↓ Skip to main content

Chinese insurance agents in “bad barrels”: a multilevel analysis of the relationship between ethical leadership, ethical climate and business ethical sensitivity

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Chinese insurance agents in “bad barrels”: a multilevel analysis of the relationship between ethical leadership, ethical climate and business ethical sensitivity
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3764-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Na Zhang, Jian Zhang

Abstract

The moral hazards and poor public image of the insurance industry, arising from insurance agents' unethical behavior, affect both the normal operation of an insurance company and decrease applicants' confidence in the company. Contrarily, these scandals may demonstrate that the organizations were "bad barrels" in which insurance agents' unethical decisions were supported or encouraged by the organization's leadership or climate. The present study brings two organization-level factors (ethical leadership and ethical climate) together and explores the role of ethical climate on the relationship between the ethical leadership and business ethical sensitivity of Chinese insurance agents. Through the multilevel analysis of 502 insurance agents from 56 organizations, it is found that organizational ethical leadership is positively related to the organizational ethical climate; organizational ethical climate is positively related to business ethical sensitivity, and organizational ethical climate fully mediates the relationship between organizational ethical leadership and business ethical sensitivity. Organizational ethical climate plays a completely mediating role in the relationship between organizational ethical leadership and business ethical sensitivity. The integrated model of ethical leadership, ethical climate and business ethical sensitivity makes several contributions to ethics theory, research and management.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Professor 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 18 29%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 13%
Psychology 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,376,559
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#350,259
of 416,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#59
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,117 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.