Response to Reviewers

I would like to extend our sincere appreciation for your prompt response and the invaluable feedback offered by the reviewers. We recognize your dedicated commitment to the review process, and we are fully devoted to addressing all comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers to enhance the overall quality of our manuscript. We have diligently attended to the queries raised by the reviewers and updated the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations provided by both the Editor and the Reviewers. Notably, the changes made to the manuscript have been highlighted in green. Additionally, we have utilized green text to draw attention to specific points raised by reviewers, where the relevant details have already been incorporated into the manuscript. We express profound gratitude to the Editor and the Reviewers for affording us the opportunity and guidance to refine the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer # 1

Reviewer’s Comment

1. The introduction (Pages 6-7): I suggest writing the full terms before the abbreviations (e.g., Psychological Capital (PsyCap), Moral Identity (MID), and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)) to improve clarity and understanding especially in the first paragraph.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback, which has helped improve the clarity and understanding of our manuscript. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we have incorporated the full terms preceding the abbreviations in the introduction section. Subsequently, throughout the manuscript, we have employed the abbreviations as follows:

Page 3, Line 1: "Ethical Leadership (EL)"

Page 3, Line 16: "Pro-Social Rule-Breaking (PSRB)"

Page 4, Line 13: "Psychological Capital (PsyCap)"

Page 5, Line 3: "Moral Identity (MID)"

Page 5, Line 11: "Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)"

These revisions should enhance the reader's comprehension of the manuscript.

Reviewer’s Comment

2. Pro-Social Rule-Breaking Behaviour in Health Industries: Please provide a more detailed explanation of how employees in the health industry practice Pro-Social Rule-Breaking Behaviour. This will help readers better grasp the context and relevance of your study.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to provide a more comprehensive explanation of how employees in the health industry, specifically nursing staff, engage in PSRB. We have addressed this by including the rationale for selecting nursing staff as the study population in the Methods Section, under "Population and Sampling," which can be found on Page 13, Lines 1 – 3. This addition provides context and relevance for our study.

Reviewer’s Comment

3. Choice of Research Design: far away of the limitations you have mentioned, Clarify the rationale behind employing a time-lagged cross-sectional design with three data collection waves (T1, T2, and T3). Why do you use this strategy which could cause CMB rather than minimize it.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our research design and the raised concern about the potential common method bias (CMB) associated with our choice of a time-lagged cross-sectional design with three data collection waves (T1, T2, and T3). The rationale for this design is rooted in our aim to capture the temporal dynamics of the variables under investigation, including ethical leadership, pro-social rule-breaking, psychological capital, and moral identity. This approach aligns with recommendations by Podsakoff et al. (2012) and is supported by recent studies exploring similar topics (Dey et al., 2022; Hsieh et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2020; Park et al., 2023; Tang & Li, 2022; Wang & Shi, 2021).

We acknowledge that CMB is a potential concern in such designs. To address this, we have implemented procedural and statistical remedies, emphasizing participant confidentiality and anonymity. Additionally, unique keys/IDs were used instead of personal identifiers to minimize biases. Importantly, we collected data for different variables at distinct time points (T1, T2, and T3), strategically minimizing the likelihood of CMB by avoiding simultaneous measurement of all variables.

We hope these clarifications assure you of the validity and rigor of our study. We are grateful for your diligence in reviewing our research design and are open to further discussion or adjustments if needed.

Reviewer’s Comment

4. Data Collection Details: Provide more information about data collection from each hospital, including response rates for each, which is crucial for understanding the representativeness of your sample.

Authors’ Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion regarding the need for more detailed information about data collection from each hospital, including response rates for each. In response to this insightful feedback, we have included a comprehensive table, Hospital Wise Response Rate (Table 1), on Pages 15 - 16. This addition aims to provide a clearer understanding of the representativeness of our sample, and we trust that it enhances the overall robustness of our study.

Reviewer’s Comment

5. You mentioned conducting a Common Method Bias (CMB) test, please included the results in the paper for transparency and to support your research validity.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to include the results of the Common Method Bias (CMB) test in the paper for transparency and to support research validity. In response to this, we have now included the results of The Harman Single-Factor test in the Methods Section under Data Analysis on Page 20, Lines 8 - 11. We hope that this addition enhances the transparency and validity of our research.

Reviewer’s Comment

6. Factor Loadings (Items EL7, PC11, PC12) are below 0.70. Explain your reasoning for retaining these items in the analysis, as they could impact the reliability and validity of your results.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the factor loadings of items EL7, PC11, and PC12. We acknowledge your concern and appreciate the opportunity to clarify our rationale for retaining these items in the analysis.

While it's true that these specific items have factor loadings below the recommended threshold of 0.70, they still demonstrate acceptable loadings above 0.60. Importantly, other reliability and validity measures, including Chronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extract (AVE), support the overall robustness of our measurement model. All study constructs exhibit good internal consistency (α and CR > 0.708) and convergent validity (AVE > 0.50) (Becker et al., 2023; Hair et al., 2019).

We have included this information in the Results Section under the Measurement Model on Page 22, Lines 12 – 17, providing transparency and justification for our decision to retain these items. We believe that these findings collectively contribute to the reliability and validity of our results.

Your insights are invaluable, and we hope this clarification addresses your concerns. We remain open to further discussion and adjustments as needed.

Reviewer’s Comment

7. Include the results of Fornell-Larcker criteria in your paper.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of Fornell-Larcker criteria results in our paper to assess discriminant validity. We appreciate your guidance, and we have now incorporated the Fornell-Larcker criteria results into our manuscript as Table 7 in the Results Section under the Measurement Model on Page 25.

These additional results offer further evidence of the discriminant validity of our study constructs. We trust that this addition enhances the clarity and rigor of our paper. Your feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and we remain open to any further recommendations you may have.

Reviewer’s Comment

8. In page 23, you mentioned VIF values, but it appears you are referring to variables rather than indicators. Please include the VIF values for the indicators to clarify this point.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your astute observation and valuable feedback regarding our reference to VIF values for variables rather than indicators. We appreciate your diligence, and to address this concern, we have included the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values specifically for the indicators measuring the outer model in our manuscript. These values are now presented in Table 6 on Pages 22 - 24.

We believe that this addition clarifies the point you raised and contributes to the overall transparency and precision of our paper.

Reviewer’s Comment

9. F2 values is 0.038 which indicate to small effect size and not large effect size. Moreover, Q2 is 0.242 which is weak and not large. Ensure the interpretations accurately reflect the analysis outputs.

Authors’ Response

We sincerely appreciate your careful review and feedback on the interpretation of the F2 and Q2 values in our manuscript. Your observation regarding the size of the effect and the strength of predictive accuracy is valuable, and we have thoroughly reviewed and revised our interpretations to accurately reflect the analysis outputs.

The corrected interpretations can now be found in the Results Section under the Structural Model at Page 27, Lines 17 - 18, and Page 28, Lines 1 - 3. We have acknowledged that the F2 value of 0.038 indicates a small effect size, and the Q2 value of 0.242 is considered moderate rather than large.

Thank you for ensuring the precision and clarity of our analysis interpretations. Your diligence has contributed to the rigor of our study.

References

Becker, J. M., Cheah, J. H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 321-346.

Dey, M., Bhattacharjee, S., Mahmood, M., Uddin, M. A., & Biswas, S. R. (2022). Ethical leadership for better sustainable performance: Role of employee values, behavior and ethical climate. Journal of Cleaner Production, 337, 130527.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24.

Hsieh, H. H., Hsu, H. H., Kao, K. Y., & Wang, C. C. (2020). Ethical leadership and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: a moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and coworker ethical behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 799-812.

Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., Nielsen, I., & Herbert, K. (2020). Ethical leadership and unethical pro‐organisational behaviour: The mediating mechanism of reflective moral attentiveness. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 834-853.

Park, J. G., Zhu, W., Kwon, B., & Bang, H. (2023). Ethical leadership and follower unethical pro-organizational behavior: examining the dual influence mechanisms of affective and continuance commitments. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-31.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63, 539-569.

Tang, Y., & Li, Y. (2022). Ethicality neutralization and amplification: a multilevel study of ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(2), 111-124.

Wang, F., & Shi, W. (2021). Inclusive leadership and pro-social rule breaking: the role of psychological safety, leadership identification and leader-member exchange. Psychological Reports, 124(5), 2155-2179.

Reviewer #2

Reviewer’s Comment

Abstract

It might be beneficial to finish the abstract by discussing the larger significance of these results for organizational leadership and suggesting future research alternatives in this field. This would bring the narrative to a close and offer the reader with a clear takeaway message.

Authors’ Response

We express our gratitude for your insightful suggestion to enhance the conclusion of the abstract by discussing the broader significance of our results for organizational leadership and proposing future research directions in the field. Your input has been invaluable, and we have promptly incorporated this recommendation into our manuscript.

The revised abstract, now concluding with a discussion on the larger significance of our results and suggestions for future research, can be found on Page 2 from Lines 12 - 16. We trust that this addition brings a more comprehensive and conclusive perspective to our abstract, offering readers a clear takeaway message.

Thank you for your constructive feedback, which has undoubtedly strengthened the quality and relevance of our study.

Reviewer’s Comment

Introduction

In general, the introduction has useful information, but it might be improved by simplifying, giving precise terminology (e.g., PsyCap, MID), and specifying particular study aims or questions. This will provide the study with a more focused and ordered foundation.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate your thoughtful feedback on the introduction section of our manuscript. Your suggestion to simplify the introduction, provide precise terminology, and specify particular study aims or questions is well-received.

In response to your valuable input, we have revised the introduction, simplifying the language and incorporating precise terminology. We provided precise terminologies with full terms preceding the abbreviations appearing for the first time in the text at Page 3, Lines 1 and 16, Page 4, Line 13 and Page 5 Line 3 and 11. Additionally, we have specified the particular study aims and questions, making the foundation more focused and ordered on Pages 5 - 6.

We trust that these revisions contribute to the improved clarity and organization of our study, aligning with your recommendations. Thank you for guiding us in enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer’s Comment

Theory and Hypotheses Development

1. Rather than using the word "paradoxical relationship" without explanation, the text should explain why the observed positive association between ethical leadership and PSRB is regarded as paradoxical.

2. The statement "shedding light on the dynamic nature of ethical leadership" is a little ambiguous. A more specific explanation of how the findings contribute to our knowledge of ethical leadership dynamics would be helpful in this area.

3. It is critical to address any potential critiques or limitations connected with the selected theoretical framework when introducing it. This indicates a sophisticated comprehension of the theoretical perspective.

Authors’ Response

We want to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback on our manuscript, particularly regarding the Theory and Hypotheses Development section. Your insights have proven instrumental in refining our theoretical framework and enhancing the overall clarity of our research.

In response to your suggestions, we have provided a more comprehensive explanation of why the observed positive association between ethical leadership and pro-social rule-breaking behavior (PSRB) is considered paradoxical. This clarification is now integrated into the revised literature review, offering readers a deeper understanding of the theoretical underpinnings.

Furthermore, we have addressed the ambiguity in the statement about "shedding light on the dynamic nature of ethical leadership." The revised version now provides a specific explanation of how our findings contribute to advancing knowledge about the complex and multifaceted dynamics of ethical leadership.

Finally, we have taken your advice to heart and diligently addressed potential critiques and limitations associated with our chosen theoretical framework. This revised literature review reflects a more sophisticated grasp of the theoretical perspective, ensuring a more robust foundation for our research.

We genuinely believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and coherence of our manuscript. We are grateful for your thorough review and constructive comments, which have undoubtedly strengthened our work.

Methods

Population and Sampling

Reviewer’s Comment

1. Rationale for Sample Size: Explain why a higher sample size (500) was chosen, even

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Response to Reviewers

Journal Requirements

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Authors’ Response

We sincerely appreciate your prompt response and valuable guidance regarding the submission of our manuscript.

In alignment with your stipulations, we have diligently scrutinized our reference list to ensure its comprehensiveness and accuracy. Each citation in our manuscript has been meticulously examined to ascertain the absence of any references to retracted papers. Notably, our thorough review revealed no instances of such citations.

Nonetheless, we have made modifications to the revised reference list as detailed in the rebuttal letter. These changes were implemented either in response to Reviewer #3's comments on the revised literature review or to eliminate duplicate references. The updated reference list has been substituted at the end of the manuscript.

We are committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in our research, and we appreciate the opportunity to address this matter. Please find the revised manuscript and accompanying rebuttal letter attached for your review.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your feedback.

Reviewers' Comments

Reviewer # 3

Methodological Flaws:

The research design and methodology employed in the study lack clarity and robustness. The absence of a clear experimental design compromises the validity of the findings. Addressing these methodological flaws is crucial for the credibility of the research.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate your thoughtful review of our manuscript and the opportunity to address your concerns regarding the research design and methodology employed in our study.

We acknowledge that our study did not utilize a traditional experimental design. Instead, we opted for a cross-sectional survey approach, supplemented by a time-lagged data collection method (Aguinis et al., 2021). This approach allowed us to gather data from a diverse range of hospitals and nursing staff across multiple cities, thereby enhancing the generalizability of our findings within the healthcare industry of Pakistan.

We employed purposive sampling technique, a non-probability sampling method, for data collection due to the absence of a sampling frame (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Despite the inherent limitations, such as potential sampling bias, associated with this method, we implemented measures to address these concerns. Notably, our sampling strategy ensured representation from both public and private hospitals in capital and provincial cities, thus encapsulating a broad spectrum of perspectives within the healthcare sector. Additionally, the adoption of a time-lagged cross-sectional design facilitated data collection from a heterogeneous sample of hospitals and nursing staff, thereby minimizing potential sampling errors (Saunders et al., 2009). Moreover, through higher sample size (515), the study sought to achieve robust population representation, mitigate potential sampling errors, and augment statistical power for the detection of significant relationships among variables.

We also note that the use of a time-lagged design helped reduce the risk of common method bias, as data were collected at three distinct time points with intervals of six to eight weeks between each phase (Podsakoff et al., 2012). This approach enabled us to examine the stability of relationships over time and to establish the temporal precedence of variables, enhancing the robustness of our findings. To counteract any effects of social desirability bias, the data collection process was meticulously designed to incorporate essential precautions suggested by the management scholars (Larson, 2019).

Although our chosen methodology may differ from traditional experimental designs, we believe it was well-suited to address the complexities of our research questions and the practical realities of conducting research in the healthcare industry of Pakistan. This approach is also supported by a number of studies exploring similar topics (Dey et al., 2022; Hsieh et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2020; Park et al., 2023; Tang & Li, 2022; Wang & Shi, 2021).

Aguinis, H., Hill, N. S., & Bailey, J. R. (2021). Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 678-693.

Dey, M., Bhattacharjee, S., Mahmood, M., Uddin, M. A., & Biswas, S. R. (2022). Ethical leadership for better sustainable performance: Role of employee values, behavior and ethical climate. Journal of Cleaner Production, 337, 130527.

Hsieh, H. H., Hsu, H. H., Kao, K. Y., & Wang, C. C. (2020). Ethical leadership and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: a moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and coworker ethical behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 799-812.

Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534-547.

Park, J. G., Zhu, W., Kwon, B., & Bang, H. (2023). Ethical leadership and follower unethical pro-organizational behavior: examining the dual influence mechanisms of affective and continuance commitments. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-31.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63, 539-569.

Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., Nielsen, I., & Herbert, K. (2020). Ethical leadership and unethical pro‐organisational behaviour: The mediating mechanism of reflective moral attentiveness. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 834-853.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson education.

Sekaran, Uma, and Roger Bougie. Research methods for business: A skill building approach. john wiley & sons, 2016.

Tang, Y., & Li, Y. (2022). Ethicality neutralization and amplification: a multilevel study of ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(2), 111-124.

Wang, F., & Shi, W. (2021). Inclusive leadership and pro-social rule breaking: the role of psychological safety, leadership identification and leader-member exchange. Psychological Reports, 124(5), 2155-2179.

Inadequate Literature Review:

The literature review is insufficient in providing a comprehensive understanding of the existing research in the field. A more thorough review of relevant literature is needed to place the current study in context and demonstrate its contribution to the field.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comments, we have revised the literature review section to ensure a more comprehensive coverage of relevant literature in the field. We have incorporated additional studies to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape and the context of our study. We are confident that these revisions strengthen the manuscript and effectively demonstrate the significance and contribution of our research to the existing body of knowledge. The literature review has been revised to incorporate additional studies and the study context highlighted in green for easy reference.

Data Analysis and Interpretation Issues

The data analysis and interpretation in the manuscript are not sufficiently rigorous. The statistical methods employed are not well justified, and the interpretation of results lacks depth. A more robust statistical analysis and a careful interpretation of findings are essential for the paper to be considered for publication.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript and for highlighting the importance of rigor in data analysis and interpretation. We have carefully reviewed your comments and have already taken them into consideration in our manuscript.

Regarding the statistical methods employed in our study, we utilized both SPSS and PLS-SEM with Smart PLS 4 software for data analysis. SPSS was utilized for data entry, coding, and initial descriptive analysis, while PLS-SEM was employed to establish the measurement and structural models and test the proposed hypotheses. We selected these methods based on their suitability for handling the complexity of our research questions and dataset as suggested by the management scholars (Becker et al., 2023; Hair et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2023).

To address concerns about the adequacy of our statistical analysis, we conducted various tests to evaluate the reliability, validity, and predictive relevance of our measurement and structural models. These tests included assessments of internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, collinearity, coefficient of determination (R2), effect size (F2), predictive relevance (Q2), and statistical significance of path coefficients in the light of recommendations in the SEM PLS literature (Hair et al., 2019; Legate et al., 2023; Ringle et al., 2020).

We acknowledge the importance of providing a thorough interpretation of our findings. In our manuscript, we presented detailed explanations of the results, including the significance and implications of each hypothesis test. We discussed the direction and magnitude of relationships in our analysis (Becker et al., 2023; Hair et al., 2019; Ringle et al., 2020). Moreover, we also deliberated upon the practical implications of our findings for theory and practice in the field (Please refer to the Discussion Section, Theoretical Contributions and Managerial Implications of the manuscript).

We appreciate your valuable feedback and are committed to addressing your concerns to improve the quality and rigor of our manuscript.

Becker, J. M., Cheah, J. H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 321-346.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24.

Legate, A. E., Hair Jr, J. F., Chretien, J. L., & Risher, J. J. (2023). PLS‐SEM: Prediction‐oriented solutions for HRD researchers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 34(1), 91-109.

Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., & Gudergan, S. P. (2020). Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(12), 1617-1643.

Sharma, P. N., Liengaard, B. D., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2023). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: A comment on “Recent Developments in PLS”. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 52(1), 739-742.

Weak Contribution to the Field:

The manuscript does not sufficiently contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field. The novelty and significance of the findings are not well established, and the paper fails to make a meaningful impact on the current understanding of [topic]. Authors’ Response

Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and clarify the significance and novelty of our research in the field of ethical leadership (EL).

Our study aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by addressing several research gaps identified in the literature. Firstly, while previous research has extensively explored the influence of various leadership styles on employees' behaviors, there is a notable gap in understanding how EL specifically affects PSRB in organizations. By investigating this relationship, particularly in non-Western cultural contexts, our study expands our understanding of EL's effects and its implications for diverse organizations.

Secondly, we delve into the explanatory mechanism of employees' psychological capital (PsyCap) in the EL-PSRB relationship. Despite the recognition of PsyCap as a pivotal psychological resource, its role as a mediator in this context remains largely unexplored. Our study aims to fill this gap by offering insights into how EL influences employees' psychological and cognitive processes, thereby affecting their engagement in PSRB.

Furthermore, we explore the moderating role of employees' moral identity (MID) in the connection between EL and PsyCap. This investigation sheds light on the boundary conditions of EL's effectiveness, providing a more comprehensive understanding of how leadership influences employees within organizations.

Lastly, our study evaluates the applicability of social cognitive theory (SCT) in understanding workplace behaviors, particularly in the context of EL. By applying SCT to examine the intricate connection between EL and PSRB, we contribute to a deeper understanding of the cognitive and contextual factors that shape employee conduct in organizations.

Overall, our research fills significant gaps in the literature by examining the influence of EL on PSRB, elucidating the mediating mechanism of PsyCap and moderating mechanism of MID, and applying a theoretical framework of SCT to enhance our understanding of workplace behaviors. We believe that these contributions are meaningful and offer valuable insights for scholars and practitioners in the field of management and organizational behavior.

Writing Quality:

The overall writing quality of the manuscript needs improvement. There are numerous grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistencies throughout the text. A thorough revision of language and style is necessary to enhance the readability of the manuscript.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your feedback on the manuscript. We appreciate your thorough review and recognize the importance of enhancing the writing quality to improve the readability of the paper.

We acknowledge the need for a thorough revision of language and style to address grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistencies in the text. To ensure clarity and coherence, we undertook the following steps shown in green throughout the manuscript:

Comprehensive Editing: We conducted a detailed review of the manuscript to identify and correct grammatical errors, including punctuation, tense consistency, and sentence structure.

Clarity and Consistency: We paid particular attention to ensure that the language used is clear and concise, eliminating any ambiguities or confusing phrases. Additionally, we ensured consistency in terminology and writing style throughout the manuscript.

Flow and Cohesion: We reviewed the organization of the text to enhance the flow of ideas and improve the overall coherence of the manuscript. This involved restructuring paragraphs, as necessary, to ensure logical progression and coherence between sections.

Proofreading: Finally, we conducted a thorough proofreading of the revised manuscript to catch any remaining errors and ensure that the text meets the journal's standards for language and style.

We are committed to addressing these concerns promptly to enhance the quality and readability of the manuscript. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to improve the manuscript, and we look forward to submitting the revised version for your review.

Reviewer #5:

I am happy that authors have made significant revisions and therefore I am accepting this version. Thank you

Authors’ Response

We are grateful for recognizing the substantial revisions made to the manuscript. We appreciate the acceptance of this version. Your positive feedback encourages us and validates our commitment to enhancing the quality of our work. Thank you for your time and consideration throughout the review process.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer # 3

Reviewer’s Comment

The hypotheses proposed in the study lack clarity and specificity. It is challenging to discern the precise relationships between ethical leadership, employees' psychological capital, moral identity, and pro-social rule-breaking behavior. Without clear hypotheses, the study's theoretical framework and research objectives remain ambiguous.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the proposed hypotheses of our study. We would like to clarify that our hypotheses have been formulated in line with recent literature in management sciences (Ahmed & Khan, 2023; Hsieh et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2020; Park et al., 2023; Tang & Li, 2022). In response to your comments, we have further revised the literature review section to enhance the clarity and specificity of our hypotheses. These revisions, highlighted in green, can be found on pages 6 to 13. We believe these changes address the concerns raised and significantly improve the quality and coherence of our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to enhance our work.

Reviewer’s Comment

The introduction needs to be focused on relevant literature, currently, it seems verbose and difficult to follow.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your insightful feedback on the Introduction of our manuscript. We understand the importance of a concise and focused introduction. In our previous revisions, we expanded the introduction to address other reviewers’ comments regarding the research gaps related to ethical leadership (EL), employees’ pro-social rule-breaking behavior (PSRB), the mediating role of psychological capital (PsyCap), and the moderating role of moral identity (MID). This expansion was necessary to ensure clarity and specificity in response to those comments.

However, in light of your feedback, we have further refined our introduction to enhance its focus on relevant literature and improve readability. The revised introduction is now more concise, clearly contextualizing our study. The changes have been made on Pages 2-3 and are highlighted in green. Thank you for your understanding and consideration.

Reviewer’s Comment

The sampling has to be explained and justified in a manner that could be replicated in other places and defined well.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful consideration of our sampling methodology and its potential for replication in varied contexts. Our study employed a purposive sampling strategy to select registered nursing staff from a diverse array of public and private hospitals across major cities in Pakistan. This methodological choice was necessitated by the absence of a comprehensive sampling frame covering all healthcare institutions nationwide, a common challenge in studies conducted within complex organizational environments such as healthcare.

The decision to include 515 participants was guided by established guidelines for structural equation modeling (SEM) studies, ensuring robust statistical power to detect significant relationships among variables. This sample size aligns with recommended practices in the methodological literature pertaining to SEM research (Comrey & Lee, 2013; Jobst et al., 2023; Lakens, 2022; Memon et al., 2020).

Furthermore, our data collection procedures were meticulously designed to mitigate potential biases. We employed a time-lagged cross-sectional research design spanning three distinct phases, each separated by eight-week intervals. This approach not only minimized common method biases but also facilitated the examination of temporal relationships among EL, PsyCap, MID and PSRB (Aguinis et al., 2021; Haider et al., 2019; Podsakoff et al., 2024).

Our engagement with hospital management was formalized through university authorization letters, securing official approval and logistical support from administrative authorities. This approach ensured compliance with ethical standards and institutional guidelines governing research involving human participants.

Overall, the sampling methodology detailed extensively on Pages 14-16 shown in green was crafted with careful consideration of practical constraints and methodological rigor. We believe these details elucidate the rationale behind our approach and underscore its potential for replication in diverse healthcare settings (Aguinis et al., 2023; Podsakoff et al., 2024). We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful feedback, which has prompted us to clarify these methodological strengths.

Reviewer’s Comment

The study's theoretical contribution is unclear. While the interplay between ethical leadership, psychological capital, moral identity, and pro-social rule-breaking behavior is an interesting topic, the study fails to provide novel insights or advance existing theoretical frameworks. Theoretical implications should be clearly articulated and supported by the empirical findings.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate your comments on the theoretical contributions of our study. It is highlighted that the theoretical contributions of our study have been clearly articulated throughout the manuscript. In the Introduction highlighted in green color (Pages 4-5), we delineated four key research objectives that address significant gaps in understanding the interplay between EL, PsyCap, MID, and PSRB. These objectives collectively enrich existing theoretical frameworks by exploring EL's influence in non-Western contexts, elucidating PsyCap as a mediator, and highlighting MID as a moderator in the EL-PsyCap relationship.

In the Discussion highlighted in green color (Pages 33-36) and Theoretical Contributions highlighted in green color (Pages 36-38), we substantiated these theoretical implications with empirical findings. Notably, our study revealed an unexpected positive association between EL and PSRB in the healthcare context, challenging traditional assumptions and underscoring the contextual nuances influencing leadership effects. Moreover, by demonstrating PsyCap's mediating role and MID's moderating influence, we extend Social Cognitive Theory's (SCT) applicability, offering insights into how individual differences shape leadership outcomes.

These findings collectively contribute to a nuanced understanding of leadership dynamics, emphasizing the role of cognitive processes, individual differences, and organizational contexts in shaping workplace behaviors. We appreciate the reviewer's feedback, which has prompted us to underscore these theoretical contributions more explicitly.

Reviewer’s Comment:

The methodological approach employed in the study raises concerns about its validity and reliability. The use of self-report measures for variables such as ethical leadership, psychological capital, moral identity, and pro-social rule-breaking behavior may introduce common method bias and social desirability bias, thereby compromising the validity of the results. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw causal inferences and establish temporal precedence.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the validity and reliability of the methodological approach employed in our study. We appreciate your concerns and have taken the opportunity to address them comprehensively.

We understand your concerns regarding the use of self-report measures for variables such as EL, PsyCap, MID, and PSRB. We would like to provide a detailed explanation of our rationale for using these measures and the steps we took to mitigate potential biases.

The constructs under investigation—EL, PsyCap, MID, and PSRB—are inherently subjective and best captured through employees' perceptions. Self-report measures are widely accepted in organizational research for assessing personal attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, as noted by Kobe et al. (2001). For instance, ethical leadership pertains to how employees perceive their leaders' ethical conduct, which can only be accurately reported by the employees themselves. The use of self-report measures for these constructs is grounded in established research practices, with recent studies in the field successfully employing similar instruments (Ahmed & Khan, 2023; Hsieh et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2020; Park et al., 2023; Tang & Li, 2022).

To address concerns about common method bias, we implemented a time-lagged cross-sectional design, collecting data in three distinct phases over an eight-week period (Haider et al., 2019). This approach reduces the likelihood of common method variance, consistent with the recommendations by Podsakoff et al. (2024). Additionally, to counteract social desirability bias, we ensured strict confidentiality and anonymity of responses. Participants were assured that their inputs would remain confidential, and no identifying information was collected, fostering an environment where employees felt safe to provide honest and accurate responses, as highlighted by Larson (2019).

The measurement scales used in our study were validated through reliability analysis (Becker et al., 2023; Hair et al., 2019). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the scales ranged from 0.915 to 0.937, indicating high internal consistency reliability. This rigorous validation process helps to ensure that the self-report measures accurately capture the constructs of interest. While we acknowledge the limitations of a cross-sectional design in establishing causality, our time-lagged approach allows for inferences regarding temporal relationships among the variables (Podsakoff et al., 2024). This design provides valuable insights into the dynamics of ethical leadership, psychological capital, moral identity, and pro-social rule-breaking behavior over time within the healthcare context.

Our sample size of 515 participants, determined based on statistical guidelines and prior research, enhances the robustness and generalizability of our findings. This large sample size bolsters the statistical power of our study and reinforces the validity of our conclusions (Comrey & Lee, 2013; Jobst et al., 2023; Lakens, 2022; Memon et al., 2020). Therefore, we believe that our methodological choices, including the use of self-report measures, were carefully designed to ensure the validity and reliability of our findings (Aguinis et al., 2023). The steps taken to mitigate potential biases and the robust sample size strengthen the credibility of our study.

We thank the reviewer for prompting us to clarify these aspects further.

Reviewer’s Comment

The discussion of findings is superficial and fails to critically engage with the results. The authors merely summarize the findings without offering meaningful interpretations or insights. A thorough discussion of the implications of the results for theory, research, and practice is essential for demonstrating the study's significance.

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and have carefully revisited our Discussion Section shown in green color (Pages 33 – 36), Theoretical Contributions (Pages 36 – 38), and Managerial Implications (Pages 38 – 39) to address this concern. In these revised sections, we have focused on providing deeper insights and interpretations of our findings, particularly in relation to their theoretical and practical implications. We have critically examined the unexpected positive association between EL and PSRB in the healthcare context, challenging conventional wisdom and highlighting contextual factors influencing leadership dynamics. Furthermore, we have elucidated how PsyCap mediates this relationship, shedding light on the underlying mechanisms through which EL influences employee behaviors.

The Theoretical Contributions section shown in green color (Pages 36 – 38,) now underscores the study's contributions to existing theory, emphasizing the expansion of SCT by integrating contextual factors and individual differences. We discuss how these findings enrich our understanding of leadership effects in non-Western settings, providing nuanced insights that contribute to broader theoretical frameworks in organizational behavior.

Additionally, the Managerial Implications section shown in green color (Pages 38 – 39) has been enhanced to outline practical recommendations based on our findings. We emphasize the importance of fostering ethical leadership practices in healthcare organizations, considering the implications for organizational culture and employee well-being. These insights are intended to guide leaders and practitioners in implementing effective leadership strategies that promote ethical behavior and enhance organizational effectiveness.

Overall, we believe these revisions strengthen our discussion by offering a comprehensive analysis of the implications of our results for theory, research, and practice. We thank the reviewer for prompting us to enrich these sections with deeper critical engagement and meaningful interpretations.

References

Aguinis, H., Bergh, D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2023). Methodological challenges and insights for future international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 54(2), 219-232.

Aguinis, H., Hill, N.S. and Bailey, J.R., 2021. Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), pp.678-693.

Ahmed, M., & Khan, M. I. (2023). Beyond the universal perception: Unveiling the paradoxical impact of ethical leadership on employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior. Heliyon, 9(11).

Becker, J. M., Cheah, J. H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 321-346.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology press.

Haider, S., de Pablos Heredero, C. and Ahmed, M., 2019. A three-wave time-lagged study of mediation between positive feedback and organizational citizenship behavior: the role of organization-based self-esteem. Psychology research and behavior management, pp.241-253.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24.

Hsieh, H. H., Hsu, H. H., Kao, K. Y., & Wang, C. C. (2020). Ethical leadership and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: a moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and coworker ethical behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 799-812.

Jobst, L. J., Bader, M., & Moshagen, M. (2023). A tutorial on assessing statistical power and determining sample size for structural equation models. Psychological Methods, 28(1), 207.

Kobe, L. M., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Rickers, J. D. (2001). Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. Current Psychology, 20, 154-163.

Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 33267.

Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534-547.

Memon, M. A., Ting, H., Cheah, J. H., Thurasamy, R., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H. (2020). Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2), 1-20.

Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., Nielsen, I., & Herbert, K. (2020). Ethical leadership and unethical pro‐organisational behaviour: The mediating mechanism of reflective moral attentiveness. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 834-853.

Park, J. G., Zhu, W., Kwon, B., & Bang, H. (2023). Ethical leadership and follower unethical pro-organizational behavior: examining the dual influence mechanisms of affective and continuance commitments. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(22), 4313-4343.

Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024). Common method bias: it's bad, it's complex, it's widespread, and it's not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11, 17-61.

Tang, Y., & Li, Y. (2022). Ethicality neutralization and amplification: a multilevel study of ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(2), 111-124.

Re

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx