Is ethical human resource management effective for ethical voice? Role of moral efficacy and moral task complexity

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the underlying mechanism as well as the boundary effect between employees' perceived ethical human resource management (HRM) and ethical voice based on social cognitive theory. The authors expect that employees who perceive ethical HRM could develop their moral reasoning and conduct through one of the cognitive processes (i.e. vicarious experience).

Design/methodology/approach

Based on structural equation modelling and hierarchical regression analysis, the authors conducted a questionnaire survey on 265 employees and their immediate supervisors from a manufacturing company in China.

Findings

Employees' perceived ethical HRM was positively related to ethical voice, and moral efficacy mediated this relationship. Moral task complexity not only moderated the relationship between employees' perceived ethical HRM and moral efficacy but also moderated the indirect effect of employees' perceived ethical HRM on ethical voice such that the impact was stronger when the moral task complexity level is higher and weaker when low.

Practical implications

This research model provides a framework through which organisations can diagnose potential ethical issues with the implementation of ethical HRM, as well as increase employee awareness of ethical values and then enhance their moral efficacy. Moreover, organisations can benefit from combining interventions and practices that influence the task design.

Originality/value

This study fills research gap by examining the mechanisms that shape employees' ethical voice from the perspective of HRM through moral efficacy and demonstrates that higher levels of moral task complexity contribute to higher levels of moral efficacy and ethical voice.

Citation

Chen, S., Liu, W., Zhang, G. and Tian, C. (2023), "Is ethical human resource management effective for ethical voice? Role of moral efficacy and moral task complexity", Employee Relations, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1216-1233. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2021-0220