Content uploaded by Michael Yao-Ping Peng
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Yao-Ping Peng on Sep 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsij20
The Service Industries Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20
Unlearning in service contexts: a moderated-
mediation model
Michael Yao-Ping Peng, Owais Anwar Golra, Majid Khan, Thomas Garavan,
Yong-Sheng Chang & Muhammad Usman
To cite this article: Michael Yao-Ping Peng, Owais Anwar Golra, Majid Khan, Thomas Garavan,
Yong-Sheng Chang & Muhammad Usman (2023): Unlearning in service contexts: a moderated-
mediation model, The Service Industries Journal, DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2023.2209930
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2023.2209930
Published online: 10 May 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Unlearning in service contexts: a moderated-mediation
model
在服务环境中忘掉学习：一个有调节的中介模型
Michael Yao-Ping Peng
a
, Owais Anwar Golra
b
, Majid Khan
c
, Thomas Garavan
d
, Yong-
Sheng Chang
e
and Muhammad Usman
b
a
School of Economics & Management, Foshan University, Foshan, People’s Republic of China;
b
School of
Economics and Trade, Fujian Jiangxia University, Fuzhou, People’s Republic of China;
c
National University of
Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan;
d
University College Cork, Cork, Ireland;
e
Department of
Business Administration, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan
ABSTRACT
The present study builds on social information processing theory to
explicate how and when ethical leadership (EL) impacts individual
unlearning in service organizations. The results from two studies
–Study 1 based on time-lagged and multi-source data and Study
2 based on an experimental design –revealed that EL positively
influences individual unlearning directly, as well as indirectly, via
employee role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE). We also found support
for the role of trait mindfulness as a boundary condition of the
EL-RSBE link and the mediated relationship of EL with individual
unlearning via RSBE. Our findings can help managers encourage
service employees to consciously unlearn obsolete behaviors to
create spaces for new behaviors.
摘摘要要
本研究以社会信息处理理论为基础，阐释了道德领导力（EL）如
何以及何时影响服务组织中的个人学习。两项研究–研究1基于时
滞和多源数据，研究2基于实验设计–的结果显示，道德领导力直
接或间接地通过员工的角色广度自我效能感（RBSE）对个人的学
习产生积极的影响。我们还发现，特质心智作为EL-RSBE联系的
边界条件，以及EL通过RSBE与个体非学习的中介关系的作用得到
支持。我们的发现可以帮助管理者鼓励服务人员有意识地解除过
时的行为，为新的行为创造空间。
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 May 2022
Accepted 26 April 2023
KEYWORDS
Ethical leadership; individual
unlearning; role breadth self-
efficacy; trait mindfulness
关关键键词词
道德领导力；个体解脱；
角色广度自我效能感；特
质心态
Introduction
Unlearning builds organizations’capacity to respond to dynamic and fast-changing
environments (Wang et al., 2019)), and reconfigure existing human resources to
achieve strategic flexibility (Zhao & Wang, 2020). To define unlearning, it is important
to start with learning as both concepts are interlinked (Tsang & Zahra, 2008). Organiz-
ational learning is defined as improvement in existing routines, practices, and processes
(Mason & Leek, 2008; Usman et al., 2019) while unlearning is defined as ‘changing or
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Yond-Sheng Chang ebawu@yahoo.com Department of Business Administration, Tamkang University,
New Taipei City, Taiwan.
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2023.2209930
discarding obsolete routines, beliefs, and knowledge [intentionally] to make room for the
new ones’(Lyu et al., 2020, p. 262). Unlearning as a phenomenon in organizations is a
cross-level process beginning with the individual and then moving to the organizational
level (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012b), and as such, individual unlearning forms the foun-
dation of the collective or organizational unlearning process (Becker et al., 2006). Yet,
the routines that employees use in organizations can be a major source of inertia and
scholars have argued that these routines can create path dependence (Fowler et al.,
2000). In fast-changing and highly dynamic environments, existing routines may
quickly become obsolete leading to inflexibility, stickiness, and rigidity (Pavlov &
Bourne, 2011). Therefore, individual unlearning as a part of the organizational unlearning
process can contribute to organizations’growth and success in many ways because it is a
necessary part of the organizational process to fundamentally alter routines (Akgün et al.,
2012). Scholars argue that individual unlearning is a prerequisite for organizations’learn-
ing, long-term success, and competitive advantage (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012a; Usman
et al., 2018). Unlearning obsolete knowledge and routines provides employees with space
to embrace new ideas, beliefs, and knowledge and facilitates creativity and ultimately
organizational innovation and competitive advantage (Zahra et al., 2011). Thus, the
capacity of an individual to unlearn is considered vital in modern organizations (Wang
et al., 2019).
The role of unlearning achieves a greater level of prominence in various organizational
contexts but service sector organizations in particular. For instance, rapidly evolving infor-
mation and communication technologies (ICTs), such as cloud computing, mobile tech-
nology, social networking technology, and the Internet of Things are ‘leading to a
proliferation of revolutionary services and changing how customers serve themselves
before, during, and after purchase’(Ostrom et al., 2015, p. 127). Indeed, this technol-
ogy-enabled service context, on the one hand, facilitates ubiquitous communication
with customers and the acquisition, analysis, and use of big data that offer new
avenues for providing customers with more personalized service and developing
deeper relationships with customers. On the other hand, it is consistently posing chal-
lenges for service organizations because customers’awareness and demands are rising
and they increasingly create their own experiences more autonomously (Akgün et al.,
2022; Mody, 2023; Ostrom et al., 2015). Thus, to meet customers’diverse and changing
demands and offer them more personalized, high-quality service and unique experiences,
service organizations need to change/discard obsolete beliefs, knowledge, and routines
to meet the ever-changing and diverse customers’demands.
Despite the significance of unlearning for meeting customers’diverse and changing
demands and offering them more personalized service, the literature on unlearning is
scarce (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012a). Consequently, existing studies on unlearning
provide relatively little understanding of how and when individual unlearning occurs in
organizational settings, including service contexts. Building on this major gap in the litera-
ture on service contexts, we draw on social information processing theory (SIP) (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978) to investigate the impact of ethical leadership (EL) on individual unlearning.
EL is understood as ‘the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through per-
sonal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to fol-
lowers’(Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). EL is considered here, as it places specific emphasis on
protecting the rights of various stakeholders, such as employees and owners/
2M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
shareholders (Brown et al., 2005), and it focuses on employee well-being, as well as organ-
izational growth. Furthermore, scholars argue that new knowledge creation is the key
moral obligation of employees (Rechberg & Syed, 2013). Since unlearning is a prerequisite
for organizations’learning, long-term success, and competitive advantage (Cepeda-
Carrion et al., 2012b; Usman et al., 2018), we expect that ethical leaders reflect on existing
routines and beliefs and endeavor to get rid of those routines and beliefs that are obsolete
to make room for the new ones. As such, we argue that EL sends cues to employees to
challenge and endeavor to get rid of long-held mental models, routines, and norms, indi-
cating that EL is theoretically relevant in encouraging service employees to unlearn obso-
lete behaviors and practices.
Additionally, we examine whether the association between EL and individual unlearn-
ing is mediated by followers’role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) (Parker, 1998). We investi-
gate the role of RBSE because ethical leaders’focus on two-way communication and
employee development that we argue can lead to RBSE. Further, RBSE enables and incen-
tivizes employees to challenge existing norms by relying on their personal knowledge,
skills, and proactive judgment (Beltrán-Martín et al., 2017; Parker, 1998). It also facilitates
self-confidence in one’s talents and abilities that function as a strong springboard to chal-
lenge the established norms and inspire individuals to amend the self to contribute to the
organization’s success (Hao et al., 2018). Since amending the self and challenging estab-
lished practices are important aspects of unlearning, we argue that RBSE has important
implications for unlearning. Together, we understand that RBSE can explain why EL
leads to individual unlearning.
Additionally, SIP suggests that the social information retrieved by employees is
influenced by their personality traits. Accordingly, the current study theorizes that the
level to which EL provides impacts RBSE is contingent on employee trait mindfulness,
defined as ‘the quality of being conscious (i.e. being attentive and aware) of one’s feelings,
thoughts, and experiences in the present moment’(Ogbonnaya et al., 2022, p. 3). We
focus on trait mindfulness because it enables individuals to reflect on the present situ-
ation and offers them ‘a larger “psychological space”for accessing new perspectives’
(Montani et al., 2021, p. 745), allowing them to challenge existing processes and
mental models and adopt new ones to create opportunities for personal development
(Allen & Kiburz, 2012). Therefore, we argue that trait mindfulness can have imperative
value for unlearning. Importantly, employees high on trait mindfulness possess stronger
self-regulatory capabilities (Allen & Kiburz, 2012) and are more attentive to and aware of
what is occurring around them in the present moment (Allen & Kiburz, 2012; Tulucu et al.,
2022), suggesting that service employees high on mindfulness can learn more EL beha-
viors. As such, we argue that they are better able to attend to the social cues coming
from ethical leaders and can make a difference to the effectiveness of EL for fostering
RBSE and individual unlearning. The proposed model is presented in Figure 1
Our research makes important contributions to the following important areas. First,
while studies suggest that EL plays an important role in influencing employee outcomes,
the influence of EL on individual unlearning has been overlooked. Our study contributes
to EL research particularly in the service context (e.g. Anser et al., 2021;Yeşiltaş& Tuna,
2018) by revealing that it has an important role in fostering individual unlearning,
thereby extending the nomological network of the outcomes of EL (Ali et al., 2022; Baba-
lola et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2005; Christensen-Salem et al., 2021). Second, the present
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 3
work illuminates the role of RBSE as a mechanism that can transfer the effects of EL on
individual unlearning. Scholars have called for the investigation of mediators that are
not theoretically similar or convergent to EL (Zheng et al., 2022). Thus, we provide
novel insights into how EL can impact individual unlearning by signifying the critical
yet ignored role of RBSE and add to the literature on RBSE (Beltrán-Martín et al., 2017;
Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Finally, by highlighting trait mindfulness as the boundary
condition, the present research extends the mindfulness literature in the service context
(Anasori et al., 2020; Gip et al., 2022) that has received little in the service literature.
Theory and hypotheses development
EL and social information processing in the context of individual unlearning
Individual unlearning refers to discarding or changing obsolete knowledge, beliefs, and
routines intentionally to create space for new knowledge, beliefs, and routines (Lyu
et al., 2020). When employees are faced with a high level of uncertainty and fear about
the process of unlearning routines and behaviors, they will look around the organization
for cues and social information. SIP theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) argues that employ-
ees use pertinent social cues acquired from the work context to develop their understand-
ing of the context and then use this information to guide their behaviors. Accordingly, it is
proposed that in the context of the requirement to unlearn, service employees will use
various cues to evaluate the extent to which it is appropriate to unlearn and act accord-
ingly. We argue that the requirement to unlearn routines and behaviors and acquire new
ones is one situation where they look to the work environment to construct meaning con-
cerning how to act.
It is well established in the literature that the language and behavior of organizational
leaders provide important information to employees concerning how to behave (Zheng
et al., 2022). Prior research utilizing SIP theory reveals that leaders are an important source
of critical information that employees use to make evaluations of their work environment
(Yang et al., 2014). SIP theory suggests that social information becomes crucial when
Figure 1. The proposed model.
4M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
employees face uncertain, complex, or ambiguous situations. In such situations, employ-
ees are expected to refer to social information such as EL behaviors to develop their
understanding of the work context. In the context of this study, we focus on service
employees’perceptions of EL and suggest that EL behaviors serve as salient and relevant
cues concerning the extent to which unlearning is supported by the work environment.
We make this argument due to the following reasons. First, EL focuses on the develop-
ment and growth of employees, organizations, and society at large. Such a focus is rooted
in EL’s sense of obligation to these entities and future generations (Anser et al., 2021; Kal-
shoven et al., 2011). EL plays a major role in followers’personal and professional develop-
ment and provides them with opportunities to learn new skills (Kalshoven et al., 2011)
Since unlearning is considered a prerequisite for individual and organizational learning
and growth (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012b; Usman et al., 2018), we argue that EL also
emphasize the unlearning of obsolete practices and routines.
Second, ethical leaders encourage followers to question and challenge existing norms
(Ali et al., 2022; Shafique et al., 2020), sending important cues to employees about
unlearning. They typically do this through their daily interactions with followers (Ali
et al., 2022). Thus, it is likely that employees’endeavor to get rid of long-held mental
models, routines, and norms (Ali et al., 2022; Tsoukas, 2009). Likewise, previous studies
suggest that one of the indispensable responsibilities of organizational members is to
create new knowledge (Rechberg & Syed, 2013). Given the role of unlearning in new
knowledge creation, we argue that employees will reflect on assumptions and ideologies
embedded within the system and get rid of these assumptions and ideologies.
Hypothesis 1. EL is positively associated with individual unlearning in the service context.
Employee RBSE as a mediator
Drawing insights from SIP theory, we theorize that EL enhances employee RBSE which in
turn impacts their unlearning behaviors. Employee RBSE is enhanced because ethical
leaders signal to employees that their contributions are valued, thereby bolstering their
confidence to perform different roles, which are beyond existing norms (Ali et al.,
2022). Ethical leaders engage employees in decision-making that extends their knowl-
edge boundaries beyond the routine task and enhance their confidence to perform in
different domains (Axtell & Parker, 2003) and take responsibility to carry out a set of
tasks beyond existing job norms (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Parker, 1998). Ethical
leaders focus on teamwork, harmony, and cohesiveness and send signals to employees
that they should engage in discussions with managers and peers from different back-
grounds, experiences, and functional areas, leading to an improved sense of RBSE.
RBSE can influence individual unlearning because it encourages employees to take
initiatives aimed at improving or changing existing norms and routines (Den Hartog &
Belschak, 2012). RBSE leads employees to challenge and change the status quo and
create space for new practices, knowledge, and beliefs (Axtell & Parker, 2003). Similarly,
an employee’s broader knowledge base and confidence in his/her capabilities to
perform a broader role encourage him/her to explore new routines and behaviors
(Axtell & Parker, 2003). RBSE provides zestful and proactive energy that enables employ-
ees to be open to new opportunities and new ways of doing things and unlearn old
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 5
behaviors and practices to create spaces for new behaviors and practices (Parker, 1998).
RBSE enhances employee dedication to change and showcases positive change-related
behaviors (e.g. unlearning behaviors) (Beltrán-Martín et al., 2017), indicating that RBSE
can lead to individual unlearning. Indeed, RBSE entails employees’confidence that they
can go beyond the boundaries of traditional work context (Axtell & Parker, 2003),
which we argue can encourage employees to reflect on and unlearn obsolete beliefs
and behaviors. Together, we propose:
H2. RBSE mediates the positive association between EL and individual unlearning in the
service context.
Trait mindfulness as a boundary condition
While the positive impact of EL on many employees’cognitions and behavior have been
acknowledged (Eisenbeiss & van Knippenberg, 2015), research highlights that there are
very significant unexplained variances in the effects of EL on employee behaviors (Ali
et al., 2022). Leadership’sinfluence on followers is contingent on how they interpret social
information. Individuals are likely to perceive, process, and react to social information
from leaders in different ways (Eisenbeiss & Van Knippenberg, 2015). Therefore, to illuminate
when EL has a more pronounced effects on RBSE and individual unlearning, we examine the
role of employee trait mindfulness as a boundary condition. We build on SIP and suggest that
an individual-level moderator –trait mindfulness –helps employees tobe more aware ofthe
cues and social information provided by ethical leaders. Trait mindfulness emphasizes being
attentive and aware of what is taking place in the work environment (Brown et al., 2012;
Brown & Ryan, 2003). It comprises attention (the ability to avoid distractions and focus
one’s thoughts, without judgment, on what one experiences in the present moment) and
awareness (the ability to stay cognizant of what one experiences in the present moment
and be able to draw non-judgmental inferences from such experiences).
From a SIP perspective, we propose that high levels of trait mindfulness enable
employees to be more attentive to the cues and social information stemming from EL
behaviors. This occurs because employees with high levels of mindfulness are better
able to focus their attention on experiences in the present moment (Good et al., 2016).
It enables employees who are high on mindfulness to better utilize different cues and
social information emanating from EL (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017). Thus, we argue
that employees high on trait mindfulness benefit more from EL in terms of enhancing
their RBSE.
H3. Trait mindfulness moderates the positive relationship between EL and RBSE, such that this
relationship is stronger when service employee trait mindfulness is high (vs. low).
We theorized earlier informed by SIP that ELenhancesRBSE,whichinturnpositively
influences unlearning. We, therefore, argue that the influence of EL on unlearning is
through RBSE. Additionally, as proposed above (H3), employees high (vs. low) on
trait mindfulness are better able to attend to cues and social information, such that
the relationship between EL and RBSE is stronger when trait mindfulness is high. As
such, based on the combination of H2 and H3, it is proposed that the indirect effect
of EL on unlearning via RBSE is contingent on the level of service employee trait
mindfulness.
6M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
H4. Employee trait mindfulness moderates the indirect (via RBSE) relationship between EL
and unlearning, such that the relationship is stronger when service employee trait mindful-
ness is high (vs. low).
Overview of the studies
We tested our hypothesized model in two studies. First, we tested our hypothesized
model in Study 1 using a time-lagged, multi-source field study involving leader-follower
dyads in various organizations in China. We then replicated our findings in Study 2 using
an experimental study involving students enrolled in different postgraduate programs at
a public university in Pakistan.
Methods
Study 1: Time-lagged study
In first study, a time-lagged (three rounds, two months apart) approach was used. Data
were gathered from 317 supervisor-subordinate dyads. The respondents were fulltime
employees in service organizations (e.g. IT, hospitality, and telecommunication) in
China and were also the alumni of a public sector university in China. To capture
maximum variation in EL and its effects on RBSE and unlearning, as well as to improve
the generalizability of the study results, data were gathered from a diverse sample.
Initially, we contacted 500 participants and provided them with a cover letter explaining
the general purpose of the study, the confidentiality promise, and a request to provide the
contact of their immediate supervisors. We also offered them a chance of winning a
smartphone out of a total of 15 smartphones as an incentive to enhance the response
rate. We received written consent from 388 participants and respective supervisor’s
contact.
We collected data on the independent variable (EL), the moderator (political skill), and
control variables (servant leadership, and demographic controls, such as age, gender,
education, and experience) at Time 1. We collected data on the mediator (RBSE) at
Time 2. We received completed surveys from 353 and 340 respondents respectively at
Time 1 and 2. After screening the data for missing values and negligence, 332 (66.4%
net response rate) employee responses were retained. We collected data on the depen-
dent variable (employee unlearning) from immediate supervisors. We provided a cover
letter to 332 supervisors, whose subordinates had completed the surveys at Time 1 and
Time 2. We received 322 supervisor responses. After matching data sets, we retained
317 supervisor-subordinate responses for hypotheses testing. The final sample was
made up of 51.1% male and 48.9% female respondents. The average age and tenure of
the respondents were 36.06 and 3.06 years, respectively.
Study variables and measures
All the items were measured on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Scale items are presented in Appendix B.
EL: We measured EL by using a 10-item scale (α= .89) developed by Brown et al. (2005).
Sample item: ‘My supervisor is trustworthy’.
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 7
RBSE: We measured RBSE by using a 10-item scale (α= .88) developed by Parker (1998).
Sample item: ‘I feel confident about carrying out a set of tasks, such as analyzing a
problem to find a solution or representing his or her work area in meetings with
managers’.
Unlearning: We measured unlearning by adapting a six-item scale (α= .91) developed by
Matsuo (2018). Sample item: ‘He/she has changed work methods or procedures’.
Trait mindfulness: We measured trait mindfulness using a 15-item scale (α= .93) by
Brown and Ryan (2003). Sample item: ‘Ifind it difficult to stay focused on what’s happen-
ing in the present’.
Control variables and data analysis
Consistent with previous research gender, age, education, and tenure can affect RBSE
(Rafferty & Griffin, 2006), and unlearning (Matsuo, 2020) and thus these variables were
controlled. Proceeding further, EL may have conceptual overlaps with other positive lea-
dership styles (e.g. transformational leadership and servant leadership). According to the
results of a meta-analysis (Hoch et al., 2018), only servant leadership accounted for more
variance in predicting employees’work-related outcomes above and beyond transforma-
tional leadership. Thus, given the conceptual overlap between EL and other positive lea-
dership styles including servant leadership, and the meta-analysis findings that servant
accounted for more variance in employee outcomes above and beyond transformational
leadership, we controlled for servant leadership. We assessed servant leadership using a
seven-item scale (α= .94) by Liden et al. (2015). A sample item: ‘My supervisor emphasizes
the importance of giving back to the community’.
To address common method bias, we collected the data using a time-lagged design
and with data from two sources. Harman’s single-factor method was also employed to
assess the method variance concerns. To do so, all the items were constrained to load
on a single factor that resulted in explaining a 30.32% variance, which was less than
the threshold, of 50%. We also used a marker variable to reduce common method bias.
For this purpose, Confirmatory factor analysis was performed for an equally constrained
model, an unconstrained model, and a fully constrained model. The results showed no
substantial variance for the equally constrained model and the marker variable. χ
2
differ-
ence test was also performed and the values of χ
2
and df were noted for fully constrained
and unconstrained models at zero and the results showed that there was an insignificant
difference due to the response bias. Therefore, common method variance was not the
problem. We used structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus (8.8) to analyze the data.
Results
Table 1 presents means, SDs, and correlations between the variables included in the
study.
Measurement model
To evaluate model fitness and convergent and discriminant validities, we calculated
maximum shared variance (MSV), average shared variance (ASV), and average variance
extracted (AVE) (Table 2). Average variance extracted (AVE) > .50 of all the variables
(Table 2). Further, for all the variables, the square root of AVE was greater than their
inter-construct correlations, and both average shared variance (ASV) and maximum
8M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
shared variance (MSV) < AVE (Table 2). Thus, the scales were satisfactory both in terms of
convergent and discriminant validities.
Hypotheses testing
We followed Zhao et al.’s(2010) recommendations to test the first two hypotheses.
Table 3 presents the results of our hypotheses testing. We found a significant positive
relationship between EL and individual unlearning (B = .22,SE = .06,CI = [.09,.34]). More-
over, the indirect relationship between EL and individual unlearning via employee RBSE
was found to be significant (B = .07,SE = .02,CI = [.02,.12]). Thus, hypotheses 1 and 2
were supported. The interaction between EL and trait mindfulness was positively
related to employee RBSE (B = .22,SE = .05,CI = [.12,.32]). Thus, hypothesis 3 was sup-
ported. The interaction plotted using Johnson–Neyman technique is exhibited in
Figure 2. The index of moderated mediation was also significant for the hypothesized
indirect relationship between EL and individual unlearning via employee RBSE (index
= .06,SE = .02,CI = [.02,.12]). Thus, hypothesis 4 was supported.
Discussion
In Study 1, we tested hypotheses using time-lagged collected from 317 supervisor-
employee dyads in various Chinese organizations. The results indicate that EL is positively
associated with individual unlearning. We also find that employee RBSE mediates the EL-
unlearning link. Further, the results show that when employees are high on trait mindful-
ness, they are especially more likely to benefit more in terms of enhancing their RBSE and
unlearning, via RBSE.
Table 1. Means and correlations.
Construct Means SD 1 2 3 45678
1. Ethical leadership 3.23 1.00
2. Employee RBSE 3.35 .97 .31**
3. Individual unlearning 3.33 1.21 .20** .32**
4. Trait Mindfulness 2.97 1.06 -.01 .00 -.03
5. Servant leadership 3.30 1.11 .61** .17** .15** .02
6. Age 36.06 7.58 .05 .07 .06 -.01 .02
7. Gender 1.51 .50 .02 -.03 .08 .05 .01 -.08
8. Education 3.02 1.17 -.03 -.01 .06 -.04 .01 -.02 .11
9. Tenure 3.06 1.38 .00 .02 -.05 .07 -.06 -.01 -.09 -.10
Note. N = 317. * p< .05. ** p< .01 level (2-tailed). RBSE = Employee role breadth self-efficacy. SD = Standard deviation.
Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female.
Table 2. Discriminant validity and convergent validity.
Construct 1 2 3 4 AVE MSV ASV
1. Ethical leadership .71 .51 .06 .03
2. Employee RBSE .25 .72 .52 .09 .05
3. Individual unlearning .20 .31 .71 .51 .09 .04
4. Trait mindfulness .01 -.02 .04 .80 .65 .002 .001
Notes. N = 317. RBSE = Role breadth self-efficacy. AVE = Average variance extracted. MSV = Maximum variance shared.
ASV = Average variance shared. Bolded values on the diagonals of columns 2–5 are the square root values of AVE.
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 9
Study 2: Experimental study
Participants and procedures
Our sample consisted of 130 students enrolled in different postgraduate programs at a
large public sector university in Pakistan. Initially, 140 Participants were randomly
assigned to the two study conditions (leader ethical behavior: low vs. high). Participants
read instructions that explained that their participation is voluntary and that they were
participating in a study that focuses on leader ethical behavior. They were asked to
Table 3. Direct, indirect and moderation results.
BSE 95% CI
LLCI ULCI
Total effect
Ethical leadership →Individual unlearning .22 .06 .09 .34
Direct Paths
Ethical leadership →Individual unlearning .15 .06 .03 .27
Ethical leadership →Employee RBSE .23 .05 .12 .34
Employee RBSE →Individual unlearning .29 .06 .16 .41
Indirect Paths
Ethical leadership →Employee RBSE →Individual unlearning .07 .02 .02 .12
Moderated Paths
Ethical leadership * Trait mindfulness →Employee RBSE .22 .05 .12 .32
Ethical leadership * Trait mindfulness →Employee RBSE →Individual unlearning .06 .02 .02 .12
Notes: N = 317, Bootstrap = 5000. B = Unstandardized coefficient, SE = Standard deviation. RBSE = Employee role breadth
self-efficacy.
Figure 2. Employee trait mindfulness as the moderator of the ethical leadership-RBSE link.
10 M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
complete the questionnaire in one go and were told that the survey would be timed out if
there were any lengthy interruptions.
We started the experiment with a brief explanation of the scenarios (a low ethical
leader or a high ethical leader) to be used for EL manipulation. The scenarios (see Appen-
dix A) were based on the scale developed to measure EL by Brown et al.’s(2005) and con-
sisted of texts reflecting different scale items. These scenarios were adopted from Van Gils
et al. (2015). Data about demographics and trait mindfulness were asked before present-
ing scenarios to the participants. However, participants responded to the questions about
EL manipulation and questions about employee RBSE and individual learning based on
their understanding of the scenarios presented to them. After cleaning the data, our
final sample consisted of 130 responses, consisting of 67 responses (51.54%) from
males and 63 responses (48.46%) from females. The mean age of the respondents was
27.27 years.
Measures
The same measures were used to assess the variables as were used in Study 1. However,
contrary to Study 1, where individual unlearning was rated by supervisors, self-ratings
were used in Study 2.
Results
Manipulation check
Participants in high EL condition reported higher levels of perceived EL (M = 4.04; SD
= .74) than those in low EL condition (M = 2.74; SD = 1.09), F (1, 128) = 60.99, p< .001.
Thus, our intervention was effective.
Hypotheses testing
The t-test results revealed that participants in high EL condition reported higher levels of
unlearning (M = 3.67; SD = 1.14) than those in low EL condition (M = 2.83; SD = 1.43), t
(128) = 3.69, p< .001, Cohen’s d = .66. Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported.
Correlations, means, and standard deviations are presented in Table 4.Table 5 shows
results for indirect and conditional indirect effects. As presented in Table 5, the indirect
between relationship EL and individual unlearning via employee RBSE was found to be
significant (B = .16,SE = .06,CI = [.06,.28]). Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported. Further,
the interaction between EL and trait mindfulness was positively related to employee
Table 4. Means and correlations.
Construct Means SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Ethical leadership 3.35 1.14
2. Employee RBSE 3.13 1.31 .44**
3. Individual unlearning 3.22 1.37 .30** .38**
4. Trait Mindfulness 3.21 1.06 .06 .17* .15
5. Age 27.27 3.80 -.12 .01 .11 -.10
6. Gender -.17* .01 -.05 .21* .07
Note. N = 130. * p< .05. ** p< .01 level (2-tailed). RBSE = Employee role breadth self-efficacy. SD = Standard deviation.
Gender: 1 = male 2 = female.
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 11
RBSE (B = .25,SE = .09,CI = [.07,.44]). The interaction plotted using Johnson–Neyman tech-
nique is exhibited in Figure 3. Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. The index of moderated
mediation was also significant for the hypothesized indirect relationship between EL and
individual unlearning via employee RBSE (index = .08,SE = .04,CI = [.01,.18]). Thus, hypoth-
esis 4 was supported.
Table 5. Direct, indirect and moderation results.
BSE 95% CI
LLCI ULCI
Total effect
Ethical leadership →Individual unlearning .35 .10 .15 .55
Direct Paths
Ethical leadership →Individual unlearning .18 .10 -.02 .40
Ethical leadership →Employee RBSE .50 .09 .32 .68
Employee RBSE →Individual unlearning .33 .09 .14 .51
Indirect Paths
Ethical leadership →Employee RBSE →Individual unlearning .16 .06 .06 .28
Moderated Paths
Ethical leadership * Trait mindfulness →Employee RBSE .25 .09 .07 .44
Ethical leadership * Trait mindfulness →Employee RBSE →Individual unlearning .08 .04 .01 .18
Notes: N = 130, Bootstrap = 5000. B = Unstandardized coefficient, SE = Standard deviation. RBSE = Employee role breadth
self-efficacy.
Figure 3. Employee trait mindfulness as the moderator of the ethical leadership-RBSE link.
12 M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
General discussion
The goal of this research was to understand how and when EL impacts individual unlearn-
ing in service organizations. Utilizing SIP (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), we tested an important
underlying mechanism and a boundary condition on that relationship between EL and
individual unlearning in two studies. First, we tested our hypothesized model in Study
1 using a time-lagged, multi-source field study involving leader-follower dyads in
various organizations in China. We then replicated our findings in Study 2 using an exper-
imental study involving students enrolled in different postgraduate programs of a large
public sector university in Pakistan. The results provided support for the direct relation-
ship between EL and unlearning, as well as for the mediated model, highlighting the
importance of EL for RSBE and individual unlearning. We also found support for the mod-
erating impact of service employee trait mindfulness on the relationship between EL and
RSBE and the mediated relationship of EL with individual unlearning via RSBE. Our study
confirms that ethical leaders serve as important sources of cues and provide social infor-
mation signaling the importance of unlearning and encouraging followers to incorporate
these behaviors in their work.
Theoretical implications
The present work extends the following four important areas. First, our study contrib-
utes to the EL literature in the service context (Anser et al., 2021;Yeşiltaş& Tuna,
2018). By integrating SIP theory, we add novel insights into EL and its influence on
individual unlearning in service organizations. First of all, we highlight that ethical
leaders have a role to play in encouraging individual unlearning in the service
context. We thus contribute to the literature on EL in service contexts that highlights
its central role in encouraging followers’ethical values and extra efforts (Anser et al.,
2021;Yeşiltaş& Tuna, 2018). Second, we provide evidence for the role of RSBE as
an important mediator of the EL-individual unlearning. Past research has focused on
understanding the direct impact of EL on work outcomes and emphasized mediating
mechanisms that are implicit in definitions of EL such as trust, role-modeling behavior,
and social exchange (Anser et al., 2021;Yeşiltaş& Tuna, 2018). We extend the literature
on mechanisms by finding that RSBE is an important determinant of follower behavior
and that EL has a direct impact on this self-concept dimension. Thus, we also enhance
the limited literature on RBSE (Beltrán-Martín et al., 2017; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012;
Parker, 1998).
Third, we integrate a situational leadership lens into our model and examine the
impact of an important individual difference –service employee trait mindfulness –on
the link between EL and RSBE and the mediated model explaining the impact of EL on
individual unlearning. Due to individual factors, followers may have different levels of
attention to the cues and social information provided by ethical leaders. Our findings
explain that trait mindfulness enhances the effectiveness of EL for shaping employee
RBSE and facilitating unlearning behaviors. By doing so, we address the calls (e.g.
Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2019) for more studies on this construct and
contribute to the literature on mindfulness in the service context (Anasori et al., 2020;
Gip et al., 2022).
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 13
Finally, our study also contributes to the research on individual unlearning. Studies that
have engaged with understanding the antecedents of individual unlearning have primar-
ily focused on dimensions such as paradox mindset (Yin, 2021), informal support, training,
organizational support, individual expirations, and feelings (Becker, 2010), and critical
reflection (Matsuo, 2019). While these findings provide important insights there are to
date no studies that have engaged with the important role of leadership processes. As
a consequence, our knowledge concerning the role of leadership processes in this
context is scant. Overall, there has been limited research that focuses on individual
unlearning in comparison to organizational unlearning, a significant omission because
individual unlearning is the first step in the process of organizational unlearning (Wang
et al., 2019). Previous research has highlighted that individual unlearning is a prerequisite
for important organizational outcomes such as strategic flexibility, organizational learn-
ing, innovation, and potential to respond to dynamic external environments (Wang
et al., 2019; Akgün et al., 2007). The findings indicate that ethical leaders through the pro-
vision of cues and social information help followers mitigate the risks, fear, and worry that
accompany individual unlearning. Within organizational settings, followers are tuned into
leaders’behaviors as cues and references concerning how they should think and act.
Therefore, the more ethical leaders make these cues visible to employees, the more
likely they will be internalized in employees’self-concepts such as RBSE and manifest
in individual unlearning.
Practical implications
First, the results of our study give service organization leaders new perspectives on how
their ethical actions can motivate their followers to engage in unlearning. The results
show that EL is essential in motivating service workers to unlearn, which may have signifi-
cant benefits for service firms. Therefore, it is advised that service organizations make an
effort to help managers acquire EL behaviors. Several choices are available to do so. Top
management that exhibits EL behavior can shape middle-level, line managers’EL beha-
viors, and employees. In addition, top management can offer training programs focused
on EL (Ali et al., 2022). The training should include discussion on the importance of
ethical principles, values, and decision-making frameworks for employees, organizations,
and society at large. The training should focus on the role of leaders in promoting
ethical behaviors within the organization. Discussion on how leaders can model ethical
behavior, communicate expectations around ethical behavior, and develop a culture of
trust, transparency, integrity and other ethical values. The training programs should
cover the ethical standards, policies, and guidelines that apply to the organization and
its members. The training should provide tools and strategies for making decisions
based on ethical principles. Different scenarios and case studies requiring managers to
think critically about ethical dilemmas and identify the best course of action can be helpful.
Our findings also highlight that in addition to increasing the demonstration of EL in
organizations managers should also pay attention to the psychological processes such
as RBSE that underlie the impact of their EL behaviors on service employees. Our study
findings highlight that when leaders demonstrate EL behaviors, they can activate RBSE
in followers. This suggests that organizations should invest in training and development
programs that enhance the knowledge of managers of the importance of ethical values
14 M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
and their skills to communicate these values to employees. organizations can also
enhance employees’RBSE by enhancing their exposure by including them in decision-
making and listening to them and encouraging new ideas from them. Through such strat-
egies, organizations can enhance employees’knowledge and trust in their knowledge
and skills. A key tenet of SIP which we used in this study highlights the central idea
that leaders’cues and messages about organizational values and priorities enhance fol-
lower RBSE, which has important implications for individual unlearning. Our finding on
RBSE highlights that service employees internalize these cues and social information in
their self–concept, thereby leading to individual unlearning. Our findings related to the
trait mindfulness as a boundary condition carry significant managerial ramifications as
well. The findings suggest that during the recruitment and performance appraisal pro-
cesses, service firms should take into account individual differences such as trait mindful-
ness. When service organizations choose personnel that score high on the trait of
mindfulness, they could considerably benefit from EL behaviors.
Limitations and future research directions
Our study has important strengths that deserve mention. We tested our model in two
studies: an experimental study and a time-lagged, multi-source field study, we suggest
that future studies focus on longitudinal designs to establish causality. In study 1, we
generated our sample from service sector firms and therefore it is possible that our
findings do not generalize to manufacturing organizations. Future research should
test our hypotheses in different manufacturing organizations. We found that ethical
leaders facilitate RBSE, which leads to individual unlearning in other organizations
there may be weaker or stronger forces at play. Future research should investigate
the difference in organizational roles and cultures concerning ethical expectations. It
is also possible that the span of control of the manager is of important because this
may increase or decrease the frequency of interactions between the leaders and fol-
lowers on daily basis. This will impact the potential to discuss ethical issues and
values daily and will therefore influence the extent to which ethical values are
accentuated.
An additional element of caution in interpreting our findings is the context in which we
conducted this research (both studies) in collectivist cultures (China and Pakistan). In col-
lectivist cultures, for example, employees may be slower to engage in individual learning
and the impact of EL may be weaker in terms of its impact in high power distance cultures
because of the formality of interactions. Finally, although we established the impact of EL
on follower unlearning, the mediating role of RBSE, and the moderating role of trait mind-
fulness, future studies should examine these relationships across different contexts.
Understanding the role of other positive leadership styles, such as servant leadership
(Usman et al., 2022), responsible leadership (Rehman et al., 2023), and spiritual leadership
(Ali et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2023; Usman et al., 2021) can also offer valuable insights into
the role of positive leadership styles in individual unlearning. It is also possible that the
relationships between EL and individual unlearning can be explained by other mechan-
isms. For example, scholars should investigate the role of psychological safety and
other self-concepts to future understand the relationships investigated in this study. In
addition, scholars should investigate the mediating roles of organizational-level
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 15
phenomena such as communication processes and knowledge sharing, team climate, and
national cultural differences.
In conclusion, our paper used SIP theory to cast light on the role of EL in bringing about
individual unlearning by followers. We find that while there was a direct relationship
between EL and individual unlearning and RBSE played an important role as an explana-
tory mechanism in explaining this relationship. Trait mindfulness also plays an important
boundary condition role. Overall, our study opens up new avenues for future research in
this domain.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Muhammad Usman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7818-4546
References
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., & Keskin, H. (2007). Organizational intelligence: A structuration view. Journal
of Organizational Change Management,20(3), 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09534810710740137
Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Aksoy, Z., Samil Fidan, S., & Yigital, S. (2022). The mediating role of organ-
izational learning capability and resilience in the error management culture-service innovation
link and the contingent effect of error frequency. The Service Industries Journal,https://doi.org/
10.1080/02642069.2022.2062328
Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2012). Organizational emotional memory. Management Decision,
50(1), 95–114.
Ali, M., Qu, Y., Shafique, S., Pham, N. T., & Usman, M. (2022). The role of ethical leadership in enhan-
cing exploitative and explorative learning simultaneously: What does it matter if employees view
work as central? Personnel Review,51(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2019-0708
Ali, M., Usman, M., Pham, N. T., Agyemang-Mintah, P., & Akhtar, N. (2020). Being ignored at work:
Understanding how and when spiritual leadership curbs workplace ostracism in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management,91,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2020.102696
Allen, T. D., & Kiburz, K. M. (2012). Trait mindfulness and work–family balance among working
parents: The mediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior,80
(2), 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.002
Anasori, E., Bayighomog, S. W., & Tanova, C. (2020). Workplace bullying, psychological distress, resi-
lience, mindfulness, and emotional exhaustion. The Service Industries Journal,40(1-2), 65–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1589456
Anser, M. K., Ali, M., Usman, M., Rana, M. L. T., & Yousaf, Z. (2021). Ethical leadership and knowledge
hiding: an intervening and interactional analysis. The Service Industries Journal,41(5-6), 307–329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1739657
Axtell, C. M., & Parker, S. K. (2003). Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work
redesign and training. Human Relations,56(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0018726703056001452
Babalola, M. T., Stouten, J., Euwema, M. C., & Ovadje, F. (2018). The relation between ethical leader-
ship and workplace conflicts: The mediating role of employee resolution efficacy. Journal of
Management,44(5), 2037–2063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316638163
16 M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
Becker, K. (2010). Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new technology. Journal of
Organizational Change Management,23(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09534811011049590
Becker, K., Hyland, P., & Acutt, B. (2006). Considering unlearning in HRD practices: An Australian
study. Journal of European Industrial Training,30(8), 608–621.
Beltrán-Martín, I., Bou-Llusar, J. C., Roca-Puig, V., & Escrig-Tena, A. B. (2017). The relationship between
high performance work systems and employee proactive behaviour: Role breadth self-efficacy
and flexible role orientation as mediating mechanisms. Human Resource Management Journal,
27(3), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12145
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psycho-
logical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Brown, K. W., Weinstein, N., & Creswell, J. D. (2012). Trait mindfulness modulates neuroendocrine
and affective responses to social evaluative threat. Psychoneuroendocrinology,37(12), 2037–
2041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.04.003
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Cepeda-Carrion, G., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Jimenez-Jimenez, D. (2012a). The effect of absorptive
capacity on innovativeness: Context and information systems capability as catalysts. British
Journal of Management,23(1), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00725.x.
Cepeda-Carrion, G., Navarro, J. G. C., & Martinez-Caro, E. (2012b). Improving the absorptive capacity
through unlearning context: An empirical investigation in hospital-in-the-home units. The Service
Industries Journal,32(9), 1551–1570. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2010.545876
Christensen-Salem, A., Walumbwa, F. O., Babalola, M. T., Guo, L., & Misati, E. (2021). A multilevel
analysis of the relationship between ethical leadership and ostracism: The roles of relational
climate, employee mindfulness, and work unit structure. Journal of Business Ethics,171(3), 619–
638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04424-5
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance
employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of
Applied Psychology,97(1), 194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024903
Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2015). On ethical leadership impact: The role of follower
mindfulness and moral emotions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(2), 182–195.
Fowler, S. W., King, A. W., Marsh, S. J., & Victor, B. (2000). Beyond products: New strategic imperatives
for developing competencies in dynamic environments. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management,17(3–4), 357–377.
Gip, H., The Khoa, D., Guchait, P., Fernando Garcia, R. L., & Pasamehmetoglu, A. (2022). Employee
mindfulness and creativity: When emotions and national culture matter. The Service Industries
Journal,42(5-6), 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2037570
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., Baer, R. A., Brewer, J. A., &
Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work. Journal of Management,42(1), 114–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003
Hao, P., He, W., & Long, L. R. (2018). Why and when empowering leadership has different effects on
employee work performance: The pivotal roles of passion for work and role breadth self-efficacy.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,25(1), 85–100.
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leader-
ship explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of
Management,44(2), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire
(ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly,22
(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.007
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 17
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of
a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly,26(2), 254–269.
Lyu, C., Yang, J., Zhang, F., Teo, T. S., & Guo, W. (2020). Antecedents and consequence of organiz-
ational unlearning: Evidence from China. Industrial Marketing Management,84, 261–270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.07.013
Mason, K. J., & Leek, S. (2008). Learning to build a supply network: an exploration of dynamic
business models. Journal of Management Studies,45(4), 774–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-6486.2008.00769.x
Matsuo, M. (2018). Goal orientation, critical reflection, and unlearning: An individual-level study.
Human Resource Development Quarterly,29(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21303
Matsuo, M. (2019). The unlearning of managerial skills: A qualitative study of executive officers.
European Management Review,16(2), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12122
Matsuo, M. (2020). Managers’exploration activities and individual unlearning: The mediating role of
learning orientation and reflection. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,31
(5), 638–656.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Manapragada, A., Viswesvaran, C., & Allen, J. W. (2017). Trait mindfulness at
work: A meta-analysis of the personal and professional correlates of trait mindfulness. Human
Performance,30(2-3), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2017.1307842
Mody, M. (2023). Hospitality as the bridge: Advancing transformative service research towards
human flourishing. The Service Industries Journal,https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2023.
2197222
Montani, F., Courcy, F., Battistelli, A., & de Witte, H. (2021). Job insecurity and innovative work behav-
iour: A moderated mediation model of intrinsic motivation and trait mindfulness. Stress and
Health,37(4), 742–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3034
Ogbonnaya, C., Ali, M., Usman, M., Babalola, M. T., Ren, S., & Rofcanin, Y. (2022). Death anxiety among
street-level bureaucrats: How does it affect their work drive and performance? Public
Management Review,https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2161007
Ostrom, A. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patrício, L., & Voss, C. A. (2015). Service research priori-
ties in a rapidly changing context. Journal of Service Research,18(2), 127–159.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other
organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology,83(6), 835–852. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.83.6.835
Pavlov, A., & Bourne, M. (2011). Explaining the effects of performance measurement on perform-
ance: An organizational routines perspective. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management,31(1), 101–122.
Pham, N. T., Jabbour, C. J. C., Pereira, V., Usman, M., Ali, M., & Vo-Thanh, T. (2023). Common good
human resource management, ethical employee behaviors, and organizational citizenship beha-
viors toward the individual. Human Resource Management Journal,https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-
8583.12493
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing develop-
mental leadershipand supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology,79(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X36731
Rechberg, I., & Syed, J. (2013). Ethical issues in knowledge management: Conflict of knowledge own-
ership. Journal of Knowledge Management,17(6), 828–847. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2013-
0232
Rehman, Z. U., Shafique, I., Khawaja, K. F., Saeed, M., & Kalyar, M. N. (2023). Linking responsible lea-
dership with financial and environmental performance: Determining mediation and moderation.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,72(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJPPM-12-2020-0626
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design. Administrative Science Quarterly,23(2), 224–253.
Shafique, I., Kalyar, M. N., & Rani, T. (2020). Examining the impact of ethical leadership on safety and
task performance: A safety-critical context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,41(7),
909–926. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2019-0335
18 M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
Tsang, E. W., & Zahra, S. A. (2008). Organizational unlearning. Human Relations,61(10), 1435–1462.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708095710
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations.
Organization Science,20(6), 941–957. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0435
Tulucu, F., Anasori, E., & Kinali Madanoglu, G. (2022). How does mindfulness boost work engage-
ment and inhibit psychological distress among hospital employees during the COVID-19 pan-
demic? The mediating and moderating role of psychological resilience. The Service Industries
Journal,1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2021.2021182
Usman, M., Ahmad, M. I., & Burgoyne, J. (2019). Individual and organizational learning from inter-firm
knowledge sharing: A framework integrating inter-firm and intra-firm knowledge sharing and
learning. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
L’Administration,36(4), 484–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1517
Usman, M., Ali, M., Ogbonnaya, C., & Babalola, M. T. (2021). Fueling the intrapreneurial spirit: A closer
look at how spiritual leadership motivates employee intrapreneurial behaviors. Tourism
Management,83,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104227
Usman, M., Ali, M., Soetan, G. T., Ayoko, O. B., & Berber, A. (2022). Seeing others’side to serve: under-
standing how and when servant leadership impacts employee knowledge-hiding behaviors.
Human Relations,https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221125353
Usman, M., Hameed, A. A., & Manzoor, S. (2018). Exploring the links between ethical leadership and
organizational unlearning: A case study of a European multinational company. Business &
Economic Review,10(2), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.22547/BER/10.2.2
Van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Ethical
leadership and follower organizational deviance: The moderating role of follower moral atten-
tiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,26(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.005
Wang, X., Qi, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2019). Individual unlearning, organizational unlearning and strategic
flexibility: The down-up change perspective. Baltic Journal of Management,14(1), 2–18.
Yang, K. P., Chou, C., & Chiu, Y. J. (2014). How unlearning affects radical innovation: The dynamics of
social capital and slack resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,87, 152–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.014
Yeşiltaş, M., & Tuna, M. (2018). The effect of ethical leadership on service sabotage. The Service
Industries Journal,38(15-16), 1133–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1433164
Yin, J. (2021). Effects of the paradox mindset on work engagement: The mediating role of seeking
challenges and individual unlearning. Current Psychology, 2708–2718. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-021-01597-8
Zahra, S. A., Abdelgawad, S. G., & Tsang, E. W. (2011). Emerging multinationals venturing into devel-
oped economies: Implications for learning, unlearning, and entrepreneurial capability. Journal of
Management Inquiry,20(3), 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492611408266
Zhang, J., Deng, X., Huang, L., Zeng, H., Wang, L. (2019). Profile of trait mindfulness and its associ-
ation with emotional regulation for early adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences,
147,12–17.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research,37(2), 197–206. doi:10.1086/651257
Zhao, Y., & Wang, X. (2020). Organisational unlearning, relearning and strategic flexibility: From the
perspective of updating routines and knowledge. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,
32(11), 1251–1263.
Zheng, Y., Epitropaki, O., Graham, L., & Caveney, N. (2022). Ethical leadership and ethical voice: The
mediating mechanisms of value internalization and integrity identity. Journal of Management,48
(4), 973–1002.
Appendices
Appendix A. Materials for scenario experiment
Ethical leadership manipulation —high ethical leadership
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 19
Your leader lives his personal life in an ethical way. He is a reliable person and asks himself what is the
right thing to do before making decisions. Your leader also takes honest and balanced decisions in his
work. He listens to what employees have to say and keeps their interest in mind when deciding. At
work he discusses the importance of ethical norms and disciplines employees who violate ethical stan-
dards. He defines success not only in terms of results, but also in the way the results are obtained. All in
all, your leader sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics.
Ethical leadership manipulation —low ethical leadership
In his personal life, your leader does not care about living life in an ethical way. He is not really a reliable
person and rarely asks himself what is the right thing to do before making decisions. In his work, your
leader does not always take honest and balanced decisions either. He does not listen to what employees
have to say and does not keep their interest in mind when deciding. At work he never discusses the
importance of ethical norms and does not pay attention to whether employees behave in accordance
with the ethical standards. He defines success only in terms of results, and does not care about the
way results are obtained. All in all, your leader is not a good example of how to do things the right
way in terms of ethics.
Appendix B
Study 1 & 2 Measures
1. Ethical Leadership
1. My leader listens to what employees have to say.
2. My leader disciplines employees who violate ethical standards.
3. My leader conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner.
4. My leader has the best interests of employees in mind.
5. My leader makes fair and balanced decisions.
6. My leader can be trusted
7. My leader discusses business ethics or values with employees
8. My leader sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics.
9. My leaders defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained.
10. When making decisions, my leader asks ‘what is the right thing to do?’
2. Role Breadth Self-efficacy
I feel confident about …………
1. Analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution.
2. Representing your work area in meetings with senior management.
3. Designing new procedures for your work area.
4. Making suggestions to management about ways to improve the working of your section.
5. Contributing to discussions about the company’s strategy.
6. Writing a proposal to spend money in your work area.
7. Helping to set targets/goals in your work area.
8. Contacting people outside the company (e.g. suppliers, customers) to discuss problems
9. Presenting information to a group of colleagues.
10. Visiting people from other departments to suggest doing things, differently.
3. Trait Mindfulness (α= .86)
1. I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until sometime later.
2. I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of something
else.
3. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.
20 M. Y.-P. PENG ET AL.
4. I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience
along the way.
5. I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or discomfort until they really grab my
attention.
6. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time.
7. It seems I am ‘running on automatic’without much awareness of what I’m doing.
8. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.
9. I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I am doing right now
to get there.
10. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I’m doing.
11. I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same time.
12. I drive places on ‘automatic pilot’and then wonder why I went there.
13. I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.
14. I find myself doing things without paying attention.
15. I snack without being aware that I’m eating.
Individual Unlearning (Unlearning in Study was assessed using self-ratings and the items were
changed accordingly)
1. He/she has changed his/her beliefs about technological improvements.
2. He/she has got rid of old/obsolete work methods or procedures.
3. He/she has changed his/her beliefs about the external environment.
4. He/she has changed his/her beliefs about customer demand.
5. He/she has got rid of obsolete methods for gathering and sharing information.
6. He/she has changed his/her decision-making processes or methods.
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 21
