindfulness alters the pathway through which ethical leadership relates to teacher attitudes, potentially shifting the locus of influence from relational trust toward more autonomous professional judgment.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

Three key limitations guide future research. First, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences: reverse causality (e.g., salary-satisfied teachers perceiving leaders as more ethical) cannot be ruled out, and temporal assumptions underlying mediation/moderation remain untested (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Future studies should adopt longitudinal designs with multiple follow-ups or experimental interventions (e.g., leadership training vs. controls) to establish causal directionality. Second, the sample is restricted to university teachers in Gansu Province, northwestern China, and the sampling approach did not employ stratified random sampling to ensure representativeness across university types, disciplines, or faculty ranks; consequently, generalizability may be limited. Future research should utilize more rigorous stratified sampling procedures and examine cross-group invariance across university type (research vs. vocational) and discipline (humanities vs. STEM). Third, because our survey instructions asked respondents to provide an integrated rating averaging their trust in both colleagues and leaders, we were unable to disentangle the distinct mediating roles of vertical and horizontal trust. Additionally, the model includes only trust as a mediator and mindfulness as a moderator. Future research should employ measures that separately assess trust in colleagues and trust in leaders, and could incorporate additional mediators (e.g., organizational justice, psychological empowerment) and moderators (e.g., professional identity, power distance) to further clarify the mechanisms and boundary conditions of ethical leadership in higher education.

6. Conclusions

This study advances contextualized ethical leadership research by demonstrating how Confucian ethics inform indigenized construct development, validating dual-dimensional trust as a more precise mediator for Chinese university settings, and establishing workplace mindfulness as a critical individual-level boundary condition. Practically, university administrators should cultivate Confucian-rooted ethical leadership, strengthen trust-building across both vertical and horizontal relational channels, and implement differentiated management strategies tailored to teachers’ mindfulness levels. Limitations include the cross-sectional design and single-source data; future research should adopt longitudinal and multi-source designs to establish causal inferences and mitigate common method variance concerns.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, and funding acquisition, X.G. and L.W.; resources, visualization, E.Y.; formal analysis, project administration and validation, T.J.; writing—review and editing, data curation and methodology, L.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research and APC were funded by the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China and the Natural Science Foundation of the Education Department of Gansu Province, People’s Republic of China, grant number: 22XJA880003 and GSSYLXM-01.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Northwest Normal University (protocol code 202305 and date of approval: 1 May 2023).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ahmad, I., Gao, Y., & Hali, S. M. (2017). A review of ethical leadership and other ethics-related leadership theories. European Scientific Journal, 13(29), 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Areepattamannil, S. (2024). Building a knowledge economy: Higher education as a catalyst for the United Arab Emirates’ visionary growth. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1510421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Bai, H., & Wendy Pan, H.-L. (2022). The influence of paternalistic leadership on the development of oriental critical thinking. International Journal of Business and Management, 17(2), 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Bari, M. W., Ramayah, T., Di Virgilio, F., & Alaverdov, E. (2023). Editorial: Health and safety issues of employees in family firms. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1102736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Bazely, M. (2019). Confronting wicked issues through the implementation of a business development unit [Ph.D. thesis, Western University]. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14721/26512 (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  6. Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 517–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Bellibaş, M. Ş., Çelik, M., & Polatcan, M. (2025). The role of horizontal and vertical trust in relationships between learning-centered leadership and collective teacher culture. Psychology in the Schools, 62(11), 4826–4838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Blau, P. M. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610440967 (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  12. Buonomo, I., Farnese, M. L., Vecina, M. L., & Benevene, P. (2021). Other-focused approach to teaching. The effect of ethical leadership and quiet ego on work engagement and the mediating role of compassion satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 692116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Card, D., Mas, A., Moretti, E., & Saez, E. (2010). Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction (Working Paper No. 1639). National Bureau of Economic Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhou, J., Liu, C., Zhang, X., & Yu, T. (2023). A cognitive evaluation and equity-based perspective of pay for performance on job performance: A meta-analysis and path model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1039375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  16. Chin, T. (2013). How ethical leadership encourages employee voice behavior in China: The mediating role of organizational harmony. International Business Research, 6(10), 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Cook, K. S. (2015). Exchange: Social. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 482–488). Elsevier. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Costigan, R. D., Iiter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(3), 303–317. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604201 (accessed on 9 May 2021).
  20. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Morrow, P. C., Richardson, R., & Dunn, S. R. (2002). Using profit sharing to enhance employee attitudes: A longitudinal examination of the effects on trust and commitment. Human Resource Management, 41(4), 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Engelbrecht, A. S., Heine, G., & Mahembe, B. (2014). The influence of ethical leadership on trust and work engagement: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Fei, X., Hamilton, G. G., & Zheng, W. (1992). The foundations of Chinese society (1st ed.). University of California Press. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pn6km (accessed on 15 April 2021).
  25. Ghany, M. A. (2022). Explaining the effect of organizational justice on job satisfaction and work performance. International Journal of Social Science And Human Research, 5(12), 5758–5809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Gunasekara, A., & Zheng, C. S. (2019). Examining the effect of different facets of mindfulness on work engagement. Employee Relations, 41(1), 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Guo, K. (2022). The relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction: The mediating role of media richness and perceived organizational transparency. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 885515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Handford, V., & Leithwood, K. (2013). Why teachers trust school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 194–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Heneman, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Huang, N., Qiu, S., Yang, S., & Deng, R. (2021). Ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediation of trust and psychological well-being. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. Hugh-Jones, S., Rose, S., Koutsopoulou, G. Z., & Simms-Ellis, R. (2018). How is stress reduced by a workplace mindfulness intervention? A qualitative study conceptualising experiences of change. Mindfulness, 9(2), 474–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Ingsih, K., Wuryani, W., & Suhana, S. (2021). The role of work environment, work motivation, and leadership to improve employee performance with job satisfaction as an intervening variables. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 1–11. Available online: https://www.abacademies.org/articles/The-role-of-work-environment-work-motivation-and-leadership-to-improve-employee-performance-with-job-satisfaction-as-an-intervening-variables-1939-6104-20-3-769.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2022).
  36. Javed, B., Rawwas, M. Y. A., Khandai, S., Shahid, K., & Tayyeb, H. H. (2018). Ethical leadership, trust in leader and creativity: The mediated mechanism and an interacting effect. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 388–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Jing, Y., & Savas, E. S. (2009). Managing collaborative service delivery: Comparing China and the United States. Public Administration Review, 69(s1), S101–S107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., Podsakoff, N. P., Shaw, J. C., & Rich, B. L. (2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Kang, D., Stewart, J., & Kim, H. (2011). The effects of perceived external prestige, ethical organizational climate, and leader-member exchange (LMX) quality on employees’ commitments and their subsequent attitudes. Personnel Review, 40(6), 761–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Kang, L., Qiu, Y., Zheng, T., & Rubienska, A. (2015). Courage to trust—Discussion of moral personality built on the Confucian ethics. Ethics In Progress, 6(2), 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Khan, M. A., Husain, S., Minhaj, S. M., Ali, M. A., & Helmi, M. A. (2024). To explore the impact of corporate culture and leadership behaviour on work performance, mental health and job satisfaction of employees: An empirical study. Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development, 8(11), 6417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Khudhair, F. S., Rahman, R. A., & Adnan, A. A. B. Z. (2020). The relationship between compensation strategy and employee performance among academic staff in Iraqi universities: A literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(1), 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Kristanti, F. T., Prasetio, A. P., Indiyati, D., & Madiawati, P. N. (2021). Turnover intention among lecturers in private higher education: The direct impact of financial rewards and mediation of job satisfaction and effective organizational commitment. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 19(2), 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Li, J., & Hu, Y. (2022). The revision and quality assessment of the measurement tool of pay satisfaction of Chinese university teachers. Modern Education Management, 2, 102–110. Available online: https://qikan.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=7107320419 (accessed on 20 August 2023).
  47. Li, J., & Zhu, X. (2019). Knowledge-based epistemological dimension of higher education with Chinese characteristics: Faculty development, academic innovation, and leadership. In X. Zhu (Ed.), Conceptualizing and contextualizing higher education with Chinese characteristics (pp. 119–154). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Li, N., & Yan, J. (2007). The mechanism of how trust climate impacts on individual performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(6), 1111–1121. Available online: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2007/V39/I06/1111 (accessed on 12 March 2020).
  49. Li, Y., Castaño, G., & Li, Y. (2018). Perceived supervisor support as a mediator between Chinese university teachers’ organizational justice and affective commitment. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(8), 1385–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Lin, K.-W., & Huang, K.-P. (2014). Moral judgment and ethical leadership in Chinese management: The role of Confucianism and collectivism. Quality & Quantity, 48(1), 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Liu, X., Huang, Y., Kim, J., & Na, S. (2023). How ethical leadership cultivates innovative work behaviors in employees? Psychological safety, work engagement and openness to experience. Sustainability, 15(4), 3452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Ma, F., & Muhammad, M. (2025). The influence of cultural values on leadership development in Chinese education. Uniglobal Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(2), 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Malik, M., Mahmood, F., Sarwar, N., Obaid, A., Memon, M. A., & Khaskheli, A. (2023). Ethical leadership: Exploring bottom-line mentality and trust perceptions of employees on middle-level managers. Current Psychology, 42(20), 16602–16617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Malmrud, S., Falkenberg, H., Eib, C., Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2020). Just what I see? Implications of congruence between supervisors’ and employees’ perceptions of pay justice for employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Nandan, S., Halkias, D., Thurman, P. W., Komodromos, M., Alserhan, B. A., Adendorff, C., Alhaj, N. H. Y. Y., De Massis, A. V., Galanaki, E., Juma, N., Kwesiga, E., Nkamnebe, A. D., & Seaman, C. (2018). Assessing crossnational invariance of the three-component model of organizational commitment: A cross-country study of university faculty. EuroMed Journal of Business, 13(3), 254–279. Available online: https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/131057. [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). Ethical leadership: Meta-analytic evidence of criterion-related and incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 948–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Ramlawati, R., Serang, S., Arminas, A., Junaidi, J., & Wicaksono, R. (2023). The role of ethical leadership on employee commitment to the organization: The mediating role of job satisfaction and job engagement. Организациoнная Психoлoгия, 13(1), 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness, 5(1), 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Ruiz-Palomino, P., Sáez-Martínez, F. J., & Martínez-Cañas, R. (2013). Understanding pay satisfaction: Effects of supervisor ethical leadership on job motivating potential influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Rumjaun, A., & Narod, F. (2025). Social learning theory—Albert Bandura. In B. Akpan, & T. J. Kennedy (Eds.), Science education in theory and practice (pp. 65–82). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Salanova, M., Acosta-Antognoni, H., Llorens, S., & Le Blanc, P. (2021). We trust you! A multilevel-multireferent model based on organizational trust to explain performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Saygi, H., Tolon, T., & Tekogul, H. (2011). Job satisfaction among academic staff in fisheries faculties at Turkish universities. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(10), 1395–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Sharma, P. K., & Kumra, R. (2022). Examining the mediating role of work engagement on the relationship between workplace mindfulness and organizational justice and its association with well-being. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 11(2), 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Snell, R. S., Wu, C. X., & Lei, H. W. (2022). Junzi virtues: A Confucian foundation for harmony within organizations. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 11(1), 183–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Stedham, Y., & Skaar, T. B. (2019). Mindfulness, trust, and leader effectiveness: A conceptual framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Takách, A. (2020). Testing the mediation effect of supervisor ethical leadership on the relationship between job motivating potential and employee pay satisfaction and job satisfaction [Ph.D. thesis, Lebanese American University]. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 5–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Verdorfer, A. P. (2016). Examining mindfulness and its relations to humility, motivation to lead, and actual servant leadership behaviors. Mindfulness, 7(4), 950–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Wang, H., & Xiang, X. (2025). The construction of ethical leadership from a Chinese cultural perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Williams, M. L., McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2006). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 392–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Wisker, G., & Masika, R. (2017). Creating a positive environment for widening participation: A taxonomy for socially just higher education policy and practice. Higher Education Review, 49, 56–84. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318983102_Creating_a_positive_environment_for_widening_participation_a_taxonomy_for_socially_just_higher_education_policy_and_practice (accessed on 11 September 2020).
  77. Xia, J., Zhang, M. M., Zhu, J. C., & Fan, D. (2024). Reconciling multiple institutional logics for ambidexterity: Human resource management reforms in Chinese public universities. Higher Education, 87(3), 611–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Ngo, H. (2016). Ethical leadership behavior and employee justice perceptions: The mediating role of trust in organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Yang, C. (2014). Does ethical leadership lead to happy workers? A study on the impact of ethical leadership, subjective well-being, and life happiness in the Chinese culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 513–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Yoon, D.-G. (2018). The effects of ethical leadership on organizational trust and team effectiveness of hotel employees’ perception. Journal of the Korea Entertainment Industry Association, 12(5), 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Yuan, L., Chia, R., & Gosling, J. (2023). Confucian virtue ethics and ethical leadership in modern China. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(1), 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Zayed, N. M., Rashid, M. M., Darwish, S., Faisal-E-Alam, M., Nitsenko, V., & Islam, K. M. A. (2022). The power of compensation system (CS) on employee satisfaction (ES): The mediating role of employee motivation (EM). Economies, 10(11), 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Zheng, X., Ni, D., Liu, X., & Liang, L. H. (2023). Workplace mindfulness: Multidimensional model, scale development and validation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38(4), 777–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Zhu, W., Zheng, X., He, H., Wang, G., & Zhang, X. (2019). Ethical leadership with both “moral person” and “moral manager” aspects: Scale development and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 547–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Constructivist Paths in Teaching Physics: Electrostatics
Previous
Constructing Reality: Comparing Simulation Modalities in Initial Teacher Education
Next