Ethical leadership as catalyst: prosocial motivation and academic citizenship in Indonesia Islamic universities Open Access

Academic success in higher education has traditionally been measured using cognitive metrics, such as GPA, standardized test scores, and research productivity. However, as global demands shift towards greater collaboration, ethical conduct, and social responsibility, these traditional indicators alone are insufficient for defining true student success. In this evolving landscape, Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB)—the proactive engagement and prosocial behavior that students demonstrate within their academic communities—has emerged as a critical factor influencing long-term academic and professional outcomes. ACB includes behaviors such as helping peers, mentoring, contributing to group projects, and upholding academic integrity, all of which enhance the institution’s reputation and foster a collaborative academic culture (Islam, Permzadian, Choudhury, Johnston, & Anderson, 2018). The active participation in academic communities not only improves individual academic outcomes but also enhances students’ overall well-being, engagement, and employability (Sadiq, Munawar, & Munir, 2024; Saragih, Kurnianingrum, Fakhri, & Luturlean, 2024). Furthermore, engaging in ACB is associated with the development of cultural capital, a key asset in the competitive global job market (Chacón, Cavieres-Fernández, & Campos, 2018). Despite its importance, however, research into the drivers of ACB remains limited, particularly in the context of higher education environments that are rapidly transitioning toward digital learning spaces (Khalid, Jusoff, Othman, Ismail, & Rahman, 2010).

One key factor that has been shown to foster ACB is ethical leadership within academic institutions. Ethical leadership refers to the demonstration of fairness, integrity, and responsibility by those in positions of authority—specifically, lecturers in the academic environment (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005). Ethical leaders serve as role models for their students, influencing both their academic behaviors and personal development. According to Social Exchange Theory, when students perceive ethical conduct from their lecturers, they are likely to reciprocate through prosocial actions that benefit their academic community (Blau, 1964). This reciprocal relationship cultivates a cycle of cooperation, shared responsibility, and accountability, essential for the sustained development of an ethical and productive academic environment (Beatson et al., 2022).

In this context, prosocial motivation—the intrinsic desire to benefit others—plays a significant role in driving students to engage in ACB. Prosocially motivated students are not only more likely to help their peers, but they also tend to be more engaged in academic activities that contribute to the collective good of the academic community, such as volunteering, mentoring, and adhering to ethical standards (Batson, Ahmad, Powell, & Stocks, 2008; Grant, 2008). By internalizing ethical values promoted by their lecturers, students develop a stronger sense of moral responsibility and a deeper commitment to their academic and social roles (Schwartz, 1977).

Given the increasing emphasis on collaboration, ethics, and social responsibility in both academic and professional settings, this study seeks to explore the interplay between ethical leadership, prosocial motivation, and Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB) in higher education. Unlike traditional studies that focus primarily on cognitive measures of success, this research shifts the focus to non-cognitive factors—particularly ethical leadership and prosocial motivation—that contribute significantly to students’ success, engagement, and long-term impact. The implications of this research are particularly important as universities aim to cultivate graduates who are not only academically competent but also socially responsible and ethically grounded (Arain, Sheikh, Hameed, & Asadullah, 2017). By fostering ethical leadership and prosocial motivation within the academic community, universities can shape future leaders who are prepared to succeed in collaborative and ethically demanding professional environments (Blaich, Kenny, & Jimenez, 2023).

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Social Exchange Theory (SET) together provide the theoretical foundation for this study. SDT explains how the satisfaction of students’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness fosters the internalization of values and intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2018). In parallel, SET highlights the principle of reciprocity in social interactions, suggesting that when lecturers demonstrate honesty, fairness, and integrity, students reciprocate through constructive behaviors that benefit the academic community (Blau, 1964; Kumar & Shailaja, 2024). Taken together, these frameworks illuminate how both individual psychological needs and relational exchanges sustain academic engagement.

Beyond the organizational psychology foundations of Self-Determination Theory and Social Exchange Theory, leadership education scholarship emphasizes the pedagogical processes through which leadership competencies are cultivated in higher education (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & Mckee, 2014; Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018). Frameworks such as transformational learning (Mezirow, 1997) highlight how leadership is not only a set of behaviors but also a developmental process shaped by intentional curricula, mentoring, and reflective practice. Within this pedagogical framing, Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB) can be understood as both a marker and outcome of leadership learning that emphasize the integration of ethical reasoning, civic engagement, and collaborative practice into leadership curricula. Importantly, situating this study in the non-Western, Islamic context of Indonesian higher education adds cultural depth. Islamic leadership principles such as amanah (trust), adl (justice), and shura (consultation) resonate with ethical leadership constructs (Ahmad & Ogunsola, 2011; Beekun & Badawi, 1999) and provide a distinctive pedagogical basis for fostering ACB. Thus, this research contributes to both leadership education and cross-cultural leadership learning by linking mainstream theories with Islamic educational values.

Ethical leadership, defined as the demonstration of fairness, integrity, and responsibility by academic leaders (Brown et al., 2005), is a critical factor in shaping students’ engagement. Within the SDT framework, ethical leadership fulfills students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, thereby encouraging intrinsic motivation. Through the lens of SET, ethical leadership also functions as a valuable social resource: when students observe fairness and moral conduct in their lecturers, they reciprocate by engaging in behaviors that contribute to the collective academic environment (Kamal, Samdani, & Yameen, 2018).

Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB) extends the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) into the educational context, capturing students’ voluntary contributions to their academic community (Islam et al., 2018). Such behaviors include mentoring peers, participating in academic committees, maintaining academic integrity, and supporting institutional goals. ACB is significant because it enhances student engagement, contributes to employability, and strengthens the academic reputation of institutions (Chacón et al., 2018; Sadiq et al., 2024). From both SDT and SET perspectives, ACB is best understood as the result of internalized motivation and reciprocal exchanges within the academic community.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), originally developed in workplace contexts, refers to discretionary behaviors that go beyond formal requirements and contribute to organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). In educational settings, this construct translates into Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB), which captures similar voluntary contributions but within the academic community. Just as OCB improves organizational functioning by fostering cooperation, ACB enhances educational outcomes by promoting peer mentoring, group collaboration, and the maintenance of academic integrity (Islam et al., 2018). Importantly, prosocial behaviors in educational contexts—such as helping classmates understand complex material, supporting group projects, volunteering in campus activities, and modeling honesty during assessments—are critical not only for individual student success but also for cultivating an ethical and collaborative academic climate. By situating ACB as the educational counterpart of OCB, this study highlights how ethical leadership and prosocial motivation can together nurture a culture of responsibility and mutual support that strengthens both student engagement and institutional reputation.

Prosocial motivation, defined as the intrinsic desire to benefit others (Batson et al., 2008; Grant, 2008), plays a vital role in sustaining collaborative and ethical academic cultures. Informed by SDT, prosocial motivation reflects the internalization of moral values promoted by lecturers, enabling students to act in ways aligned with their sense of purpose and competence. From the perspective of SET, prosocial actions also represent reciprocal gestures within academic relationships, where students return fairness and support through voluntary engagement (Yamao, 2024). This dual perspective highlights how prosocial motivation operates as both a personal value and a social exchange mechanism.

Taken together, SDT and SET provide complementary insights into the interaction of ethical leadership, prosocial motivation, and ACB. Ethical leadership establishes an environment of fairness and moral integrity, prosocial motivation activates students’ drive to contribute, and ACB manifests as the practical expression of these values in academic communities. This integrative view underscores that environments which both nurture individual autonomy and uphold reciprocal ethical exchanges are most effective in fostering sustained academic engagement. Ultimately, these dynamics suggest that ethical leadership and prosocial motivation are crucial for preparing students not only for academic success but also for socially responsible participation in broader professional and societal contexts.

Based on the theoretical foundations and conceptual linkages discussed above, this study proposes three hypotheses regarding the relationships between ethical leadership, prosocial motivation, and academic citizenship behavior.

This study employs a quantitative research design to examine the impact of ethical leadership on Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB), with prosocial motivation as a moderating variable. The research aims to provide empirical insights into the factors influencing students’ engagement within academic communities and how ethical leadership can shape this engagement. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire distributed via Google Forms between February and May 2023, yielding 190 responses. Ethical approval was secured from the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Islam Negeri K.H. Abdurrahman Wahid Pekalongan, Indonesia (Approval No: B.20/Un.27/F.IV/TL.00/05/2023; Date: May 5, 2023). All participants provided informed consent after being advised of voluntary participation and data confidentiality. The sample size (N = 190) exceeds the threshold of 100 responses recommended for robust partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis (Nitzl, 2018).

The final sample consisted of 190 undergraduate students enrolled in the Faculty of Economics and Islamic Business (FEIB) at UIN K.H. Abdurrahman Wahid Pekalongan. Among the participants, 78.8% were female and 21.2% were male, with the majority (76.7%) aged 17–20 years. Students were drawn from the 3rd, 5th, and 7th semesters, as these cohorts were expected to have had sufficient interaction with lecturers to evaluate ethical leadership. To capture additional descriptive insights, we also asked participants to self-identify their personality type as either “introvert” or “extrovert” through a single-item categorical question. This measure, though simplified, was included because personality differences have been shown to influence prosocial and citizenship behaviors (Aftab, Rashid, & Ali Shah, 2018; Cain, 2012; Ohana, Stinglhamber, & Caesens, 2023). The majority of respondents identified as introverts (76.2%), which may partially explain why prosocial motivation did not significantly strengthen the effect of ethical leadership on ACB. While the sample was limited to a single faculty and may not be fully representative of the university as a whole, it reflects the composition of FEIB, which was selected as the focal site due to its large, engaged, and diverse student body.

The primary data collection for this study was conducted through an online survey distributed via Google Forms between August 30 and October 25, 2023. The survey consisted of three main sections, each designed to measure specific constructs relevant to the research.

The first section, Lecturer Ethical Leadership, included 7 items that focused on assessing students’ perceptions of their lecturers’ ethical behaviors. These items covered aspects such as fairness, transparency, and supportiveness. The items were adapted from the work of Brown et al. (2005) and aligned with established constructs of ethical leadership to capture the behavioral and moral qualities exhibited by lecturers.

In this study, ethical leadership was operationalized as students’ perceptions of their lecturers’ fairness, integrity, transparency, and moral guidance. This operationalization extends beyond mere behavioral ethics to encompass pedagogical leadership qualities central to leadership education. Lecturers who model ethical conduct not only serve as moral exemplars but also facilitate students’ development of ethical reasoning and civic responsibility through classroom interaction and mentorship. This conceptualization is consistent with leadership education frameworks that view ethical leadership as both a relational and instructional process, wherein educators demonstrate and transmit moral values through reflective dialog, decision-making transparency, and fairness in evaluation (Day et al., 2014; Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018). By situating the measurement of ethical leadership within this dual behavioral and educational context, the construct more accurately reflects the realities of leadership learning in higher education environments.

The second section, Prosocial Motivation, included 4 items aimed at evaluating students’ intrinsic motivation to engage in prosocial actions, while the final section, Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB), comprised 10 items measuring students’ self-reported behaviors that contribute positively to the academic environment. All items were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”), providing a comprehensive evaluation of students’ attitudes and behaviors.

The data analysis for this study was conducted using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), with SmartPLS version 4. PLS-SEM was selected due to its ability to handle complex models involving latent variables, which allowed for the assessment of both direct and moderating effects (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2022). The analysis was carried out in two main stages.

In the first stage, the Measurement Model Evaluation was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the constructs. This involved examining several key metrics: factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). According to Hair et al. (2022), factor loadings should exceed 0.7, while CR should be above 0.7, and AVE should be greater than 0.5 to ensure convergent validity. Additionally, discriminant validity was tested using the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio, where values below 0.9 are considered acceptable (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015).

The second stage of analysis involved the Structural Model Evaluation, where hypotheses were tested using the structural model in SmartPLS. Key indicators included the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to assess multicollinearity, with the threshold for VIF values set below 5 (Hair et al., 2022). Path coefficients and t-values were examined to determine the significance of the relationships between the constructs, with a significance level of p < 0.05. Finally, the effect sizes (f²) were calculated to assess the strength of the relationships, with benchmarks of 0.02 (small), 0.15 (moderate), and 0.35 (large), as outlined by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2013).

This two-stage process allowed for a thorough evaluation of both the measurement and structural models, ensuring the robustness and validity of the findings.

The interaction between ethical leadership and prosocial motivation was tested to evaluate the moderating role of prosocial motivation on the relationship between ethical leadership and ACB. The moderation effect was assessed using f² values, with benchmarks of 0.005 (low), 0.01 (moderate), and 0.025 (high) for moderation effects (Hair et al., 2022).

The evaluation of the model’s fit was conducted using several indices to assess its quality and predictive power. First, the R² value for Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB) was calculated, which indicates the proportion of variance explained by the model. This provides a measure of how well the model captures the variability in ACB among the students. Additionally, the Q² predict statistic was used to measure the model’s predictive relevance, following the approach outlined by Stone (1974). This metric helps determine how well the model can predict outcomes in unseen data.

The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was also examined as a measure of model fit. The SRMR quantifies the difference between the observed data correlation matrix and the correlation matrix estimated by the model, which provides an indication of how well the model fits the data (Yamin, 2021). According to Hair et al. (2022), an SRMR value below 0.08 suggests that the model is a good fit. The SRMR value in this study confirmed that the model’s fit was acceptable.

Finally, PLS Predict was utilized to compare the predictive power of the model with that of a simple linear regression model. The results demonstrated that the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) model outperformed the linear regression model, as evidenced by its lower Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) values. This indicates that the PLS-SEM model provided more accurate predictions, reinforcing the validity and reliability of the model for understanding the relationships between the variables in the study.

In this section, the results of the analysis conducted using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to examine the relationships between Lecturer Ethical Leadership (LEL), Prosocial Motivation (PSM), and Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB) are presented. Before discussing the analysis, we first provide a profile of the respondents to give context to the study’s sample.

The respondents were predominantly female (78.8%), with the largest proportion being in their 2nd year (60.3%). Most students were aged 17–20 years (76.7%), and the vast majority did not work while studying (79.4%). In terms of campus engagement, 31.2% reported never participating in on-campus activities, while only 9.5% stated they always did. Participation in student council activities showed a similar pattern, with the highest proportion never participating (30.2%) and the lowest proportion always participating (6.3%).

Beyond campus life, a substantial majority (80.4%) had been active in high school extracurricular activities, suggesting a foundation of prior engagement. Personality-wise, the sample was largely composed of introverts (76.2%), compared to 23.8% extroverts. Overall, these characteristics highlight that the study population was primarily young, female, non-working, and introverted students with varying degrees of campus involvement.

The descriptive analysis of the main variables shows that students generally perceive lecturer ethical leadership (LEL) at a relatively high level, with scores ranging from 16 to 50 (M = 35.4, SD = 5.3) out of a theoretical range of 10–50. Prosocial motivation (PSM) was reported at a moderate level, with observed scores between 23 and 55 (M = 32.6, SD = 4.8) within a possible range of 11–55. Similarly, academic citizenship behavior (ACB) was also at a moderate level, with scores ranging from 15 to 50 (M = 33.4, SD = 7.3) out of a theoretical range of 10–50. Overall, these findings suggest that while students perceive their lecturers’ ethical leadership as relatively strong, their prosocial motivation and academic citizenship behaviors remain at moderate levels.

The reliability and validity of the constructs—Lecturer Ethical Leadership (LEL), Prosocial Motivation (PSM), and Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB)—were assessed using standard criteria (Hair et al., 2022; Henseler et al., 2015). All factor loadings exceeded the acceptable threshold of 0.6, ranging from 0.632 to 0.833, confirming indicator reliability. Internal consistency was established with Cronbach’s Alpha values above 0.7 (LEL = 0.923, PSM = 0.840, ACB = 0.865) and composite reliability (CR) values well above 0.7 (LEL = 0.935, PSM = 0.892, ACB = 0.894). Convergent validity was also achieved, with average variance extracted (AVE) values above 0.5 (LEL = 0.590, PSM = 0.674, ACB = 0.549). Finally, discriminant validity was confirmed through HTMT ratios, all below the 0.9 threshold (PSM–LEL = 0.500, ACB–LEL = 0.374, ACB–PSM = 0.314). Collectively, these results demonstrate that the measurement model exhibits strong reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (see Table 1).

After confirming the reliability and validity of the measurement model, the structural model was evaluated using path coefficients, significance levels, and model fit indices (see Table 2). Multicollinearity was not an issue, as all VIF values were below the threshold of 5 (H1 = 1.291; H2 = 1.258; H3 = 1.031).

Hypothesis testing revealed that lecturer ethical leadership (LEL) had a significant positive effect on academic citizenship behavior (ACB) (β = 0.262, p = 0.001, CI [0.120, 0.429], f² = 0.067), supporting H1. Prosocial motivation (PSM), however, showed no significant effect on ACB (β = 0.161, p = 0.061, CI [–0.001, 0.333], f² = 0.026), thus not supporting H2. For H3, PSM significantly but negatively moderated the LEL–ACB relationship (β = −0.195, p = 0.003, CI [–0.312, −0.056], f² = 0.059), indicating that prosocial motivation weakens rather than strengthens this link.

Regarding overall model fit, the R² value of 0.205 indicates that the model explains a modest proportion of variance in ACB. The Q² predict value of 0.151 confirms moderate predictive relevance, while the SRMR value of 0.076 falls within the acceptable range, suggesting good model fit (see Table 3). Furthermore, PLS Predict results showed that the PLS-SEM model outperformed linear regression, with lower RMSE and MAE values, confirming its superior predictive accuracy.

The findings of this study provide significant insights into the relationships between Lecturer Ethical Leadership (LEL), student Prosocial Motivation (PSM), and student Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB). The analysis revealed both significant and non-significant relationships, which offer valuable implications for understanding how these variables interact in higher education settings.

Ethical leadership (LEL) was found to have a positive effect on academic citizenship behavior (ACB). This suggests that students who perceive their lecturers as ethical leaders are more likely to engage in behaviors that contribute positively to the academic community. Ethical leadership, characterized by fairness, transparency, and integrity, creates an atmosphere where students feel motivated to reciprocate these values by engaging in academic citizenship behaviors such as helping peers, maintaining academic integrity, and participating in collaborative activities. This finding aligns with previous research highlighting the importance of ethical leadership in fostering a cooperative and ethical academic environment (Brown et al., 2005; Gerpott, Van Quaquebeke, Schlamp, & Voelpel, 2019). However, the effect size suggests that while ethical leadership plays a significant role, other factors also contribute to students’ engagement in ACB.

Hypothesis 2 (H2), which suggested that prosocial motivation (PSM) would have a positive effect on ACB, was not supported by the data. The findings suggest that prosocial motivation does not have a strong or reliable influence on academic citizenship behavior in this context. Although previous studies have demonstrated that prosocial motivation can enhance academic behaviors (Batson et al., 2008; Grant, 2008), the results of this study imply that PSM alone may not be sufficient to drive ACB. This suggests that while prosocial behavior is important, it may not always translate into stronger academic engagement unless combined with other factors, such as ethical leadership or institutional support.

For Hypothesis 3 (H3), prosocial motivation significantly but negatively moderated the relationship between ethical leadership and ACB, indicating a weakening rather than strengthening effect, contrary to prior findings (Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012; Zhang, Lv, Jiang, Chen, & Luo, 2024). This may reflect the academic setting, where ethical leadership exerts a strong direct influence on ACB, making additional prosocial reinforcement less critical. The predominance of introverted students in the sample (76.2%) may also explain this pattern, as introverts tend to be more intrinsically driven and less responsive to relational cues (Cain, 2012). Prior research further suggests that extraversion is more strongly associated with prosocial and citizenship behaviors (Aftab et al., 2018; Ohana et al., 2023), which could account for the weaker moderating role of prosocial motivation in this study. Within the SDT–SET–ACB framework, these findings imply that in academic contexts, ethical leadership alone may be sufficient to foster ACB, reducing the amplifying role typically observed for prosocial motivation in organizational settings.

Additionally, students in this study showed varied levels of engagement in on-campus activities and student council involvement. A significant number of students reported minimal participation in campus life, which, according to the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), suggests that lower engagement could result in limited exposure to ethical leadership. With less exposure, PSM may not enhance the relationship between ethical leadership and ACB, as students may not be as influenced by external leadership behaviors if they are less involved in the academic community.

The age and year level of the respondents also played a role. Many students were in their 2nd year, a crucial stage where they are still developing academic skills and personal beliefs about engagement. At this stage, students are often more focused on personal achievement and academic performance rather than contributing to the broader academic community. This focus on intrinsic motivations, such as years, could diminish the moderating effect of PSM on ACB, as students may not yet see the value in engaging in academic behaviors for the sake of community or external ethical leadership.

These demographic factors—introversion, engagement in academic and extracurricular activities, age, and prior prosocial behavior—shape how prosocial motivation interacts with ethical leadership and academic citizenship behavior. The findings suggest that in environments where students have high internal motivations or limited exposure to external leadership cues, PSM may have a diminished role in enhancing the relationship between ethical leadership and ACB.

By explicitly positioning Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB) as the educational parallel to Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), the findings reinforce that fostering ethical leadership and prosocial behaviors in classrooms not only benefits individual learning but also strengthens the collective academic culture in ways similar to how OCB supports organizational effectiveness.

Building on these implications, the following recommendations illustrate how ACB can be intentionally embedded into instructional, advising, and institutional practices to strengthen academic culture in higher education. For course instructors, ethical leadership should be modeled consistently through fairness, transparency, and integrity, while classroom practices can be designed to cultivate ACB through structured group projects, rotating peer-feedback responsibilities, and mechanisms of collective accountability. Such approaches communicate that academic success is not only an individual pursuit but also a shared responsibility to the academic community. For academic advisors and program managers, ACB can be integrated into advisor training as a leadership competency, equipping them to recognize and reinforce prosocial contributions such as mentoring, volunteering, and upholding academic norms. Differentiated pathways should also be created to support diverse student personalities—for instance, reflective or project-based opportunities for introverts and socially interactive leadership roles for extroverts. At the program level, institutions and leadership educators can position ACB as the academic counterpart of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) by embedding it in co-curricular initiatives such as mentoring schemes, service-learning projects, or academic integrity campaigns. Public recognition of student contributions, whether through awards, acknowledgments, or institutional storytelling, helps normalize citizenship behaviors as a valued dimension of academic life. Taken together, these strategies position ACB as a teachable and assessable dimension of leadership education that prepares students not only for academic achievement but also for ethical, collaborative engagement in professional and civic life.

Embedding ACB within higher education can be more fully framed through leadership education pedagogy. The Social Change Model of Leadership Development emphasizes citizenship and collaboration, competencies directly operationalized through ACB practices such as structured group work, peer accountability, and voluntary mentoring. Leadership competency frameworks also highlight ethical reasoning, civic responsibility, and group process skills, positioning ACB as both a learning outcome and a pedagogical tool. Importantly, ethical leadership should be treated not only as a personal attribute but as a teachable competency modeled through pedagogy. Faculty can be equipped to cultivate ethical leadership by integrating case-based ethical dilemmas, transparent classroom procedures, and reflective assignments. Extending these approaches into co-curricular initiatives—such as service-learning, mentoring, and integrity campaigns—ensures that ACB is systematically embedded across the academic experience, aligning leadership education with its broader goal of producing ethically grounded and socially responsible graduates.

The findings of this study also suggest several broader implications for program administrators and leadership educators seeking to optimize the student educational experience. First, the strong direct effect of lecturer ethical leadership on ACB suggests that leadership development initiatives in higher education should prioritize ethical competence among faculty. Training programs that emphasize fairness, integrity, and role-modeling not only enhance lecturer credibility but also cultivate students’ willingness to engage in voluntary academic contributions that strengthen institutional culture.

This relationship underscores that ethical leadership operates not only as a behavioral influence but also as a pedagogical model that can shape the ethical and social development of students. The findings further reinforce the pedagogical importance of ethical leadership within the broader context of leadership education. Instructors who consistently demonstrate fairness, accountability, and moral reasoning not only enhance students’ engagement in academic citizenship behaviors but also shape their moral and civic identities as emerging leaders. Embedding ethical leadership into leadership education curricula allows faculty to intentionally cultivate these outcomes through experiential and reflective learning strategies. Such integration aligns with the transformative goals of higher education—to produce graduates who are ethically grounded, socially responsible, and capable of applying leadership principles beyond the classroom. Consequently, ethical leadership should be viewed not merely as a behavioral attribute but as a core pedagogical competency that underpins the cultivation of future ethical leaders.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that the identification of ethical leadership may be influenced by cultural and contextual factors. While this study relied on student perceptions using a validated scale, future leadership education efforts could benefit from more contextualized calibration—for example, incorporating faculty self-assessments, peer observations, or institutional benchmarks. Such approaches would not only strengthen construct validity but also provide leadership educators with richer insights into how ethical leadership is expressed and developed across diverse academic environments.

Second, by explicitly recognizing ACB as the educational parallel of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), institutions can adapt insights from organizational research into academic contexts. Just as OCB fosters trust, cooperation, and collective performance in organizations, ACB supports peer mentoring, collaborative learning, and academic integrity within universities. This perspective underscores the need for policies and practices that value voluntary contributions to academic communities, beyond traditional measures of student performance.

Third, the limited and inconsistent role of prosocial motivation indicates that appeals to altruism alone may not effectively encourage student citizenship behaviors. Instead, program administrators should create learning environments that satisfy students’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as proposed by Self-Determination Theory. By designing curricula and co-curricular opportunities that allow students to feel capable, connected, and empowered, institutions can indirectly foster higher levels of academic engagement.

Finally, the moderating role of personality traits, particularly the predominance of introverted students in this study, highlights the need for differentiated strategies. Program administrators should recognize that introverted students may prefer reflective or project-based forms of academic contribution, while extroverted students may thrive in socially interactive settings such as student councils or collaborative committees. By offering multiple pathways for participation, institutions can broaden opportunities for ACB across diverse student groups.

Taken together, these implications suggest that leadership development in higher education should extend beyond students to include lecturers as ethical role models, while also creating supportive and inclusive environments that enable all students—regardless of personality or motivational orientation—to engage meaningfully in academic citizenship behaviors.

This study demonstrates that lecturer ethical leadership significantly fosters Academic Citizenship Behavior (ACB), while prosocial motivation plays a weaker and sometimes negative moderating role. These findings suggest that fostering ACB requires more than appeals to altruism; it depends on intentional leadership practices, inclusive program design, and recognition of diverse student personalities.

For JOLE readers—course instructors, advisors, and program managers—ACB should be framed as a leadership learning competency rather than only a behavioral outcome. Embedding ACB aligns with the Social Change Model of Leadership Development and leadership competency frameworks, where collaboration, citizenship, and ethical reasoning are central outcomes. Faculty can model and teach ethical leadership as a pedagogical capacity through transparent classroom practices, ethical dilemma discussions, reflective assignments, and co-curricular initiatives such as service-learning or mentoring.

By linking ACB to both practice and pedagogy, this study contributes actionable strategies and theoretical insights for cultivating ethically grounded, socially responsible graduates prepared for collaborative leadership.

Beyond these contributions, future research should consider how ethical leadership can be more carefully calibrated across cultural contexts, using multi-source validation approaches (e.g. self-assessments, peer observations, and institutional benchmarks) to ensure construct validity and strengthen its pedagogical application in leadership education.