Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peer Reaction to Manager Stewardship Behavior: Crediting or Stigmatizing the Behavior?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Manager stewardship behavior, defined as an ethical initiative whereby managers subjugate their personal interests to protect their organization’s long-term welfare, has been widely considered beneficial for organizations and subordinates. However, is manager stewardship behavior also viewed as good in the eyes of peers? This research examines peer reactions to manager stewardship behavior. Drawing on person perception theory, we expect that a peer may credit and support manager stewardship behavior or stigmatize and undermine it depending on his or her attributions (organizational concern versus impression management). Study 1 (a vignette experiment: n = 200) found that manager stewardship behavior is related to credit evaluation by a peer and subsequently increases peer support and decreases peer undermining when attributed to organizational concern motives; however, it is related to stigma evaluation by a peer and subsequently increases peer undermining and decreases peer support when attributed to impression management motives. Study 2 (n = 221) replicated the results of Study 1 using a field survey design. These findings expand our understanding of the implications of stewardship behavior from a peer perspective and offer insight for managers into how to engage in stewardship behavior wisely.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will be provided upon request.

Notes

  1. We followed Berry et al.’s (2012) recommendation to ask peers to report their attribution and reputation evaluation of manager stewardship behavior because peer self-reported data are more accurate than data collected from other reports. This approach also responded to prior research on peer reaction to individual behavior (Campbell et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2020). We did not choose a supervisor as the focal observer because Lee (1993) argued that supervisors are not often aware of managers’ behaviors and peers’ reaction to these behaviors due to the hierarchy gap (e.g., physical, social, and psychological distance). Moreover, asking a supervisor to rate his or her perceptions of a target person (i.e., impression management) and of peer attitudes or behaviors about the target (i.e., stigmatizing) might unduly put the target person and the peers at risk at work. Doing so might also have been problematic vis-a`-vis institutional review board protocols and ethical guidelines.

References

  • Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best-practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The Effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Shirako, A. (2008). Are individuals’ reputations related to their history of behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 320–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baloch, M. A., Meng, F., Xu, Z., Cepeda-Carrion, I., Danish, & Bari, M. W. (2017). Dark triad, perceptions of organizational politics and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effect of political skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 613–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 281–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, C., Hayes, L. A., Karri, R., & Bernal, P. (2008). Ethical stewardship-implications for leadership and trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1–2), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, E. M., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Dong, Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical consideration. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 504–553). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Allen, M. R., & Hayes, H. D. (2010). Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1093–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Frankforter, S., Vollrath, D., & Hill, V. (2007). An empirical test of stewardship theory. Journal of Business and Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching, 3(1), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez-Escrig, E., Mallén-Broch, F. F., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R., & Chiva-Gómez, R. (2019). The influence of leaders’ stewardship behavior on innovation success. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), 849–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1379–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, G. C. (1986). Self-esteem and self-consistency: A theoretical and empirical link between two primary motivations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49(3), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J. M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernet, C., Gagné, M., & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1163–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 231–252). St. Lucie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2003). Personal reputation in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 211–246). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, T. D., Major, D. A., & Davis, D. D. (2008). The interactive relationship of competitive climate and trait competitiveness with workplace attitudes, stress, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 899–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. A., & Promislo, M. D. (2013). Broken when entering: The stigmatization of goodness and business ethics education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 86–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groysberg, B. (2010). Chasing stars: The myth of talent and the portability of performance. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958a). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958b). Perceiving the other person. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 22–26). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henssen, B., Voordeckers, W., Lambrechts, F., & Koiranen, M. (2014). The CEO autonomy-stewardship behavior relationship in family firms: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(3), 312–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, M. (2007). Stewardship: Theoretical development and empirical test of its determinants. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation of Duke University.

  • Hernandez, M. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 172–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking and attribution of motives as mediators of the relationship between individuals’ reputations, helpful behaviors, and raters’ reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 808–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15(1), 192–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, M. G., & Smith, B. B. (1938). Randomness and random sampling numbers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 101(1), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2011). Stewardship behavior and creativity. Management Revue, 22(3), 274–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). The role of locus of control in reactions to being promoted and to being passed over: A quasi experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 348–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. C. T., & Peng, T. K. T. (2010). From organizational citizenship behaviour to team performance: The mediation of group cohesion and collective efficacy. Management and Organization Review, 6(1), 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012a). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1187–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D., Zhang, Z., & Wang, M. (2012b). Mono-level and multilevel mediated moderation and moderated mediation: Theorization and test. In X. Chen, A. S. Tsui, & J. L. Farh (Eds.), Empirical methods in organization and management research (pp. 553–587). Peking University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., & Mackey, J. D. (2019). Attribution theory: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5), 523–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, E., Nauta, A., & Buunk, B. P. (2007). Social comparison-based thoughts in groups: Their associations with interpersonal trust and learning outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1163–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. & Muthén, B. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén

  • Ng, T. W. H., Lucianetti, L., Hsu, D. Y., Yim, F. H. K., & Sorensen, K. L. (2021). You speak, I speak: The social-cognitive mechanisms of voice contagion. Journal of Management Studies, 58(6), 1569–1608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, Q., Zhang, J., Peng, J., & Chen, X. (2021). Daily micro-break activities and workplace well-being: A recovery perspective. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02300-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niven, K., Troth, A. C., & Holman, D. (2019). Do the effects of interpersonal emotion regulation depend on people’s underlying motives? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(4), 1020–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M., Newman, A., Leroy, H., Moore, C., Hannah, S., & Den Hartog, D. (2021). Quantitative research on leadership and business ethics: Examining the state of the field and an agenda for future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(1), 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, C. D., & Stone, A. B. (2010). The desire to expel unselfish members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, A. W., & Marler, L. E. (2010). A leadership perspective of reciprocal stewardship in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1117–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, J., Chen, X., Zou, Y., & Nie, Q. (2021). Environmentally specific transformational leadership and team pro-environmental behaviors: The roles of pro-environmental goal clarity, pro-environmental harmonious passion, and power distance. Human Relations, 74(11), 1864–1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, J., Wang, Z., & Chen, X. (2019). Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 419–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 1–40). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, X., Chen, C., Yam, K. C., Huang, M., & Ju, D. (2020). The double-edged sword of leader humility: Investigating when and why leader humility promotes versus inhibits subordinate deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 693–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodell, J. B. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1274–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodell, J. B., & Lynch, J. (2016). Perceptions of employee volunteering: Is it “credited” or “stigmatized” by colleagues? Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 611–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(1), 64–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(3), 356–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, H., Chen, C. C., Li, X. C., & Zhou, Y. H. (2013). From personal relationship to psychological ownership: The importance of manager-owner relationship closeness in family businesses. Management and Organization Review, 9(2), 295–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, L., Restubog, S. L. D., Leavitt, K., Zhou, L., & Wang, M. (2020). Lead the horse to water, but don’ t make him drink: The effects of moral identity symbolization on coworker behavior depend on perceptions of proselytization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156(1), 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

We acknowledge the financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72072039).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Yongjun Kang

  2. School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Jian Peng

  3. College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Qi Nie

Authors
  1. Yongjun Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jian Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qi Nie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jian Peng or Qi Nie.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Yongjun Kang, Jian Peng, and Qi Nie declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent to Participate

Authors obtained informed consent from all participants involved in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

A Vignette Experiment Comparing the Roles of Stewardship Behavior and Volunteering Behavior in Predicting Peer Reactions

To compare the effect of stewardship behavior and volunteering behavior on peer reactions, we conducted a pilot study to manipulate these two behaviors and test peers’ subsequent reputation evaluation and social reactions.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A total of 246 participants (Mage = 30.72 years, SD = 4.31, 59.80% male) were recruited to participate in a vignette experiment (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). This experiment used a between-subjects design (manipulation: stewardship behavior vs. volunteering behavior). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two manipulated conditions and read the experimental scenarios. After reading the scenarios, the participants were asked to evaluate the behavioral motive and reputation of “the focal manager” and their social treatment reaction.

Manipulations and Measures

Workplace Scenario

The workplace scenario was the same as in Study 1. However, we modified some sentences to tell the participants that they had formed a general impression of Wang’s work and non-work behavior.

Stewardship Behavior Condition

We manipulated the stewardship behavior condition using the same material as in Study 1.

Volunteering Behavior Condition

We draw on Rodell’s (2013) volunteering behavior scale to design the manipulation condition. The description of a volunteer behavior condition was as follows.

In daily nonworking times, Wang often participates in volunteer activities of some charity groups. Specifically, Wang often devotes his or her time and energy to helping a volunteer group, and he or she often applies his or her skills and talent to aid a volunteer group. In addition, Wang often engages in activities to support a volunteer group, for example, by participating in fundraising activities, volunteer recruitment publicity, and volunteer training assistance.

Measures

All measures used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree/not at all) to 5 (strongly agree/very).

Manipulation Check Measures

The participants were asked to report their perceived manager stewardship behavior using the same scale as in Study 1 (Cronbach’s α = 0.72) and to report their perceived manager volunteering behavior using Rodell’s (2013) 5-item scale (e.g., “Wang gives his or her time to help a volunteer group” and “Wang applies his or her skills in ways that benefit a volunteer group” (Cronbach’s α = 0.84).

Attribution of Focal Manager Behavior

Organizational concern attribution (Cronbach’s α = 0.89) and impression management attribution (Cronbach’s α = 0.92) were measured using the same scale as in Study 1. Following Lam and Schaubroeck (2000), we used the mean score of attribution measurement as the criterion for grouping the experimental conditions of high and low attribution. Low scores indicate that a lower degree of participants attributed the focal manager’s behavior to organizational concern/impression management motivations, and high scores indicate that a higher degree of participants attributed the focal manager’s behavior to organizational concern/impression management motivations.

Reputation Evaluation Toward the Focal Manager

Credit (Cronbach’s α = 0.98) and stigma (Cronbach’s α = 0.97) were measured using the same scale as in Study 1.

Social Behavior/Treatment Toward the Focal Manager

Peer support (intention) (Cronbach’s α = 0.82) and peer undermining (intention) (Cronbach’s α = 0.98) were measured using the same scale as in Study 1.

Analytical Approach

We employed the same analytic approach as in Study 1.

Results

Manipulation Check

The participants in the stewardship behavior condition scored higher on the stewardship behavior scale (M = 4.24, SD = 0.47) than those in the volunteering behavior condition (M = 1.52, SD = 0.40), t (244) = 49.09, p < 0.001. Additionally, the participants in the volunteering behavior condition scored higher on the volunteering behavior scale (M = 3.91, SD = 0.77) than those in the stewardship behavior condition (M = 1.53, SD = 0.37), t (244) = 30.71, p < 0.001. Hence, the effectiveness of our manipulations was supported.

Results of ANOVA and Path Analyses

Comparison between stewardship behavior and volunteering behavior. Stewardship behavior has a stronger relationship with peer reactions than volunteering behavior. Specifically, the level of credit was higher for stewardship behavior (M = 4.22, SD = 0.43) than for volunteering behavior (M = 3.72, SD = 0.63) when these behaviors were attributed to organizational concern motives. Moreover, the difference in credit levels between stewardship behavior and volunteering behavior was significant [F (1, 242) = 18.08, p < 0.001]. Additionally, the level of stigma was higher for stewardship behavior (M = 3.63, SD = 0.95) than for volunteering behavior (M = 3.15, SD = 0.71) when these behaviors were attributed to impression management motives. The difference in stigma levels between stewardship behavior and volunteering behavior was significant [F (1, 242) = 10.50, p < 0.01]. The overall pattern of these results points to an important distinction between stewardship behavior and volunteering behavior in that stewardship behavior elicits a stronger peer response than volunteering behavior.

The path analysis results showed that the indirect relationship between stewardship behavior and peer support via credit was positive and significant when organizational concern motives were high [0.08, 95% CI (0.03, 0.15)] but not when they were low [− 0.003, 95% CI (− 0.02, 0.03)]: difference score = 0.08, 95% CI (0.03, 0.16). The indirect relationship between stewardship behavior and peer undermining via credit was negative and significant when organizational concern motives were high [− 0.18, 95% CI (− 0.64, − 0.03)] compared to when they were low [0.01, 95% CI (− 0.08, 0.09)]: difference score =  − 0.19, 95% CI (− 0.64, − 0.04).

The indirect relationship between stewardship behavior and peer support via stigma was negative and significant when impression management motives were high [− 0.16, 95% CI (− 0.26, − 0.10)] compared to when they were low [0.07, 95% CI (0.03, 0.13)]: difference score =  − 0.23, 95% CI (− 0.34, − 0.14). The indirect relationship between stewardship behavior and peer undermining via stigma was positive and significant when impression management motives were high [0.18, 95% CI (0.04, 0.41)] compared to when they were low [− 0.08, 95% CI (− 0.25, − 0.02)]: difference score = 0.26, 95% CI (0.06, 0.54).

Appendix 2

Scale Items

Stewardship Behaviors

  1. (1)

    He or she engages in initiatives that serve the company’s interests more than his or her own.

  2. (2)

    He or she engages in initiatives that are credible and attractive.

  3. (3)

    He or she takes a long-term more than short-term approach to business.

Credit

Other-Focus Displaying

  1. (1)

    He or she displays concern for others.

  2. (2)

    He or she genuinely cares about others.

  3. (3)

    He or she is generous to others.

  4. (4)

    He or she is kind to others.

Sense of Organizational Responsibility

  1. (1)

    He or she feels a sense of responsibility toward the organization.

  2. (2)

    He or she is committed to the organization.

  3. (3)

    He or she is an active part of the organization.

  4. (4)

    He or she feels a sense of duty to the organization.

Ethical Values

  1. (1)

    He or she has a strong moral compass.

  2. (2)

    He or she has good ethical values.

  3. (3)

    He or she conducts his or her life in an ethical manner.

  4. (4)

    He or she always tries to do the right thing.

Stigma

Evangelism

  1. (1)

    He or she pressures others to get involved in the organization.

  2. (2)

    He or she pushes others to take part in organizational events.

  3. (3)

    He or she petitions people to be active in organizational efforts.

  4. (4)

    He or she solicits others’ involvement in the organization.

Void Filling

  1. (1)

    He or she is trying to fill a void in his or her work.

  2. (2)

    He or she is looking for something that is currently missing in his or her work.

  3. (3)

    He or she is compensating for a sense of emptiness in his or her work.

  4. (4)

    He or she is seeking to make up for a gap in his or her work.

Self-Righteousness

  1. (1)

    He or she believes that he or she is better than others.

  2. (2)

    He or she views himself or herself as superior to others.

  3. (3)

    He or she thinks he or she is more important than other people.

  4. (4)

    He or she presumes that others are not as good as he or she is.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kang, Y., Peng, J. & Nie, Q. Peer Reaction to Manager Stewardship Behavior: Crediting or Stigmatizing the Behavior?. J Bus Ethics 183, 453–474 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05069-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05069-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation