bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422

doi: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i4.2313
ISSN: 2148-2586 Research Article

The mediating role of ethical climate in the relationship

between abusive supervision and unethical behaviour
İstismarcı yönetim ve etik dışı davranış arasındaki ilişkide etik iklimin
aracı rolü

Yasin Nar1

Meral Elçi2

Gülay Murat Eminoğlu3

1 Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Abstract

Turkey, ynar@gtu.edu.tr
This research aims to contribute to the literature on unethical behaviour by exploring the effect of
ORCID: 0000-0003-1699-3193 abusive supervision on employees’ unethical behaviour. Also, the mediating role of ethical climate in
this relationship is investigated. For this purpose, data was collected through a survey of 440 people
working in information technology (IT) companies in Istanbul and Kocaeli cities, Turkey. First,
2Prof. Dr., Gebze Technical University, validity and reliability tests were applied to the collected data. After determining that validity and
Kocaeli, Turkey, emeral@gtu.edu.tr reliability were appropriate, hypothesis tests were carried out using regression analysis.Additionally,
Hayes' PROCESS Macro model was used to test the mediating role of ethical climate. SPSS version 23
ORCID: 0000-0002-0547-0250 package program was used to analyze the data. According to the results obtained, it is found that i-)
abusive supervision is positively related to unethical behaviour, ii-) ethical climate is negatively
related to unethical behaviour, iii-) abusive supervision is negatively related to ethical climate, and
3 Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, iv-) ethical climate partially mediates the relationship between abusive supervision and unethical
Turkey, gulaymurat@gtu.edu.tr behaviours.
ORCID: 0000-0003-2444-6608 Keywords: Unethical Behaviours, Abusive Supervision, Ethical Climate
Jel Codes: M1, M10, M12
Corresponding Author:
Yasin Nar,
Öz
Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli,
Turkey, Bu araştırma, istismarcı yönetim ve etik dışı davranış arasındaki ilişkiyi ve bu ilişkide etik iklimin ara
değişken rolünü araştırarak, etik dışı davranış literatürüne katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu
ynar@gtu.edu.tr , yasinnar@gmail.com amaç doğrultusunda, Türkiye'de İstanbul ve Kocaeli şehirlerindeki IT firmalarında çalışan 440
kişiden, anket aracılığıyla veri toplanmıştır. Toplanan verilere, ilk olarak geçerlik ve güvenirlik testleri
uygulanmıştır. Geçerlik ve güvenilirliği uygun olduğu saptandıktan sonra ise, regresyon analizi ile
hipotez testleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ayrıca, etik iklimin ara değişken rolünün test edilmesi için,
Hayes'in PROSESS Macro modeli kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde SPSS version 23 paket programı
Submitted: 1/11/2023 kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre i-) istismarcı denetimin etik olmayan davranışla pozitif
1th Revised: 6/12/2023 ilişkili olduğu, ii-) etik iklimin etik olmayan davranışla negatif ilişkili olduğu, iii-) istismarcı denetimin
etik iklimle negatif ilişkili olduğu ve iv-) etik iklimin, istismarcı denetim ile etik dışı davranış
Accepted: 14/12/2023 arasındaki ilişkide kısmi ara değişken etkisi olduğu bulgulanmıştır.
Online Published: 25/12/2023 Anahtar Kelimeler: Etik Dışı Davranış, İstismarcı Yönetim, Etik İklim
Jel Kodları: M1, M10, M12

Citation: Nar, Y., Elçi, M., & Murat

Eminoglu, G., The mediating role of ethical
climate in the relationship between abusive
supervision and unethical behaviour, bmij
(2023) 11 (4): 1410-1422, doi:
https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i4.2313

© 2023 The Author(s).

This article was prepared in line with research and publication ethics and scanned for plagiarism by using iThenticate.
 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

Introduction
Ethical and unethical behaviours occur within organizations daily. Ethical behaviours are the desired
conduct that companies aim to promote for improved performance and success (Jex and Britt, 2008). On
the contrary, unethical behaviour is “behaviours that harm others and is either illegal or morally
unacceptable to the larger community” (Jones, 1991). It can manifest in various ways, including
employees disregarding wrongdoing, failing to report misconduct, or directly engaging in unethical
activities. Organizations are profoundly concerned about unethical behaviours for several compelling
reasons: damaging consequences such as financial losses, reputational harm, safety risks, client loss,
and declining organizational performance. Unethical behaviours significantly impact an organization's
financial health, resulting in substantial annual losses (Jex and Britt, 2008). Unethical behaviours
disregard corporate rules, regulations, standards, and guidelines of the organization, leading to a
slowdown in performance and growth. Unethical behaviours give rise to a discord climate and diminish
employee performance, motivation, and loyalty. When motivation, loyalty and performance of
personnel decline, the organization experiences significant negative consequences. Therefore, it is
crucial to understand the precursors of unethical actions and take the necessary precautions.
There are three main antecedents of unethical behaviour (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). They are the
organizational environment, individuals, and the ethical issue itself. Among these antecedents related
to unethical behaviours, the organizational environment is paramount for organizations. While the
ethical problem and individuals can be regarded as unchangeable, the organizational environment is a
changeable factor that influences employees' behaviours. The ethical climate is a crucial component of
the organization's environment, and leadership behaviours are a critical factor of the ethical climate in
organizations. This research focuses on how these two organizational factors affect unethical
behaviours.
Most research on ethics has concentrated on ethical climate and ethical leadership as crucial factors
influencing organizational outcomes (Brown and Trevino, 2006). The values held by managers play an
immense role in shaping the work environment. Managers' ethical behaviours are critical in creating a
moral framework for members of an organization and creating collective character. Consequently,
ethical leaders serve as foundational elements in shaping the moral framework within an organization.
Although many studies in the literature reveal how the supervisor or leader affects the unethical
behaviours of subordinates, they mainly concentrate on the significance of ethical leadership in
hampering subordinates' unethical conduct. In other words, as there is insufficient knowledge
regarding whether leadership's dark side may impact employees' unethical actions, the current
understanding of the influence of leadership on unethical behaviours has been limited. Therefore, more
research is necessary to fully comprehend negative leadership's impact on employees' unethical
conduct. Abusive supervision is considered the most prevalent form of negative leadership. Very few
studies empirically investigate the association between abusive supervision and subordinates' unethical
conduct. Scholars show growing interest in the leadership and ethical climate to reduce unethical
behaviours within organizations (Kuenzi et al., 2020; Demirtas and Akdogan, 2015; Peterson, 2002;
Askew et al., 2015; Antunez at al., 2023; Rui and Qi, 2021). The studies on abusive supervision,
especially, have provided significant insights into the impact of abusive managers on unethical conduct
in organizations (Al Halbusi et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2012; Mayer et al., 2010; Wang and
Xiao, 2021; Javed et al., 2019).
This study aims to analyze how abusive supervision influences unethical behaviours by focusing on the
mediating influence of ethical climate. Although early research on abusive supervision is hopeful, there
is a lack of research examining this relationship. The present research is theoretically important since it
offers valuable insights into the concrete actions undertaken by abusive managers to impact employees’
behaviours. This study has practical implications for improving organizational environments by
reducing unethical behaviours that occur through the harmful effects of abusive managers by creating
a positive ethical climate.
The present study makes several contributions. Firstly, although much of the literature has focused on
ethical leadership as an antecedent of unethical behaviours, this study extends recent work by
examining one form of unethical leadership, abusive supervision, as an antecedent. Secondly, a few
empirical studies hypothesize and relate abusive supervision to employee behaviours. In order to
address this deficiency in the current literature, an ethical climate is added as a mediator and introduces
a more holistic approach. Thirdly, to our knowledge, there is only a limited amount of research testing
empirically the mediating effect of ethical climate between abusive supervision and unethical
behaviours, and this study is one of them.

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1411

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

Moreover, although theories provide a framework for the relationship among variables, the present
research empirically tested this theoretical relationship. Finally, since there are not enough empirical
studies addressing the issue of ethical behaviours in the information technology (IT) sector, this study
targeted the IT sector to fill this gap. It is also one of the few papers to examine unethical leadership
styles and behavioural outcomes in employees in the IT industry.

Theoretical background
Unethical behaviours
Unethical behaviour is “harmful behaviours which are illegal or unacceptable to most of society” (Jones,
1991). In this context, dishonesty, corruption, deception, theft, disclosing confidential information, or
engaging in interpersonal aggression are illustrative of unethical behaviours. Although there is a legal
dimension of ethical behaviours, it does not simply mean that because an action is not illegal, it is
necessarily ethical. For instance, the actions of an employee who prolongs their work unnecessarily or
makes personal phone calls during work hours might not be unlawful, but several individuals would
regard some of these actions as unethical. Gino et al., (2011) define unethical behaviours as “the acts
that harm others”. Trevino et al. (2015) define unethical behaviours as “behaviours that violate moral
rules commonly accepted by people.” These behaviours lead to organisational inefficiency. Behaviours
such as harming weak people, bullying, lying, and stealing are all considered unethical behaviours.
Research on the precursors of unethical behaviour found that individual differences, including
personality traits, cognitive moral development, and demographic characteristics, increase the
probability of individuals engaging in unethical conduct. (e.g., Vardi and Weitz, 2004; Treviño and
Weaver, 2001). Researchers have also highlighted the significant impact of the organizational context
on unethical behaviours, including factors like ethical climate, supervisory style, ethical leadership,
organizational culture, organizational structure, and job characteristics. (Brown et al., 2005; Bennett &
Robinson, 2003; Rusaw, 2001; Treviño et al., 1998).
Unethical behaviours harm the organization and its members by ignoring guidelines and rules. It
negatively affects performance and growth. Unethical actions create a conflict environment, minimize
employees' enthusiasm, performance, and commitment, and disrupt organizational culture (Tonus and
Oruç, 2012). When employee performance, motivation and commitment decrease, the organization
suffers serious financial and moral damages. Multiple studies have demonstrated that unethical
behaviours can harm an organization's overall well-being and lead to decreased performance (Dunlop
and Lee, 2004).
Abusive supervision
Abusive supervision is “subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the
sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours excluding physical contact” (Tepper,
2000). Ashforth (1997) defined abusive supervisors as people who use their authority to treat
subordinates arbitrarily and badly. When employees seek assistance, these leaders lack empathy and
respond with coldness. Abusive supervisors employ derogatory language, intimidation, the
withholding of crucial information, yelling, ridicule, and humiliation directed at their subordinates.
Furthermore, according to Zellars et al. (2002), abusive management is a leader's destructive behaviours,
such as putting pressure on employees, hiding important information, and threatening employees in
public. Behaviours such as taking credit for the success of subordinates, undermining subordinates,
shouting, emotional outbursts towards them, mocking, intimidating, publicly humiliating, and
attributing negative outcomes to subordinates can be cited as abusive management behaviours.
Two main categories in which the precursors of abusive supervision may be classified are those related
to the supervisor and the subordinate (Zhang et al., 2022). The supervisor's characteristics and
experiences are factors related to the supervisor. Negative experiences that supervisors encounter at or
outside the workplace can increase their stress and perceptions of injustice, which can lead to abusive
supervision (Lam et al., 2017). Supervisors' character traits also affect their behaviours (Camps et al.,
2016). Impatient people tend to exhibit more aggressive behaviours. Factors related to subordinates are
subordinates' low performance and inefficient work behaviours, and these behaviours can lead
supervisors to engage in abusive behaviours (Tepper et al., 2017).
The outcomes of abusive abusive supervision can be divided into three categories. The first is the
consequences at the organisation level. Abusive supervision negatively affects the justice climate within
the organization and may cause employees to quit. The second is the consequences at the team level
within the organization. The third is the consequences at the individual level. Furthermore, various
studies have revealed that abused employees encounter physical, psychological and behavioural

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1412

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

problems (Liang et al., 2018; Lian et al., 2014). Commonly examined behavioural problems are negative
behaviours towards the organization, supervisor, and co-workers.
Ethical climate
The ethical climate is “the prevailing perceptions of typical organizational practices and procedures that
have ethical content’’ or ‘‘those aspects of work climate that determine what constitutes ethical
behaviours at work” (Victor and Cullen, 1988). The concept of ethical climate is centred on determining
appropriate standards of conduct and serves as a crucial tool for addressing ethical concerns. It
significantly influences both the process of decision-making and the resulting actions of individuals
when confronted with ethical dilemmas. Furthermore, it not only shapes the scope of what is deemed
morally acceptable by members within an organization but also establishes moral principles (Cullen et
al., 1989).
The antecedents of ethical climate are grouped into three: environmental, organizational and individual.
Individual factors relate to the characteristics of both employees and leaders, including demographic
features and cognitive moral development (Weeks et al., 2006; Forte, 2004; Herndon et al., 1999).
Organizational factors affecting ethical climate encompass aspects like the type of department,
organizational characteristics such as firm newness and organizational age, structural elements like a
code of ethics, and firm size. Environmental factors influencing an organization's ethical climate include
institutionalized societal norms, such as the type of industry, national culture, and regional differences
(Mayer et al., 2009).
Research in the literature has revealed increased job satisfaction, psychological well-being,
organisational commitment, ethical behaviours and a decrease in turnover intentions as the results of
ethical climate (Mayer et al., 2009). The ethical climate created by organizational management plays a
significant role in preventing unethical conduct among organizational members (Martin and Cullen,
2006). Creating an ethical climate can be achieved by adopting and implementing ethical codes and
policies in an organization (Schwepker, 2001).

Hypotheses development
The relationship between abusive supervision and unethical behaviours
The employees in an organization care about how managers treat them. Respectful and fair treatment
leads to feeling valued and increased satisfaction. Abusive supervision frequently encompasses actions
like impoliteness, antagonism, public censure, and emotional eruptions. The mistreatment by
supervisors may cause employees to feel worthless and have a lower perception of justice. Abusive
supervision may lead employees to psychological distress, negative attitudes towards both the job and
the organization, and higher turnover (Tepper, 2000).
Moreover, abusive supervision makes subordinates emotionally disconnected from the organization
and makes them likely to act in a manner that goes against the rules, procedures, and policies set by the
organization. Recent studies indicate that abusive supervision results in an increased incidence of
negative workplace behaviours (Liu et al., 2019). Tepper et al. (2008) suggested that subordinates who
have been treated unfairly and had their psychological contract breached at work are more inclined to
act unethically as a way to cope with the emotional distress caused by these experiences. Abusive
supervision creates negative psychological experiences and pressure for employees, which can lead
them to behave unethically as a response.
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) helps reveal abusive supervision's impact on employees’ unethical
behaviours. The fundamental concept within social exchange theory is reciprocity, involving the
repayment of treatment in kind (Wang et al., 2012). While reciprocity is often associated with positive
exchanges, negative reciprocity, wherein the negative treatment is met with a corresponding negative
response, is also possible (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). This theory proposes that individuals can
alter their attitudes and actions based on their perception of their treatment and the desire for
reciprocity. Abusive supervisors mistreat employees, publicly berate them, employ aggressive body
language, withhold vital information, mock subordinates, and use silent treatment as a form of
intimidation. According to this theory, abused employees are more likely to exhibit negative behaviours
due to the principle of reciprocity in theory. In line with these arguments, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H1: Abusive supervision is positively related to unethical behaviours.

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1413

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

The relationship between abusive supervision and ethical climate

Abusive supervision, characterized by hostile or demeaning behaviours from supervisors, creates a
toxic work environment. In such an environment, ethical values and norms may be compromised or
overshadowed by the negative behaviours of supervisors. Abusive supervision can lead to employees
perceiving a negative ethical climate characterized by fear, mistrust, and a lack of ethical role modelling
(Tepper, 2000). When supervisors engage in abusive behaviours, it sets a negative atmosphere and may
lead employees to perceive the organization as less committed to ethical principles. Previous studies
have investigated the correlation between ethical climate and leadership and have indicated that leaders
influence the workplace atmosphere, specifically how employees perceive the climate (Antunez et al.,
2023, Yang et al., 2023; Kuenzi et al., 2020; Schneider et al., 2011).
Social cognitive theory highlights the importance of observational learning, cognitive processes, and the
social context in shaping behaviours (Bandura, 1986). In this context, abusive supervision serves as a
negative model, influencing employees' perceptions and behaviours, while ethical climate represents
the social context that can reduce or amplify the impact of abusive supervision. In the social cognitive
theory context, employees may observe and learn from the behaviours of abusive supervisors. Abusive
supervisors can affect their ethical judgments, decision-making, and behaviours. Abusive supervision
can set a negative example, leading employees to question the ethical values and norms within the
organization. Abusive supervision leads to negative outcomes in the workplace, including lower job
satisfaction, decreased organizational commitment, and increased counterproductive work behaviours
(Tepper et al., 2017). The emotional and psychological distress caused by abusive supervisors may
compromise employees' ability to make ethical choices and adhere to ethical standards, thus further
contributing to a negative ethical climate. These negative outcomes are often indicative of a
deteriorating ethical climate. Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Abusive supervision is negatively related to ethical climate.
The relationship between ethical climate and unethical behaviours
Ethical climate is the set of values, practices, and procedures within an organization associated with
moral attitudes and behaviours (Victor and Cullen, 1988). In other words, it reflects shared beliefs about
what constitutes ethical behaviours (Deshpande et al. 2000). As such, the ethical climate in an
organization can greatly influence employees' ethical values and actions.
Social information processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) and social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1986) help to understand the connection between ethical climate and unethical behaviours. These
theories highlight the impact of social surroundings on an individual's perception in influencing an
individual's perception of inappropriate behaviours.
According to social information processing theory, people are influenced by their social context and
adapt their attitudes and actions accordingly (Trevino, 1986). In other words, individuals look for
environmental cues to understand situations and determine appropriate conduct. The organizational
setting serves as a source of information about the norms for suitable and acceptable behaviours. The
ethical climate in an organization serves as a guide for its members, informing them of what behaviours
are deemed acceptable. This theory can be utilized to elucidate how employees perceive and make sense
of this ethical climate, ultimately impacting their behaviours.
Social cognitive theory posits that individuals' behaviours and decision-making are influenced by
cognitive processes and the social context (Bandura, 1986). Within an ethical climate, employees'
behaviours are shaped by their cognitive processes and perceptions of the organization's ethical
environment. As a part of the organizational context, ethical climate plays a critical role in guiding
employees' ethical decision-making and behaviours. A positive ethical climate fosters ethical standards
and norms, making unethical behaviours less likely, while a negative ethical climate may encourage
unethical actions by creating an environment that tolerates or even encourages such behaviours (Mayer
et al., 2009).
Formal regulations and codes of ethics do not solely determine individuals' ethical conduct but are also
heavily influenced by informal factors and societal expectations (Victor & Cullen, 1988). People learn
by observing, identifying with, and imitating others and through their interactions and experiences with
those around them (Peterson 2002). Individuals tend to repeat, reinforce and exhibit behaviours that
seem valued by others more frequently. On the contrary, subordinates who are made aware of the
consequences and sanctions for unethical conduct are more inclined to abstain from engaging in such
behaviours (Brown et al. 2005). In addition, A few studies in the literature have investigated the effect
of ethical climate on unethical behaviours and found a negative relationship (Aryati et al., 2018; Birtch

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1414

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

and Chiang, 2014). Thus, a positive ethical climate is more likely to increase desirable behaviours.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is posited:
H3: Ethical climate is negatively related to unethical behaviours.
The mediating role of ethical climate
An ethical climate serves as a mediator between abusive supervision and unethical behaviours. The
social cognitive theory aids in clarifying the role of this mediating process. Theory underscores the role
of cognitive processes, social context, and observational learning in shaping human behaviours
(Bandura, 1986). Employees subjected to abusive behaviours by their supervisors undergo cognitive
processes influenced by their perceptions related to their work environment. These perceptions,
particularly regarding the ethical climate within the organization, have a crucial impact on shaping their
ethical decision-making and behaviours (Tepper, 2017).
Abusive supervision can create a hostile and negative work environment that affects employees'
cognitive processes and decision-making. Abusive supervision can erode trust, fairness, and ethical
standards within an organization, creating a negative ethical climate. This negative ethical climate
informs employees about how ethics should be handled to pursue organizational objectives, making it
more or less likely that they will engage in unethical behaviours (Reichers and Schneider, 1990). In
essence, abusive supervisors interpret, put into action, and enforce practices that contribute to employee
perceptions of an unethical climate, which, in turn, influences employees to engage in unethical
behaviours.
There is a notable dearth of literature concerning the intermediary function of ethical climate in the
correlation between abusive supervision and ethical conduct. Past research has demonstrated that
ethical climate is a mediator in the link between ethical behaviours and ethical leadership, which is an
exemplary leadership approach. (Al Halbusi et al., 2021; Kuenzi et al., 2020; Aryati et al., 2018; Elçi et
al., 2013; Mayer et al., 2010). In sum, by creating a hostile and unethical work environment, abusive
supervision can negatively affect ethical climate perceptions, which, in turn, influence people to act
unethically. These arguments suggest the following hypothesis.
H4: Ethical climate mediates the relationship between abusive supervision and unethical behaviours.

H1

H4
Abusive H2 Ethical H3 Unethical
Supervision Climate Behaviour

Figure 1: Research Model

Methodology
Sampling and data collection
The participants of the research were employees of IT enterprises in the cities of Istanbul and Kocaeli,
Turkey. Data collection was preferred from these two cities because they are located in the Marmara
Region, the most industrially developed region of Turkey, and there is a high employment rate of IT
personnel in the enterprises and technoparks in these cities. The research population is all employees of
IT enterprises in Istanbul and Kocaeli. The research sample was selected from these cities by simple
random sampling method. 440 IT employees from 146 enterprises constitute the sample of the research.
The survey was applied to IT company personnel and different level managers (lower, middle, upper).
Most of our sample (90%) comprises IT employees in Istanbul. Before the data collection phase, a pre-
test study involving 60 IT employees was carried out. After the pre-test, the survey was finalized. In the
data collection phase, the survey was sent to 600 people, and 471 of them responded to the survey. A
total of 31 surveys were disqualified from the data set due to invalid responses. As a result, 440 surveys
were included in the analysis. The research model was then analysed using the SPSS 23 software.
250 participants in our sample are men, and 190 are women. 42% are between the ages of 25-35, 32.5%
are between the ages of 35-45, 20.7% are between the ages of 18-25, and 4.8% are over 45. So, it can be
stated that our sample consists of mostly young participants. 50.9% of the participants had a bachelor's

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1415

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

degree, 25.5% had a master’s degree, 12.7% had an associate degree, 8.9% had a high school degree,
1.8% had a doctoral degree, and 0.2% had a primary school degree. In this respect, it can be stated that
most participants are highly educated. 74.1% of participants have worked in the same institution for 1-
5 years, 14.3% for 5-10 years, and the rest for at least 10 years. 62% of the survey participants work as
personnel, 20% as middle-level managers, 10% as upper-level managers, 8% as lower-level managers.
40% of the companies they work with have over 250 employees, 27.3% have 50-250 employees, 23.2%
have 10-50 employees, and 9.5% have less than 10 employees.
Measures
To test our hypotheses, we used multi-item scales from previous studies. The “Abusive Supervision”
scale was adapted from Tepper, B. J. (2000). For the "Ethical Climate" scale, the scale of Schwepker Jr, C.
H. (2001) was used. The "Unethical Behaviours" scale was adapted from Robinson and Kelly's (1998)
antisocial behaviours scale. The initially produced were professionally translated into Turkish by an
expert and subsequently re-translated into English by another expert. The study used a 5-point Likert
scale in which 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 5 = ‘‘strongly agree’’.

Results
Measure validity and reliability
After data collection, the validity and reliability of the measures were assessed. The KMO value was
calculated as 0.884, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found statistically significant (χ^2 (406) =
9649.408, p = 0.00). Explanatory Factor Analysis was executed using principal component analysis with
varimax rotation. Two questions from the abusive supervision dimension were deleted because their
factor loadings were less than 0.50. The final factor analysis is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Explanatory Factor Analysis Result
Items 1 2 3
1- AS AS-4 0.830
AS-12 0.799
AS-8 0.727
AS-6 0.716
AS-2 0.714
AS-10 0.705
AS-14 0.686
AS-11 0.666
AS-13 0.647
AS-7 0.619
AS-1 0.593
AS-3 0.581
AS-5 0.540
2- UB UB-3 0.842
UB-9 0.829
UB-7 0.822
UB-5 0.819
UB-8 0.812
UB-4 0.790
UB-6 0.784
UB-2 0.779
UB-1 0.740
3- EC EC-4 0.848
EC-2 0.841
EC-3 0.811
EC-5 0.785
EC-1 0.740
EC-7 0.717
EC-6 0.690
AS: Abusive Supervisor, UB: Unethical Behaviours,
EC: Ethical Climate
KMO: 0.884
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ^2 (406) = 9649.408, p =
0.00
Total Variance Explained: %59.38

After the explanatory factor analysis, the correlation matrix was created by calculating all variables'
standard deviations, means, reliability coefficients (Cronbach Alpha) and correlation values (See Table
2). All calculated Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients are higher than the value of 0.70 recommended
by Nunnally (1978) for social sciences (Abusive Supervision: .906; Ethical Climate: .902; Unethical

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1416

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

Behaviours: .935). In line with the results obtained, it can be stated that the measurement is valid and
reliable.
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach Alpha’s and Correlation Coefficients
Variables 1 2 3 Mean Std. Deviation Cronbach’s
Alpha
Abusive Supervision 1 1.2063 0.40136 0.906
Ethical Climate -0.297** 1 3.6422 0.88306 0.902
Unethical Behaviours 0.374** -0.259** 1 1.7652 0.78589 0.935
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Testing hypotheses
First, we used regression analysis to test our hypotheses. According to the results (as seen in Table 3);
Model-1 (F= 71.169; R2= .140; Sig=.000), Model-2 (F= 31.387; R2= .067; Sig= .000), and Model-3 (F=
42.317; R2= .088; Sig= .000) are significant as a whole. In Model-1, it is found that abusive supervision is
positively related to unethical behaviours (β= .374; Sig< 0.01). According to the results, H1 is supported.
In Model 2, it is found that ethical climate is negatively related to unethical behaviours (β= -.259; Sig<
0.01). According to the results, H2 is supported. Moreover, in Model 3, abusive supervision is negatively
related to ethical climate (β= -.297; Sig< 0.01). In line with the results, H3 is supported.
Table 3: Result of Testing Hypotheses
Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
(DV: Unethical (DV: Unethical (DV: Ethical
Behaviours) Behaviours) Climate)
Abusive β t Sig. Ethical β t Sig. Abusive β t Sig.
Supervision .374 8.436 0.000 Climate -.259 -5.602 0.000 Supervision -.297 -6.505 0.000
F= 71.169 F= 31.387 F= 42.317
R2= 0.140 R2= 0.067 R2= 0.088
Sig= 0.000 Sig= 0.000 Sig= 0.000
Note: DV: Dependent Variable

The mediator analysis used the PROCESS Macro on model 4 (Hayes, 2013). 5% bias-corrected
confidence interval with 5,000 bootstrapping method was utilized. In Model-1, it is found that abusive
supervision is positively related to unethical behaviour (β= .7321; p< 0.01). In Model 2, it is found that
abusive supervision is negatively related to ethical climate (β= -.6530; p< 0.01). In Model-3, both abusive
supervision (β= .6380; p< 0.01) and ethical climate (β=-.1441; p< 0.01) is related to unethical behaviours.
However, when an ethical climate is included in the analysis, the effect of abusive supervision on
unethical behaviours decreases. So, these models indicated that ethical climate partially mediates the
relationship between abusive supervision and unethical behaviours to Baron and Kenny (1986)
procedure.
Table 4: Mediation Analysis Results
Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
(DV: Unethical (DV: Ethical Climate) (DV: Unethical
Behaviours) Behaviours)
β t β t β t
Abusive Supervision 0.7321** 8.4362 -.6530** -6.5051 .6380** 7.1121
Ethical Climate -.1441** -3.5336
R2 0.1398 0.0881 0.1637
F 71.1691 42.3170 42.7608
Note: **p< 0.01

Moreover, X's indirect effect (.0317, .1659) and direct effect (.4617, .8143) on Y are significant as seen in
Table 5. In line with these results, an ethical climate partially mediates the relationship between abusive
supervision and unethical behaviours. So, H4 is supported.
Table 5: Mediating Effect of Ethical Climate
Effect SE t p 95% CI
Indirect Effect 0.0941 0.0346 (0.0317, 0.1659)
Direct Effect 0.6380 0.0897 7.1121 0.0000 (0.4617, 0.8143)
Total Effect 0.7321 0.0868 8.4362 0.0000 (0.5615, 0.9026)

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1417

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

Conclusion
Discussion and theoretical contributions
The findings of the study show that abusive supervision is positively related to unethical behaviours.
Our results are from prior studies (Liu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2012; Tepper et al., 2008; Cropanzano
and Mitchell, 2005; Zellars et al., 2002). The results highlight that mistreatment from a supervisor may
prompt employees to reciprocate with abusive actions. Such mistreatment can increase subordinates'
frustration, ultimately resulting in unethical behaviours. The study underscores the urgent need for
organizations to address and rectify abusive leadership practices as a measure to curb unethical
conduct.
Moreover, abusive superiors hurt the ethical climate within an organization. This result also aligns with
prior studies (Tepper, 2000; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). Although previous studies (Yang et al., 2023;
Kuenzi et al., 2020; Mayer et al., 2010) have examined the relationship between ethical climate and
ethical leadership, our study extends the literature by revealing that abusive managers also affect
employees' perceptions about organizational climate. Abusive supervision erodes employees' trust,
fairness, and moral conduct, ultimately causing a compromising ethical framework. Abusive
supervision disrupts the creation of a positive and ethical work environment, directly impacting
employee perceptions of organizational ethics. The results highlight the need for interventions and
leadership development programs aimed at curtailing abusive behaviours in leaders. These programs
should promote ethical leadership qualities and cultivate leaders who exemplify ethical behaviours as
role models within the organization.
The research also verifies the negative relationship between ethical climate and unethical behaviours.
Our findings are consistent with previous studies (Mayer et al., 2009; Peterson, 2002). Organizations
with a strong ethical climate can substantially reduce unethical employee behaviours. Thus,
organizations should prioritize cultivating an ethical work environment to reduce unethical behaviours.
Furthermore, the study reveals that ethical climate plays a mediating role in the relationship between
abusive supervision and unethical behaviours. Our results are similar to the results in the literature
stating that ethical climate mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and ethical behaviours
(Al Halbusi et al., 2021; Kuenzi et al., 2020; Aryati et al., 2018; Elçi et al., 2013). Unlike these studies, our
research enriches the literature by addressing abusive supervision, a negative type of leadership,
instead of ethical leadership, a widely studied positive type of leadership. It underscores the practical
significance of fostering and upholding an ethical climate to counteract abusive leadership's possible
ethical implications.
This research expands on the existing theoretical comprehension of abusive supervision, ethical climate,
and unethical conduct. It uses well-established theories such as social exchange theory (Blau, 1964),
social information processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), and social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1986) in elucidating the influence of leaders and ethical climate on employees' unethical behaviours.
The findings offer a comprehensive model that helps us better understand the intricate relationships
between these constructs within IT organizations.
Practical implications
Addressing the issue of abusive supervision is crucial to organizations. Organizations should consider
implementing leadership development programs emphasising ethical leadership behaviours and
providing tools to prevent and respond to abusive supervision. Training programs for leaders can serve
as a means to create more ethical leaders and reduce the likelihood of unethical behaviours within the
workforce.
On the one hand, the IT sector is ahead of other sectors because it affects people's social lives, the
business models of other sectors, and the efficiency of companies (Gök and Yasin, 2016). The biggest
capital of companies in such a sector is human resources. The turnover of an experienced and
knowledgeable employee can cause serious damage to IT companies. Satisfied employees are needed
to gain a sustainable strategic advantage over competitors. Having satisfied employees is possible by
reducing supervisors’ abusive behaviours and ensuring a positive ethical climate.
Promoting a positive ethical climate within organizations is essential. Clear communication of ethical
expectations, policies, and codes is fundamental. Leaders should actively engage in open discussions
about ethical values and behaviours, while accountability measures should be in place to uphold ethical
conduct.

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1418

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

Limitations and future research

Although the study provides valuable insights, it also has limitations that should be acknowledged. The
data for this study was collected from the IT industry in Turkey. As a result, the study's regional scope
may limit the applicability of its results to varying industries and cultural contexts. It is recommended
that future research be conducted in different industries. Additionally, since the study was conducted
in a single geographical region, the results of the study cannot be generalized. Therefore, future studies
should include companies of different sizes, sectors, regions and countries to allow generalizations on
this subject. Although this study measured organizational performance through employees'
perceptions, different studies can be conducted in which employers can also be included.
Future research can explore additional variables, potential moderators, and mediators in the
relationships in this study. The impact of other leadership types on unethical behaviours can be
investigated. Also, how organizational culture affects this relationship can be added to future research.

Peer-review:
Externally peer-reviewed

Conflict of interests:
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Grant Support:
The authors declared that this study has received no financial support

Ethics Committee Approval:

Ethics committee approval was received for this study from Gebze Technical University, Human
Research Ethics Committee on 06/02/2023 and 2023/02 document number.

Author Contributions:
Idea/Concept/Design: Y.N., M.E. Data Collection and/or Processing: Y.N. Analysis and/or
Interpretation: Y.N., G.M.E., M.E. Literature Review: Y.N., G.M.E. Writing the Article: Y.N. Critical
Review: Y.N., M.E., G.M.E. Approval: Y.N., M.E., G.M.E.

References
Al Halbusi, H., Williams, K. A., Ramayah, T., Aldieri, L., & Vinci, C. P. (2021). Linking ethical leadership
and ethical climate to employees' ethical behaviours: the moderating role of person–organization fit.
Personnel Review, 50(1), 159-185.
Antunez, M., Ramalho, N., & Marques, T. M. (2023). Context Matters Less Than Leadership in
Preventing Unethical Behaviour in International Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16.
Aryati, A. S., Sudiro, A., Hadiwidjaja, D., & Noermijati, N. (2018). The influence of ethical leadership to
deviant workplace behaviours mediated by ethical climate and organizational commitment.
International Journal of Law and Management, 60(2), 233-249.
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and
consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l'Administration, 14(2), 126-140.
Askew, O. A., Beisler, J. M., & Keel, J. (2015). Current trends of unethical behaviours within
organizations. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 19(3), 107-114.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23-28).

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1419

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

Barnes, C., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D., & Christian, M. (2015). You wouldn't like me when I'm sleepy:
Leader sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management
Journal, 58(5), 1419–1437.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinctionin Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,51(6), 1173-1182.
Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. 2003. The past, present, and future of workplace deviance research. In J.
Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behaviours: The state of the science (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Laurence Erlbaum.
Birtch, T. A., & Chiang, F. F. (2014). The influence of business school’s ethical climate on students’
unethical behaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 283-294.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life John Wiley & Sons. New York, 93-94.
Brown, M., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for
construct development and testing. Organizational Behaviours and Human Decision Processes, 97:
117-134.
Brown, M.E. & Trevino, L.K. (2006), Ethical leadership: a review and future directions, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-616.
Camps, J., Stouten, J., & Euwema, M. (2016). The relation between supervisors’ big five personality traits
and employees’ experiences of abusive supervision. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 112.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal
of management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Stephens, C. (1989). An ethical weather report: Assessing the organization's
ethical climate. Organizational dynamics, 18(2), 50-62.
Demirtas, O., & Akdogan, A. A. (2015). The effect of ethical leadership behaviours on ethical climate,
turnover intention, and affective commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 59-67.
Deshpande, S. P., George, E., & Joseph, J. (2000). Ethical climates and managerial success in Russian
organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2), 211–217.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behaviours, and
business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational
Behaviours: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology
and Behaviours, 25(1), 67-80.
Elçi, M., Şener, I., & Alpkan, L. (2013). The impacts of ethical leadership on the antisocial behaviours of
employees: the mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 14(1), 56-
66.
Forte, A. (2004). Business ethics: A study of the moral reasoning of selected business managers and the
influence of organizational ethical climate. Journal of business ethics, 51, 167-173.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-
control depletion promotes unethical behaviours. Organizational Behaviours and Human Decision
Processes, 115, 191–203.
GÖK, M. Ş., & Yasin, N. A. R. (2016). Dinamik çevre etkisinde pazarlama stratejileri ve pazar
performansı analizi: Bilişim sektörü değerlendirmesi. Beykent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,
9(1).
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Introduction to
mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, 1, 20.
Herndon, N. C., Jr., Ferrell, O. C., LeClair, D. Y., & Ferrell, L. K. (1999). Relation¬ship of individual
moral values and perceived ethical climate to satisfaction, commitment, and turnover in a sales
organization. Research in Marketing, 15, 25-48.
Javed, B., Fatima, T., Yasin, R. M., Jahanzeb, S., & Rawwas, M. Y. (2019). Impact of abusive supervision
on deviant work behaviours: The role of Islamic work ethic. Business Ethics: A European Review,
28(2), 221-233.

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1420

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

Jex, S. & Britt, T. W. (2008). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach (2nd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model.
The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-
analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of applied psychology, 95(1),
1.
Kuenzi, M., Mayer, D. M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2020). Creating an ethical organizational environment:
The relationship between ethical leadership, ethical organizational climate, and unethical
behaviours. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 43-71.
Lam, C. K., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2017). Supervisors' emotional exhaustion and abusive supervision:
The moderating roles of perceived subordinate performance and supervisor self‐monitoring. Journal
of Organizational Behaviours, 38(8), 1151-1166.
Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. (2014). Abusive
supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 116-
139.
Liang, L. H., Hanig, S., Evans, R., Brown, D. J., & Lian, H. (2018). Why is your boss making you sick? A
longitudinal investigation modeling time‐lagged relations between abusive supervision and
employee physical health. Journal of Organizational Behaviours, 39(9), 1050-1065.
Liu, S., Zhu, Q., & Wei, F. (2019). How abusive supervision affects employees’ unethical behaviours: A
moderated mediation examination of turnover intentions and caring climate. International journal
of environmental research and public health, 16(21), 4187.
Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of business ethics, 69, 175-194.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2009). Making ethical climate a mainstream management
topic. Psychological perspectives on ethical behaviours and decision making, 181-213.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2010). Examining the link between ethical leadership
and employee misconduct: The mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of business ethics, 95, 7-16.
Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill.
Peterson, D. K. (2002). The relationship between unethical behaviours and the dimensions of the ethical
climate questionnaire. Journal of business ethics, 41, 313-326.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2015). Detrimental citizenship behaviour: a multilevel framework of
antecedents and consequences. Manag. Organ. Rev. 11, 66–99.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. Organizational
climate and culture, 1, 5-39.
Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups
on the antisocial behaviours of employees. Academy of management journal, 41(6), 658-672.
Rui, J., & Qi, L. X. (2021). The trickle-down effect of authoritarian leadership on unethical employee
behaviours: a cross-level moderated mediation model. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 550082.
Rusaw, A.C. (2001). Leading public organizations an interactive approach. New York, NY: Harcourt
College Publishers.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design. Administrative science quarterly, 224-253.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2011). Organizational climate research. The handbook of
organizational culture and climate, 29, 12169-012.
Schwepker Jr, C. H. (2001). Ethical climate's relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and turnover intention in the salesforce. Journal of business research, 54(1), 39-52.
Tepper, B.J., Simon, L. & Park, H.M. (2017), “Abusive supervision”, in Morgeson, F.P. (Ed.), Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviours, Palo Alto: Annual Reviews,
Vol. 4 No. 1.

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1421

 Yasin Nar & Meral Elçi & Gülay Murat Eminoğlu

Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization
deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 721–732.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management journal, 43(2), 178-
190.
Tonus, H., & Oruç, İ. (2012). Unethical behaviours and their management in human resource
management: A content analysis of a company's personnel regulation. Turkish Journal of Business
Ethics, 5(10), 173-181.
Trevino, L.K., Den Nieuwenboer, N.A. & Kish-Gephart, J.J. (2015), “Un Ethical behaviours in
organizations”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 635-660.
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. 2001. Organizational justice and ethics program follow through:
Influences on employees’ helpful and harmful behaviours, Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4): 651-671.
Trevino, L.K., Butterfield, K.D. & McCabe, D.L. (1998), The ethical context in organizations: influences
on employee attitudes and behaviours, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 447-476.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model.
Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. 2004. Misbehaviours in organizations: Theory, research, and management.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 101-125.
Wang, H., & Xiao, J. (2021). Examining the within‐person effects of abusive supervision on multifoci
deviance: Ethical climate as a moderator. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30(4),
784-800.
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The
mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources, 50(1), 43-60.
Weeks, W. A., Loe, T. W., Chonko, L. B., Martinez, C. R., & Wakefield, K. (2006). Cognitive moral
development and the impact of perceived organizational ethical climate on the search for sales force
excellence: A cross-cultural study. Journal of personal selling & sales management, 26(2), 205-217.
Yang, M., Luu, T. T., & Hoang, G. (2023). Can ethical climate and ethical self-efficacy channel ethical
leadership into service performance? A multilevel investigation. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 114, 103548.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational
citizenship behaviours. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068-1076.
Zhang, Y., Hou, Z., Zhou, X., Yue, Y., Liu, S., Jiang, X., & Li, L. (2022). Abusive supervision: a content
analysis of theory and methodology. Chinese Management Studies, 16(3), 509-550.

bmij (2023) 11 (4):1410-1422 1422