20200405191307accountability_and_moral_compe 20200405191907developing_a_framework_for_eth 20200405191903be_honet_and_dependable_article
MBA 6301 Business Ethics Unit 1
Using the CSU Online Library, locate an article that discusses the topic of business ethics. Topic ideas might include the role of ethics in the workplace, breach of ethics, the effect of internal and external forces on ethical compliance, global ethical considerations within a business or ethics and employees.
Note these are ideas; please expand within the parameters of ethical topics as they relate to business ethics.
Respond to the following questions:
- Summarize the article and align it with the author’s main point. (Accountability and Moral Competence Promote Ethical Leadership)
- How does this article contribute to contemporary thinking about business ethics?
- How can you apply information in this article to your field? (I will do)
- How did this article fit your ethical view? (I will do)
Your response should be a minimum of 2 double-spaced pages not including the title and reference pages. Format the article review in accordance with APA style.
Referenced sources must have accompanying citations complying with APA guidelines. References should include at minimum 1) one of the required reading articles and 2) an additional scholarly reviewed article from the CSU Online Library. (Both attached)
The student is taking Master’s in Management
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I •
136
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Accountability and Moral
Competence Promote
Ethical Leadership
Abstract
Accountability and moral competence are two factors that
may have a positive effect on ethical leadership in
organizations. This study utilized a survey methodology to
investigate the relationship among accountability, moral
competence, and ethical leadership in a sample of 103
leaders from a variety of industries and different countries.
Accountability was found to be a significant positive predictor
of
ethical leadership.
Moral competence was also found to
moderate this relationship such that increases in moral
competence enhanced the positive effects of accountability
on ethical leadership. The results of the study suggest that
organizations can increase ethical leadership throughout the
company via accountability (especially self-accountability)
and moral competence by training their leaders to use self-
monitoring behaviors and increasing moral education.
Introduction
In today’s rapidly changing business environment, leaders must make ethical decisions
on a regular basis (Hsieh, 2017; Khokhar & Zia-ur-Rehman, 2017) and function as
ethical leaders to promote, sustain, and maintain ethical behavior in followers (Jeewon,
Jung Hyun, Yoonjung, Pillai, & Se Hyung, 2018; Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh,
2011; Northouse, 2013). Continual scandals in business and public sectors over the last
decades have increased interest in ethical leadership (Khokhar & Zia-ur-Rehman, 2017;
Marquardt, Brown, & Casper, 2018). The increase in the importance of ethics in
business and management has led many scholars to focus on ethical leadership
behavior (Ardelean, 2015; Eubanks, Brown, & Ybema, 2012; Javed, Rawwas, Khandai,
Shahid, & Tayyeb, 2018; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009;
Northouse, 2013; Resick et al., 2011; Trevino, den Nieuwenboer, & Kish-Gephart,
2014). Moreover, it has provided opportunities for researchers to investigate methods
that produce increased knowledge of ethical behavior in organizations that can result in
facilitating and sustaining the development of ethical leadership behavior. Volatility in
KASSEM A. GHANEM
WINDSOR, ONTARIO, CANADA
PATRICIA A. CASTELLI,
SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN,
U.S.A.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
137
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
today’s global economy confronts organizational leaders with numerous complex ethical
dilemmas, and makes ethical decision-making an important component of leadership
behavior. To sustain ethical leadership behavior in business and management,
organizations need to decrease the likelihood that the leader will engage in
inappropriate conduct (Beu & Buckley, 2001; Newman, Round, Bhattacharya, & Roy,
2017) by adopting mechanisms for enhancing ethical leadership behavior.
One mechanism for enhancing ethical leadership behavior addressed in the literature is
accountability (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Petrick & Quinn, 2001; Sikka, 2017).
Accountability involves assessing individual’s beliefs and feelings, and observing and
evaluating the performance and behavior of self and others (Dhiman, Sen, & Bhardwaj,
2018; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Accountability is an important construct for supporting
ethical leadership behavior in today’s global economy, and is one of the central
constructs to promote business ethics (Nunn & Avella, 2017; Petrick & Quinn; 2001).
Accountability requires leaders to develop ethical perspectives compatible with the social
order (Steinbauer, Renn, Taylor, & Njoroge, 2014). One of the important roles that
ethical leaders have in an organization is to promote, support, and maintain ethical
behavior. An ethical leader, in this study, is a leader who effectively promotes ethical
behaviors such as ethical guidance, fairness, integrity, people orientation, power sharing,
role clarification, and concern for sustainability through ethical climate (Kalshoven et al.,
2011). The intra-organizational scope of accountability involves accountability of a
leader by self and others (Bergsteiner, 2011). In self-accountability, the leader is
accountable to him/herself, and is able to develop a sense of self-accountability for
his/her behavior to increase self-awareness (e.g., Lerner & Tetlock, 1999) with no
presence of others in the decision context (Peloza, White, & Shang, 2013). In other-
accountability, the leader perceives anyone other than self as evaluating his/her
behavior (Royle, 2006). Accordingly, accountability is a construct that involves an
assessment of an individual’s beliefs and feelings and an assessment of the behavior of
others. Moreover, accountability involves monitoring and evaluating the performance
and behavior of self (e.g., Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).
A second mechanism for enhancing ethical leadership addressed in the literature is
moral competence. Oftentimes, ethics and morals are used interchangeably; however,
they are clearly different. Ethics refer to behaviors or decisions made by individuals
within external values that are compatible with the social order system, whereas morals
refer to internal principles that help individuals recognize what is right or wrong (Ferrell &
Fraedrich, 2015). Moral competence involves making moral decisions and judgments
(Kohlberg, 1964), and solving problems and conflicts using universal moral principles
(Lind, 2015) regardless of culture or country of origin. The theory of moral competence
was inspired by the moral development theory developed by Kohlberg (1958, 1969) to
explain how an individual reasons when making moral judgments, and where moral
judgment illustrates the process by which an individual decides that his/her course of
action is morally right or wrong (Loviscky, Trevino, & Jacobs, 2007). Kohlberg (1964)
defined moral competence as “the capacity to make decisions and judgments which are
moral (i.e., based on internal principles) and to act in accordance with such judgments”
(p. 425). Kohlberg goes on to differentiate among the various levels of moral reasoning
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
138
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
whereas lower levels are associated with social consequences (fear of getting caught), to
higher principles (universal values). Lind (2015) extends Kohlberg’s definition of moral
competence emphasizing the link between moral competence and ethical behavior.
Specifically, Lind defined moral competence “as the ability to solve problems and
conflicts on the basis of universal moral principles through thinking and discussion, but
not through violence, deceit, and power” (p. 4).
Purpose of the Study
To help sustain ethical leadership behavior, organizations and leaders may want to
consider utilizing accountability as an instrument to promote ethical behavior. The level
of moral competence in a leader may play a critical role in moderating relationships
among ethical leadership behavior, self-accountability, and other-accountability. Within
this context, the purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate (1) whether
accountability of self and others affects ethical leadership behavior, (2) whether the
relationship between accountability and ethical leadership is moderated by the leader’s
moral competence, and (3) whether the relationship between accountability and ethical
leadership is moderated by the leader’s, gender, age, education, leadership experience,
or leadership role in the organization.
To address the need to increase ethical behavior in business, this study investigated the
relationships among accountability, moral competence, and ethical leadership. A sample
of organizational leaders completed an online survey that measured ethical leadership,
accountability and moral competence. Inferential statistics were used to investigate (1)
accountability as a predictor of ethical leadership, (2) moral competence as a moderator
of the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership, and (3) leader
demographic characteristics such as gender, age, educational level, leadership
experience, and leadership role as moderators of the relationship between accountability
and ethical leadership. Results from this study contribute to the existing literature on
ethical leadership and ethical behavior by helping business owners and organizational
executives increase ethical leadership by addressing accountability and moral
competence in their organizations. Study results may also help organizations develop
strategies for selecting ethical leaders, developing ethical leaders, and identifying the
most effective strategies to reinforce ethical behaviors in organizations (Walumbwa &
Schaubroeck, 2009).
Methods, Conceptual Framework, and Hypotheses
The research methodology was a quantitative cross-sectional survey design with
moderating variables. The analysis utilized hypothesis testing in the form of multiple
linear regression in which the dependent variable, ethical leadership, was regressed on
the independent variable, accountability. An interaction term of accountability x the
moderator variable (moral competence, and either gender, age, education, leadership
experience, and leadership role) were also included in the regression analysis. LinkedIn
Group members with self-reported levels of management experience were invited to
participate in the survey. Study participants completed a web-based survey that
measured accountability, ethical leadership, and moral competence.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
139
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Research Variables
This study investigated the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership in
a sample of senior, middle and lower level managers, and the moderating effects of the
leader’s moral competence and demographic variables on the relationship
between
accountability and ethical leadership. Accountability is an independent variable (IV)
comprised of two factors, self-accountability and other-accountability. The IV affects the
dependent variable (DV), ethical leadership, which is comprised of seven factors: ethical
guidance, fairness, integrity, people orientation, power sharing, role clarification, and
sustainability. To explore the impact of variables that could moderate the effect of
accountability on ethical leadership, moral competence is included in the model as a
moderator (MOD). Furthermore, the demographic variables gender, age, education,
leadership experience and leadership role are included in the model as moderators
(MOD). The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.
Accountability and Ethical Leadership
Accountability is very important for supporting ethical leadership in today’s global
economy (Beu 2000; Lagan & Moran, 2006; Sikka, 2017) and is one of the central
constructs to protect business and organizational ethics. Leaders with accountability
provide attention to the development of ethical perspectives within organizational
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of the Study
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
140
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
components. Leaders need to make ethically accountable decisions in rapidly changing
business environments (Steinbauer et al., 2014; Sims & Felton, 2006) and within these
spheres, they face decisions and implement actions to create an ethical environment
and promote a community’s interests. Accountability has the potential to sustain ethical
and personal development. Lerner and Tetlock (1999) concluded that when an
individual becomes aware of the accountability condition, the specific coping strategy
relevant to the condition is embraced. An individual who is held accountable is likely to
be aware of the accountability requirements in order to be compatible with the
expectations of the accountable. Thus, the individuals are likely to behave in an
acceptable manner. Lerner and Tetlock also added that self-criticism and effortful
thinking (i.e., self-accountability) will be selected most often when individuals are aware
of the accountability conditions. The individuals are likely to engage in a wide
assessment of their behaviors and judgments. Paolini, Crisp, and McLntyre (2009) found
that when individuals were notified that they would be held accountable for their
decisions regarding stereotype change and generalizations, both information processing
and judgment vigilance increased.
Accountability helps organizations to implement ethical behavior in order to cope with
the increasing demand for transparency and ethical performance measurement (Gilbert
& Rasche, 2007). Accountability holds organizational leaders directly responsible to
their public in order to enable those leaders to be in line with the social and
organizational requirements (Schatz, 2013). Cox (2010) considered that accountability
for the management of healthcare strengthens the opportunities of accepting
responsibility for a patient’s care by encouraging nurses and other medical professionals
to acquire knowledge, skills and experience that allow them to perform the task or role
required of them while respecting the requisite legal and social standards. For example,
medical professionals are accountable for their professional actions and accountability
acts as an external control that judges their actions. However, in their qualitative study,
Mansouri and Rowney (2014) found that accountability for professionals goes beyond
fear of external control and material incentives; it refers to the sense of self-
accountability, and concern for the public interest and ethical behavior. Therefore,
accountability encourages ethical leadership behavior within organizations where the
leaders need to be fair and principled decision-makers and also behave ethically in their
personal and professional lives (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006).
Self-accountability and ethical leadership. The concept of self-accountability is seen as
internal motivators such as personal qualities and ethics. These motivators provide inner
principles and goals set by individuals (Dhima et al., 2018; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989).
From the perspective of ethical leadership, self-accountability occurs when an ethical
leader is accountable to himself/herself when there is no one else to observe, monitor,
or hold him/her responsible. When a leader has a well-developed sense of self-
accountability, the leader has the ability to hold himself/herself accountable for his/her
behavior in order to increase self-observing of their behavior (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).
Frink and Klimoski (1998) suggest a possible relationship between self-accountability
and ethical guidance since self-accountability includes personal (i.e., leader’s) ethics and
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
141
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
values, goals, and obligations. This aligns with values-based leadership since shared
values helps promote goal obtainment. With respect to social exchange theory, leaders
influence others based on the reciprocal relationship of obligation.
Accordingly, the subordinates feel obligated to return beneficial behaviors when they
believe that their leaders have been good and fair to them. Therefore, when self-
accountability of leaders is high, the subordinates will be more likely to practice ethical
behaviors (e.g., Peloza, White, & Shang, 2013; Wachter, 2013). Self-accountability can
also serve as the driver for ensuring justice and fairness within the organizational
boundaries (Hunt, 2007) and through self-awareness, helps leaders better understand
what their behaviors may elicit (e.g., Hollander, 2013; Musah, 2011). Self-accountability
comprises aspects of integrity and honesty (Artley, 2001) that help regulate ethical
behavior. There is a possible relationship between self-accountability and people
orientation. People orientation is based on how leaders affect organizational processes
through caring for others, empowering others, and developing others (Page & Wong,
2000). Caring for subordinates is one of the outcomes of accountability (Kalshoven et
al., 2011; Lagan & Moran, 2006).
Self-accountability might also enhance a power-sharing approach between leaders and
their subordinates since the nature of self-accountability strengthens a bond of trust and
cooperation between leadership and subordinates. According to Mordhah (2012), self-
accountability helps leaders avoid oppression and empower their subordinates by
allowing them to participate in decision-making. As a leader is accountable to
himself/herself, the leader is able to develop a sense of self-observation for their
behavior (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). This sense enables the leader to be transparent and
to engage in open communication with subordinates in order to explain what is expected
of them and clarify role expectations. According to Neubert, Wu, and Roberts (2013),
ethical leadership inspires ethical conduct in its true sense by practicing and managing
ethics, and holding every one of subordinates accountable for their own behavior. Self-
accountability has also a positive influence on sustainability (Cotte & Trudel, 2009).
Peloza et al. (2013) stated that self-accountable people set their decisions and choices
according to ethical and sustainability criteria.
Other–Accountability and Ethical Leadership. Other-accountability represents an
accountability relationship with others within a work setting. Other-accountability involves
an obligation to explain and justify one’s past conduct to another person(s) and can be a
way to adhere to the ethical guidance of organizational leaders. Accountability stimulates
leaders to adhere to ethical behavior, practice self-accountability and commit to the
general interests (Mkandawire, 2010). The pressure of accountability may motivate
leaders to develop an effective decision-making process that helps to reduce the
potential unpopular or questionable decisions (McLaughlin, 1995). Thus, the leaders will
be able to clarify the likely consequences of possible unethical behavior by subordinates.
Accountability helps organizational leaders to implement ethical behavior in order to
cope with the increasing demand for transparency and ethical performance
measurement (e.g., Gilbert & Rasche, 2007; Kimura & Nishikawa, 2018). Other-
accountability can be a way to achieve fairness and justice within organizations; whereas
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
142
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
accountability links justice perceptions to organizational and leadership performance
(Park, 2017). For example, accountability for the management of healthcare strengthens
the opportunities of accepting responsibility and achieving fairness for a patient’s care
by encouraging nurses and other medical professionals to acquire knowledge, skills, and
experience that allow them to perform the task or role required of them while respecting
the requisite legal standard (e.g., Cox, 2010).
Leadership accountability is the expectation that leaders are accountable for a quality of
tasks’ performance, increasing productivity, mitigating adverse aspects of organizational
operations, and promising that performance is managed with integrity (Artley, 2001).
Other-accountability also increases a power-sharing approach between leaders and their
subordinates and may improve ethical behavior, encourage a culture of open
communication and lay the foundation for trust with subordinates (e.g., Bane, 2004).
Where the nature of accountability strengthens a bond of trust and cooperation within
organizational components (Schillemans, 2008). Caring for subordinates is one of the
outcomes of accountability (Lagan & Moran, 2006). Caring for subordinates’ feelings is
an important behavior of ethical leaders. In this regard, as self-accountable leaders,
other-accountable ethical leaders are able to show extra role of people-orientation
through their behavior. Lagan and Moran (2006) considered that the organizational
framework of leadership ethical accountability includes displaying ethical principles,
promoting a culture of equality of wages compared with performance, managing the
development of ethical strategies to reduce the negative consequences on production
and performance, and advancing the employee’s well-being.
Other-accountability might also enhance role clarification of leaders to their
subordinates. Being accountable of others implies that leaders must accept
responsibility for their conduct and actions in a transparent manner. Consequently,
ethical leaders are able to inspire ethical conduct of their subordinates by holding every
one accountable for their own behaviors (Neubert et al., 2013). Finally, other-
accountability affects sustainability since it holds organizational leaders directly
accountable to the public and this enables those leaders to be in line with public
requirements (e.g., Schatz, 2013). The concept of accountability underscores both the
right and the corresponding responsibility of employees and community to expect and
ensure that organizations act in the best interests of the society (e.g., Malena, Forster, &
Singh, 2004). Other-accountability also encourages organizational leaders to make
decisions within the framework of firm-level governance mechanisms (Filatotchev,
2012), which forms a fundamental base of leadership responsibility and accountability
to community and environment. This study hypothesized that self- and other-
accountability would be a positive predictor of
ethical leadership.
Hypothesis 1: Accountability as measured by self- and other-accountability is a
significant positive predictor of ethical leadership.
Moral Competence as an Antecedent to Ethical Leadership
Moral competence is critical for supporting ethical leadership in today’s global economy.
A leader’s character should be based on a strong foundation of high ethical standards.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
143
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
This is vital in today’s global economy where leaders must embrace ethics, as well as
leadership effectiveness (e.g., expertise, techniques, knowledge), to be successful
(Sankar, 2003). Moral competence is a cornerstone of the moral developmental
cognitive family. Moral cognition of a leader is depicted as an antecedent of effective
leadership. When leaders are able to demonstrate a high moral judgment in their
decisions, they will have greater opportunities to exhibit ethical leadership behaviors to
their employees (e.g., Mulla & Krishnan, 2014). Mendonca (2001) states that leaders
are responsible for identifying the levels of organizations’ moral environment where
these levels are reflected by the moral development of the leader. Therefore, leaders’
moral development has an important impression on an organization’s ethical climate.
Schminke, Ambrose, & Neubaum (2005) argued that enhancing the ethical climate
within organizations would be effective with leaders who fully utilize their moral
development through translating their capability for moral competence into moral
actions.
Interaction between moral competence and accountability. Accountability has the
potential to sustain ethical and moral development. Lerner and Tetlock (1999)
concluded that self-criticism and effortful thinking will be selected most often when
individuals are aware of the accountability conditions. The individuals are likely to
engage in a wide assessment of their behaviors and judgments. Paolini et al. (2009)
found that when individuals were notified that they would be held accountable for their
decisions regarding stereotype change and generalizations, both information processing
and judgment vigilance increased. In this regard, Lerner and Tetlock (1999) proposed
that self-critical and effortful thinking is most likely to be activated when decision-makers
learn prior to forming any opinions that they will be accountable to an audience (a)
whose views are unknown, (b) who are interested in accuracy, (c) who are interested in
processes rather than specific outcomes, (d) who are reasonably well informed, and (e)
who have a legitimate reason for inquiring into the reasons behind participants’
judgments.
Beu (2000) found that decision-makers with higher levels of moral cognitive will behave
more ethically than those with lower levels. Beu also found that the correlation between
moral cognitive and ethical behavior, in the context of accountability, was significant. The
relationship between moral cognitive (i.e., moral competence) and ethical leadership
appeared to be particularly strong for individuals who are high in moral utilization. The
idea behind moral utilization is that individuals differ not only in their moral cognitive
capacity, but also in the degree to which they actually utilize their capacity in ethical
decision-making. Consequently, this paper suggests the levels of moral competence
change the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership behavior.
This study proposes that the accountability of ethical leaders who have low moral
competence may differ from the accountability of leaders who have high moral
competence. The behavior of ethical leaders with low moral competence requires
observing and evaluating by others in order to reduce the likelihood that the leader will
engage in inappropriate performance. Leaders’ behavior at this lower level of moral
competence should be subject to evaluation by others and subject to the objective
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
144
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
conditions based on this evaluation (e.g., rewards and punishments, laws, rules, etc.)
(Beu & Buckley, 2001). In contrast, when leaders possess a high moral competence
their ethical leadership may be accountable by self. Therefore, it was hypothesized that
at low levels of moral competence there is a strong relationship between other-
accountability and ethical leadership, whereas at high level of moral competence there is
a strong relationship between self-accountability and ethical leadership (e.g., Brown &
Trevino, 2006).
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between accountability and ethical leadership is
moderated by moral competence.
Demographic Variables
The impact of demographic variables on the ethical decision-making process is a widely
researched issue in the ethical leadership literature (Pierce & Sweeney, 2010). The
literature involves some studies with empirical examination that discuss the effect of
demographic variables such as gender, age, education, leadership experience,
leadership roles on ethical behavior, and decision-making (e.g., Barbuto Jr., Fritz, Matkin,
& Marx, 2007; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001, Fiedler,1994; Pierce & Sweeney,
2010). However, the literature lacks studies with empirical examination regarding the
effect these demographic variables on accountability and thus on the relationship
between accountability and ethical leadership behavior. This study proposed that the
relationship between accountability and ethical leadership may be different for leaders
with varying demographic characteristics. Therefore, accountability may predict ethical
leadership based on a leader’s demographic characteristics.
Variables such as leader’s gender, age, educational level, experience and the role of the
leader may play a significant role in affecting accountability when predicts ethical
leadership behavior. These demographic variables were selected for this study given
literature support of their potential to have an impact on the relationship between
accountability and ethical leadership. For example, Barbuto Jr. et al. (2007) considered
that demographic variables such as gender, age and educational level could be used to
predict some leadership behaviors. Although Fiedler (1994) found that leadership
experience does not appear to predict leadership performance, Eagly and Johannesen-
Schmidt (2001) discussed the leadership role of leaders in organizations defined by their
specific position in a hierarchy (e.g., senior management, middle management, and
lower management) as potentially impacting leadership behavior. To investigate the role
of demographic variables in the accountability-ethical leadership behavior relationship,
the moderating effect of leader’s gender, age, educational level, experience, and the role
of the leader was tested.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between accountability and ethical leadership is
moderated by gender, age, education, leadership experience, or leadership role.
Study Sample
The study sample consisted of 103 participants from Asia, Canada, Europe, the Middle
East, and the United States who were senior, middle and lower level managers in their
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
145
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
organizations. The sample for this study was recruited from among the population of
global professionals actively working in leadership positions or those who had
experience working in leadership positions (i.e., a professional who has/had
subordinates who reported to them). Professionals in current or prior leadership
positions were recruited based on Saari and Judge (2004) who found that professionals
have a strong effect on an organization’s performance and have superior latitude in how
they perform assigned tasks. Leaders were recruited via LinkedIn groups
(www.linkedin.com) and email referrals. Castelli, Egleston, and Marx (2013) described
LinkedIn as an effective social media network for collecting survey data, Castelli et al.
also provided steps for how to join LinkedIn professional groups, post research surveys
in LinkedIn groups, engage people to participate, and improve participation rate. Eligible
participants were those who provided their voluntarily consent to participate in the study,
and those who self-identified themselves as a professional actively working in leadership
positions or those who had experience working in leadership positions. The sample was
comprised of a wide range of international senior, middle and lower leaders working in
organizations from a variety of industries including manufacturing, education,
government, health, information technology, and energy.
Measures
The survey instrument comprised of 81 questions divided into five sections: (1) ethical
leadership (24 items), (2) self-accountability (10 items), (3) other-accountability (12
items), (4) moral competence (26 items), and (5) demographics (9 items). The web-
based survey was administered via SurveyMonkey. The survey instrument contained
copyrighted scales for which the researcher obtained written permission. Ethical
leadership was measured using 24 items from Ethical Leadership at Work (ELW)
questionnaire. The ELW asked respondents about seven specific ethical leadership
behaviors: ethical guidance (3 items), fairness (4 items), integrity (3 items), people
orientation (5 items), power sharing (4 items), role clarification (2 items), and
sustainability (3 items). All ethical leadership items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Accountability was measured
using Horsfall’s (1996) 10-item measure of self-accountability and Umphress’s (2003)
12-item measure of other-accountability.
The 10 items of self-accountability asked about a leader’s ability to achieve personal and
organizational success through self-empowerment and improvement. The 12 items of
other-accountability asked about a leader’s ability to provide satisfactory justifications
for his/her actions and behaviors on the job to their superior(s). All accountability items
were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly
agree). Moral competence was measured in this study using Lind’s (2016a) 26-item
Moral Competence Test (MCT) measure of moral competence. The MCT measures a
leader’s moral ability to judge two ethical dilemma stories: a worker’s story (13 items)
and a doctor’s story (13 items). Each story asks participants if they agree or disagree
with the worker’s or doctor’s action from each respective story (1 item), followed by 6 pro
items and 6 contra items scored along a 9-point Likert scale ranging from -4 (I strongly
reject) to 4 (I strong accept). The MCT is scored in accordance with each participant’s
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
146
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
own pattern of responses on the 12 pro and contra worker’s story items and the 12 pro
and contra doctor’s story items. The scoring formula generates a moral competence
score (the C-score) in the range of 0-100, where 0 reflects low moral competence and
100 reflects high moral competence.
Data Analysis
Data analysis began with exporting the raw survey data from SurveyMonkey into
Microsoft Excel for cleaning by deleting rows with missing data. Cleaned data were
analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics via Minitab 18. Psychometric
properties of the survey were evaluated using structural equation modeling via Mplus 8.
Inferential statistics were based on general linear modeling (GLM) procedures (e.g.,
ANOVA, multiple linear regression); structural equation modeling was used for
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For each statistical procedure, all available data were
used. For all inferential statistics, significance was calculated at the 90% confidence
level (i.e., alpha was set at p < 0.10 level, two-tail tests of statistical significance). Study
participants in this study provided data for both the IV (accountability) and the DV
(ethical leadership).
Results
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Tables 1 and 2 present the demographic characteristics of the sample in terms of
gender, age, education, leader role, leader experience, country, and industry. As shown
in Table 1, the sample (N = 103) included more males than females (64.1% males to
33% females with 2.9% with no response). The age of the respondents was distributed to
six categories: 18-29 years (8.7%), 30-39 years (22.3%), 40-49 years (33%), 50-59 years
(28.2%), 60 years and up (4.9%), and 2.9% did not respond. These results showed that a
large percentage of participants was in the 40-59 years of age class (61.2%) compared
with the 18-39 years of age class (31% of the participants). Similarly, 64% of the
participants earned a Master’s degree or higher. The largest distribution of the
leadership role of leaders were in the middle level (35%) compared to the senior level
(32%) and the lower level (14.6%). The experience of the leaders was almost the most in
the categories of 1-4 and 5-9 years of experience. As shown in Table 2, the largest
percentage of participants was from the United States (48.5%), with 23.3% from the
Middle East, 22.3% from Canada, and the remainder were from Europe and Asia.
Although the majority of participants came from the U.S., accountability was and still is a
human need across all places and times both geographically and throughout history. In
general, most cultures and countries share the importance of accountability as a social
system that is needed to create predictability, order, and control. However, the nature of
accountability systems can vary in some countries according to the norms of political and
economic systems of each country (e.g., Gelfand, Lim, & Raver, 2004). In the
increasingly global business environment, the organizational practices, including
accountability, have become very similar and tend to follow the Western model of
managerial practices. Growth of the West’s free market and democratic ideologies
throughout the world are enhancing the managerial norms and standards of practices
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
147
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
which have been greatly influenced by Western traditions and values (Zhou, Poon, &
Huang, 2012).
Finally, the sample was comprised of leaders from a variety of industries, with
approximately 30% working in manufacturing, followed by education (22.3%), healthcare
(12.6%), government (11.7%), professional (8.7%), energy (3.9%), information (3.9%),
and 6.8% did not respond.
Table 1: Characteristics of Sample by Gender, Age, Education, Leader Role, and
Leader Experience
Note: Sample frequency is expressed as % of all participants, N = 103.
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Chi-square test for equality of distribution.
Table 2: Characteristics of Sample by Country and Industry
Characteristic n % Characteristic n
%
Total Sample 103 100.0 Leader Role
Gender Lower 15* 14.6
Male 66** 64.1 Middle 36 35.0
Female 34 33.0 Senior 33 32.0
No response 3 2.9 No Response 19 18.4
Age Leader Experience
18-29 9** 8.7 1 – 4 years 28 27.2
30-39 23 22.3 5 – 9 years 27 26.2
40-49 34 33.0 10 – 14 years 19 18.5
50-59 29 28.2 15 – 19 years 13 12.6
60+ 5 4.9 20 years or more 16 15.5
No Response 3 2.9
Education
High school degree 2** 1.9
Associate’s degree 8 7.8
Bachelor’s degree 24 23.3
Master’s degree 33 32.0
Doctoral degree 33 32.0
No Response 3 2.9
Characteristic n
%
Total Sample 103 100.0
Country
Asia 2** 1.9
Canada 23 22.3
Europe 4 3.9
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
148
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Note: Sample frequency is expressed as % of all participants, N = 103.
**p < 0.01 Chi-square test for equality of distribution.
Reliability and Validity
The psychometric properties of the scales measuring ethical leadership and
accountability were evaluated statistically in the study sample using Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha test of internal consistency and CFA test of construct validity. The
criterion value for reliability was set at 0.7 (Hinkin, 1998), and criterion values for
construct validity were set at factor loadings significant at p < 0.05, chi-square/df < 2, RMSEA (90% CI) ≤ 0.08, and CFI ≥ 0.90 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1998; Bentler, 1990, 2007;
Loehlin, 1998). The psychometric properties of Lind’s (2016a) 26-item measure of moral
competence were not evaluated statistically in the study sample because the measure
does not conform to the assumptions of normal distributions (i.e., the moral competence
C-index is derived from each participant’s total response variation). In regard to ethical
leadership, while the original 24-item scale used to measure ethical leadership was
found to be reliable (alpha = 0.846), the scale required modification after evaluating the
psychometric properties of the combined seven factors comprising ethical leadership
such that two items were dropped to optimize reliability and validity: one item was
dropped from the factor people orientation and one item was dropped from the factor
power sharing. The modified 22-item ethical leadership scale had good reliability (alpha
= 0.858), and five of the seven factors also had good reliability with alphas > 0.80
(ethical guidance, integrity, power sharing, role clarification, and sustainability).
Although reliability of the fairness and people orientation factors were found to be lower
than the criterion alpha value, analysis of the psychometric properties found it was
necessary to include them in the full measure of ethical leadership to optimize construct
validity. Results of CFA found all factor loadings were significant, chi-square/df was < 2,
the lower end of the RMSEA confidence interval was < 0.08, and CFI was > 0.90. These
results support the use of the 22-item ethical leadership scale along with its seven
factors in the study hypothesis tests. In regard to accountability, the two scales
measuring accountability required modification to optimize reliability and validity: two
Middle East 24 23.3
US 50 48.5
Industry
Education 23** 22.3
Energy 4 3.9
Government 12 11.7
Health 13 12.6
Information 4 3.9
Manufacturing 31 30.1
Professional 9 8.7
No Response 7 6.8
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
149
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
items were dropped from the factor self-accountability and four items were dropped from
the factor other-accountability. The modified 16-item accountability scale and its two
factors had good reliability (alphas > 0.7) and good construct validity (all factor loadings
were significant, chi-square/df was < 2, and the lower end of the RMSEA confidence
interval was < 0.08). These results support the use of the 16-item accountability scale
along with its two factors (8-item self-accountability, and 8-item other-accountability) in
the study hypothesis tests.
Inferential Statistics
Hypothesis one (H1) tested accountability and its two constitutive factors (self-
accountability and other-accountability) as significant positive predictors of ethical
leadership. H1 was tested by regressing ethical leadership and its seven factors on
accountability and its two factors. First, accountability was tested as a predictor of
ethical leadership and its seven factors (see Table 3). Next, the two factors of
accountability were tested as predictors of ethical leadership and its seven factors (see
Table 4). As shown in Table 3, accountability was found to be a significant positive
predictor of ethical leadership at the 90% level of significance (Z = 1.66, p < 0.10).
The unstandardized regression coefficient suggests a one-unit change in accountability
is estimated to predict an increase in ethical leadership of 0.155. Accountability was
also found to be a significant positive predictor at the 99% level of significance of the
ethical leadership factor ethical guidance (Z = 2.71, p < 0.01), and at the 95% level of
significance of the ethical leadership factor power sharing (Z = 2.47, p < 0.05). The
unstandardized regression coefficients suggest a one-unit change in accountability is
estimated to predict an increase in ethical guidance of 0.455 and an increase in power
sharing of 0.410. The R-square for accountability as a predictor of ethical leadership,
ethical guidance and power sharing is < 7%, suggesting accountability is accounting for a
small variance in the change of these dependent variables.
Table 3: Ethical Leadership and its Seven Factors Regressed on Accountability
Dependent
Variable
Predictor Beta SE Z p R-square
Ethical Leadership Constant 4.428 0.460 9.63 <0.001 2.65%
ACC 0.155 0.093 1.66 0.099
Ethical Guidance Constant 3.565 0.824 4.32 <0.001 6.80%
ACC 0.455 0.167 2.71 0.008
Fairness Constant 3.924 0.609 6.44 <0.001 0.53%
ACC 0.091 0.124 0.73 0.466
Integrity Constant 5.421 0.759 7.14 <0.001 0.14%
ACC 0.058 0.154 0.38 0.708
People Orientation Constant 3.406 0.654 5.21 <0.001 0.07%
ACC -0.035 0.133 -0.26 0.792
Power Sharing Constant 3.846 0.815 4.72 <0.001 5.71%
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
150
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
ACC 0.410 0.166 2.47 0.015
Role Clarification Constant 5.448 0.709 7.69 <0.001 1.15%
ACC 0.156 0.144 1.09 0.280
Sustainability Constant 6.311 0.783 8.06 <0.001 0.01%
ACC 0.020 0.159 0.12 0.903
Note: Beta of the linear regression is presented as the unstandardized regression coefficient. SE =
standard error of Beta. N = 103. Accountability (ACC). Predictors in bold significant at p < 0.10.
As shown in Table 4, when ethical leadership and its seven factors were regressed on
the two factors of accountability, only self-accountability was found to be a significant
positive predictor of ethical leadership at the 95% level of significance (Z = 2.36, p < 0.05). The unstandardized regression coefficient suggests a one-unit change in self-
accountability is estimated to predict an increase in ethical leadership of 0.213. Self-
accountability was also found to be a significant positive predictor at the 99% level of
significance of the ethical leadership factors ethical guidance (Z = 4.01, p < 0.01), power sharing (Z = 2.89, p < 0.01), role clarification (Z = 3.58, p < 0.01) and sustainability (Z = 2.62, p < 0.01), and at the 90% level of significance of the ethical leadership factor integrity (Z = 1.89, p < 0.10). As supported by the negative correlation
between self-
accountability and people orientation, self-accountability was found to be a significant
negative predictor of people orientation (Z = -2.98, p < 0.01). The R-square for self- accountability as a predictor of ethical leadership and its factors ranges from 5.5% to
14.5%.
Table 4: Ethical Leadership and its Seven Factors Regressed on Self-Accountability and
Other-Accountability
Dependent Variable Predictor Beta SE Z p R-square
Ethical Leadership Constant 3.850 0.567 6.79 <0.001 5.53%
SA 0.213 0.090 2.36 0.020
OA 0.026 0.055 0.46 0.643
Ethical Guidance Constant 1.828 0.989 1.85 0.067 14.51%
SA 0.632 0.157 4.01 <0.001
OA 0.076 0.097 0.78 0.434
Fairness Constant 4.152 0.762 5.45 <0.001 0.90%
SA -0.011 0.121 -0.09 0.928
OA 0.070 0.074 0.95 0.347
Integrity Constant 4.324 0.932 4.64 <0.001 3.90%
SA 0.281 0.149 1.89 0.061
OA -0.062 0.091 -0.68 0.500
People Orientation Constant 4.936 0.777 6.35 <0.001 9.83%
SA -0.369 0.124 -2.98 0.004
OA 0.108 0.076 1.42 0.159
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
151
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Power Sharing Constant 2.740 1.000 2.73 0.007 8.91%
SA 0.462 0.160 2.89 0.005
OA 0.110 0.098 1.12 0.264
Role Clarification Constant 3.726 0.837 4.45 <0.001 12.00%
SA 0.478 0.133 3.58 0.001
OA -0.070 0.082 -0.85 0.396
Sustainability Constant 4.709 0.937 5.03 <0.001 8.52%
SA 0.391 0.149 2.62 0.009
OA -0.144 0.092 -1.57 0.120
Note: Beta of the linear regression is presented as the unstandardized regression coefficient. SE =
standard error of Beta. N = 103. Self-accountability (SA), other-accountability (OA). Predictors in bold
significant at p < 0.10.
Hypothesis two (H2) tested moral competence as a
moderator
of the relationship
between accountability and ethical leadership. Table 5 presents the results of linear
regressions that tested H2 by first regressing ethical leadership on accountability,
followed by regressing ethical leadership on an accountability x moral competence
interaction term (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). For the linear regressions, the moral
competence C-index was included as a continuous variable (see Appendix A for the
scoring procedure used to generate the C-index). As shown in the top panel of Table 5, a
multiple regression with ethical leadership regressed on accountability and moral
competence, and then regressed on the accountability x moral competence interaction
term found the interaction term was significant at the 90% level of significance (Z = –
1.67, p < 0.10). The middle panel of Table 5 shows the results of a multiple regression
with ethical leadership regressed on self-accountability and moral competence, and then
regressed on self-accountability x moral competence. Results found the self-
accountability x moral competence interaction term was significant at the 90% level of
significance (Z = -1.70, p < 0.10). Finally, the bottom panel of Table 5 shows the results of a multiple regression with ethical leadership regressed on other-
accountability and
moral competence, and then regressed on other-accountability x moral competence.
Results found the other-accountability x moral competence interaction term was not
significant (Z = -0.39, p > 0.10). These results suggest H2 is supported in that moral
competence was found to moderate the relationship between accountability full score
and ethical leadership, and between self-accountability and ethical leadership.
Table 5: Moderation of the Accountability-Ethical Leadership Relationship by Moral
Competence
Predictor Beta SE Z p R-square
Constant 4.36 0.49 8.94 <0.001 3.04%
ACC 0.16 0.10 1.73 0.088
Moral Competence 0.00 0.01 0.31 0.760
Constant 3.78 0.74 5.12 <0.001 4.13%
ACC 0.28 0.15 1.91 0.060
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
152
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
MC 0.06 0.06 1.06 0.290
ACC*Moral Competence -0.02 0.01 -1.67 0.099
Constant 3.37 0.57 5.86 <0.001 9.74%
SA 0.30 0.09 3.20 0.002
Moral Competence 0.01 0.01 0.89 0.376
Constant 2.46 0.80 3.07 0.003 12.16%
SA 0.46 0.14 3.38 0.001
Moral Competence 0.09 0.05 1.73 0.088
SA* Moral Competence -0.02 0.01 -1.70 0.097
Constant 5.12 0.25 20.54 <0.001 0.06%
OA 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.816
Moral Competence 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.981
Constant 4.99 0.41 12.21 <0.001 0.22%
OA 0.04 0.10 0.45 0.652
Moral Competence 0.01 0.03 0.39 0.700
OA* Moral Competence -0.01 0.01 -0.39 0.696
Note: Beta of the linear regression is presented as the unstandardized regression coefficient. SE =
standard error of Beta. N = 103. Accountability (ACC), self-accountability (SA), other-accountability
(OA). Predictors in bold are significant at p < 0.10.
Hypothesis three (H3) tested the leader’s gender, age, education, leadership experience
or leadership role as moderators of the relationship between accountability and ethical
leadership. Overall, the results suggest H3 is partially supported because only the
leader’s gender and leadership role were found to moderate the relationship between
accountability and ethical leadership. In this study, the results of linear regressions that
tested each of leader’s gender and leadership role as moderators using the same data
analysis procedure for testing H2.
Specifically, the study tests of moderation of the accountability-ethical leadership
relationship by gender found only the other-accountability x gender
interaction term was
significant (Z = 1.73, p < 0.10). To help with interpretation of this significant interaction term, a factorial plot was created after categorizing other-accountability as low vs. high
(using median split). Figure 2 shows the factorial plot of gender as a moderator of the
other-accountability-ethical leadership relationship. Other-accountability was found to be
a predictor of ethical leadership in female rather than male leaders whereas the ethical
leadership behavior of female leaders is predicted to increase when other-accountability
is high. Reasons for this phenomenon require additional research and are beyond the
scope of this paper. However, this may result from an instinctual characteristic of
women, regardless of their leadership role. Additionally, accountability represents a
social protection system within organizations where women may feel the need to protect
themselves from abuse and gender inequality in the workplace (COFEM, 2017). In this
regard, female leaders tend to justify their actions within the accountability system
because accountability theoretically provides a state of job security for them.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
153
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Consequently, they may feel that it is necessary to adhere and comply with accountability
requirements thus displaying high ethical behavior.
Figure 2: Gender as a
moderator of the relationship
between other-accountability
and ethical leadership.
A multiple regression with
ethical leadership regressed
on accountability and the
accountability x leader role
interaction term found the
interaction term was
significant at the 90% level
of significance (Z = -1.68, p < 0.10). Results found the self-accountability x leader role interaction term was significant at the 90% level of significance (Z = -1.70, p < 0.10). The results of a multiple regression with ethical leadership regressed on other-accountability
and other-accountability x leader role found the other-accountability x leader role
interaction term was not significant (Z = -0.02, p > 0.10). To help with interpretation of
the significant interaction terms, factorial plots were created after categorizing
accountability as low vs. high (using median split). Figure 3 shows the factorial plot of
leader role as a moderator of the accountability-ethical leadership relationship, and
Figure 4 shows the factorial plot of leader role as a moderator of the self-accountability-
ethical leadership relationship. As shown in Figure 2, the leaders’ role in their company
moderates the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership when
accountability to self and others is low. Specifically, when a leader’s accountability to self
and others is low, their ethical leadership increases as their role increases from lower to
senior levels of leadership. As shown in Figure 3, the leaders’ role in their company
moderates the relationship between self-accountability and ethical leadership when self-
accountability is low. Specifically, when a leader’s self-accountability is low, their ethical
leadership increases as their role increases from lower to senior levels of leadership.
Figure 3: Leader
role as a moderator
of the relationship
between
accountability and
ethical leadership.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
154
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Figure 4: Leader
role as a moderator
of the relationship
between self-
accountability and
ethical leadership.
Discussion
This study empirically investigated the relationship among accountability, moral
competence, and ethical leadership in a sample of organizational leaders via a cross-
sectional quantitative survey research design study. Specifically, the study investigated
accountability as a positive predictor of ethical leadership, and moral competence and
demographic variables as moderators of the relationship between accountability and
ethical leadership. The results support previous research on positive effects of
accountability in ethical behavior (Bane, 2004; Beu, 2000; Beu & Buckley, 2001; Lagan
& Moran, 2006; Quinn & Schlenker, 2002). Second, study results suggest moral
competence moderates the effect that accountability has on ethical leadership. Third,
study results suggest a leader’s gender and leadership role moderate the effect that
accountability has on ethical leadership.
Implications for Practice and Recommendations
Results of this study have important implications for increasing ethical leadership among
organizational leaders through boosting accountability and moral competence within
their organizations. The obvious implications to organizational leaders of the positive
effects of accountability include reduced corruption, enhanced social exchange,
controlled spending, increased productivity, increased job satisfaction, enhanced justice,
and employee retention. Additionally, the positive effects of moral competence include
high ethical awareness, making moral decisions, increased performance, and increased
organizational performance. Therefore, it behooves organizations to ensure leaders are
accountable for their actions and behaviors and also demonstrate high moral
competence.
This study has implications regarding the moderating effects of leadership role on the
behavior of organizational leaders. Study results found the leader’s role within the
organization moderates the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
155
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
These results imply when an organizational leader is a senior leader, he/she is more
likely to have high ethical leadership behavior even when there is low accountability.
However, when the leader is a lower or middle leader in the organization, his or her
ethical leadership will be positively impacted by accountability to self or others.
Regarding self-accountability, when self-accountability is low, leadership role reflects the
level of ethical leadership such that ethical leadership increases as leadership role
increases. However, regardless of the leadership role, self-accountability is associated
with high ethical leadership.
Next, these results provide a focus for practical recommendations to boost the strength
of the relationship between accountability and ethical leadership via enhancing moral
competence. Therefore, recommendations are provided to create ethical leadership,
boost self-accountability in an organization, and to buttress the moral competence of
organizational leaders. Increasing self-accountability requires that organizational owners
and executives to create a culture of accountability in the workplace by weaving
accountability into the fabric of their organizations. When organizational leaders increase
self-accountability of their behavior, they will begin to take responsibility for their ethical
behavior and may increase their ethical leadership because the nature of accountability
strengthens the bond of trust and cooperation between management and subordinates.
Increasing self-accountability may also occur by enhancing the concept of self-monitoring
in organizational leaders. Self-monitoring is one of the best behavioral precursors to
increasing high-quality decision-making and decreasing inappropriate behavior in
accountable environments (Latham & Frayne, 1989; Quinn & Schlenker, 2002).
Subsequently, when leaders make high-quality decisions in their organizations, positive
effects are experienced throughout because leaders are making better ethical decisions,
are communicating efficiently with their subordinates, co-workers and superiors, and are
showing increased job attendance.
Organizational owners and executives should help their leaders increase moral
competence. According to Lind (2016b), morality is not innate and does not develop on
its own accord. Morality can be taught and this knowledge can be fostered effectively. In
this regard, organizational leaders can be trained to increase their moral compass and
become morally competent. Increasing one’s moral compass through training involves
educational materials, communication, role playing, and continued assessment of moral
competence via feedback opportunities.
Results of this study reinforce the importance of creating a culture of ethical leadership
in organizations. Leadership research supports the ethical role that reflective leadership
can play in solving and reducing issues in the workplace (Castelli, 2012, 2016; Looman,
2003, Park, Kim, & Song, 2015). Consistent with values-based leadership, reflective
leadership practices can help employees understand the role they play in the
organization’s goal attainment. An organization that encourages reflective practices
creates a safe environment that promotes trust, values open communications, connects
work to the organization mission, builds the confidence of the workforce, respects
diverse cultures, and challenges beliefs and assumptions (Castelli, 2012, 2016).
Leadership research also supports the role that emotional intelligence can play in
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
156
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
reducing ethical dilemmas (Barling, Slater, & Kevin Kelloway, 2000; Cole, Cox, & Stavros,
2018; Sivanathan & Cynthia Fekken, 2002). Self-regulation and relationship
management are important elements of emotional intelligence and are vital in the
leaders’ ability in building good communication and relationships of trust within the
organizational boundaries. Improving self-regulation helps leaders to control impulsive
actions and emotions that negatively affect their potential for developing their leadership
traits, including ethical behavior (Baksh et al., 2018). Moreover, developing leaders’
relationship management helps leaders to improve their ability to communicate
effectively in order to make good decisions and move their subordinates in a desired
direction (Nwokah & Ahiauzu, 2010).
Academic institutions also should educate their students along multiple disciplines to
become morally competent leaders and managers who can make moral decisions on
their own. Students, as prospective leaders, can receive education and training to
increase their moral competencies (Lind, 2016b). Moral education courses and class
sessions may help leadership students to bridge the gap between ethics courses and
real-life practices in order to transfer the learned experience into ethical skills and
abilities (Mohamed Saat, Porter, & Woodbine, 2010). Despite increased attention to
ethics-related courses in the last decade, especially after the global financial crisis that
began in 2007, comparatively about 75% of all offered courses are electives. Ethics
education should stretch beyond the traditional disciplines to move deeper to be a core
part into all curriculums, especially in the Master in Business Administration (MBA)
program.
Study Limitations and Future Directions
This study has potential limitations that should be considered. First, the study is limited
related to the potential for common-method bias. Common-method bias is the
perceptual bias that occurs when a study involves data from a single source. Specifically,
this study used the same group of people to provide self-report measurements of the
independent and dependent variables. The second study limitation concerns the
potential of poor external validity. External validity refers to the ability of study results to
generalize to other samples beyond the study sample. Future research should use
qualitative methodology to explore how accountability has positive effects on ethical
leadership. Future research can explore the important relationships between self-
accountability and ethical leadership factors such as ethical guidance, people
orientation, power sharing, role clarification, and sustainability; these are important
relationships that need additional study.
References
Ardelean, A. (2015). Perceptions on audit quality based on the ethical behaviour of
auditors. Audit Financiar, 3(123), 61-73.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
157
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Artley, W. (2001). Establishing accountability for performance. The Performance Based-
Management Handbook.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327.
Bane, K. (2004). Avoiding catastrophe: The role of individual accountability in team
effectiveness. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 31,
130-131.
Barbuto Jr, J. E., Fritz, S. M., Matkin, G. S., and Marx, D. B. (2007). Effects of gender,
education, and age upon leaders’ use of influence tactics and full range leadership
behaviors. Sex Roles, 56(1-2), 71-83.
Barling, J., Slater, F., and Kevin Kelloway, E. (2000). Transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 21(3), 157-161.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality
and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825-829.
Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Accountability theory meets accountability practice. Emerald
Group Publishing.
Beu, D. (2000). Accountability as it influences ethical behavior (Order No. 9994076).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global (304712873).
Beu, D. S. and Buckley, M. R. (2001). The hypothesized relationship between
accountability and ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(1), 57-73.
doi:10.1023/A:101195 7832141.
Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a
mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967.
Brown, M. and Trevino, L. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.
Castelli, P. A. (2012, November). The global leader as reflective practitioner. In
Association for Global Business International Academy of Linguistics Behavioural and
Social Sciences 2012 Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting, Vol. 24, Washington,
DC., USA.
Castelli, P. A. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A framework for improving
organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.
Castelli, P. A., Egleston, D. O., and Marx, T. G. (2013). Social media: A viable source for
collecting research data. Business Education Innovation Journal, 5(2), 30-34.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
158
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
COFEM (2017). How a lack of accountability undermines work to address violence
against women and girls: Feminist perspectives on addressing violence against
women and girls. Series, Paper No. 1. Coalition of Feminists for Social Change.
Cole, M. L., Cox, J. D., and Stavros, J. M. (2018). SOAR as a mediator of the relationship
between emotional intelligence and collaboration among professionals working in
teams: implications for entrepreneurial teams. SAGE Open, 8(2), 1-12.
Cotte, J. and Trudel, R. (2009). Socially conscious consumerism: A systematic review of
the body of knowledge. London: Network for Business Sustainability.
Cox, C. (2010). Legal responsibility and accountability. Nursing Management – UK, 17(3),
18-20.
Dhiman, A., Sen, A., and Bhardwaj, P. (2018). Effect of self-accountability on self-
regulatory behaviour: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 79-97.
doi:10.1007/s 10551-015-2995-4
Eagly, A. H. and Johannesen‐Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and
men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781-797.
Eubanks, D. L., Brown, A. D., and Ybema, S. (2012). Leadership, identity, and
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 1-3.
Ferrell, O. C. and Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases.
Nelson Education.
Fiedler, F. E. (1994). Leadership experience and leadership performance. Seattle:
University of Washington.
Filatotchev, I. (2012). Corporate governance issues in competitive strategy research. In
G. Dagnino (Ed.), Handbook of research on competitive strategy (pp. 300–324).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Frink, D. D. and Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations
and human resource management. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management, Vol. 16, pp. 1–51. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B. C., and Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and accountability in
organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource
Management Review, 14(1), 135-160.
Gilbert, D. U. and Rasche, A. (2007). Discourse ethics and social accountability: The
ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 187-216.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational research methods, 1(1), 104-121
Hollander, J. A. (2013). “I demand more of people” accountability, interaction, and
gender change. Gender & Society, 27(1), 5-29.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
159
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Horsfall, G. A. (1996). Accountability: The force behind empowerment. Hospital Materiel
Management Quarterly, 18(2), 26-31.
Hsieh, N. (2017). The responsibilities and role of business in relation to society: Back to
basics? Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 293-314. doi:10.1017/beq.2017.8
Hunt, B. (2007). Managing equality and cultural diversity in the health workforce. Journal
of Clinical Nursing, 16(12), 2252-2259.
Javed, B., Rawwas, M. Y., Khandai, S., Shahid, K., and Tayyeb, H. H. (2018). Ethical
leadership, trust in leader and creativity: The mediated mechanism and an
interacting effect. Journal of Management & Organization, 24 (3), 388–405.
Jeewon, C., Jung Hyun, L., Yoonjung, B., Pillai, R., and Se Hyung, O. (2018). Ethical
leadership and follower performance above and beyond the full-range leadership
model and authentic leadership. Academy of Management Annual Meeting
Proceedings, 2018(1), 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2018.142
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., and De Hoogh, A. H. (2011). Ethical leadership at work
questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional
measure. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51-69.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D., and De Hoogh , A. (2013). Ethical leadership and
followers’ helping and initiative: The role of demonstrated responsibility and job
autonomy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), 165-181.
Khokhar, A. M. and Zia-ur-Rehman, M. (2017). Linking ethical leadership to employees’
performance: Mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences,
11(1), 321-350.
Kimura, T. and Nishikawa, M. (2018). Ethical leadership and its cultural and institutional
context: An empirical study in Japan. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 707-724.
doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3268-6.
Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the
years 10-16. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. Review of child
development research, 1, 383-431.
Kohlberg. L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialisation theory and research (pp.
347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lagan, A. and Moran, B. (2006). Governance, corporate social responsibility and
employee accountability. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 8, 49-66.
Latham, G. P. and Frayne, C. A. (1989). Self-management training for increasing job
attendance: A follow-up and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 411−416.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
160
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Lerner, J. S. and Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255.
Lind, G. (2015). Moral ist lehrbar!: Wie man moralisch-demokratische Fähigkeiten
fördern und damit Gewalt, Betrug und Macht mindern kann. Logos Verlag Berlin
GmbH.
Lind, G. (2016a). An introduction to the Moral Competence Test (MCT). Retrieved August
8, 2016, from http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/mut/mjt-engl.htm.
Lind, G. (2016b). Validation and certification procedure for the moral competence test.
Retrieved October 10, 2016, from Moral-democratic competence: http://www.uni-
konstanz.de/ag-moral/mut/mct-certification.htm#certification.
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and
structural analysis (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Looman, M. D. (2003). Reflective leadership strategic planning from the heart and soul.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 55(4), 215-221.
doi:10.1037/1061-4087.55.4.215.
Loviscky, G. E., Trevino, L. K., and Jacobs, R. R. (2007). Assessing managers’ ethical
decision-making: An objective measure of managerial moral judgment. Journal of
Business Ethics, 73(3), 263-285.
Malena, C., Forster, R., and Singh, J. (2004). Social accountability: An introduction to the
concept and emerging practice. Social Development Papers, 76, 1-18.
Mansouri, M. and Rowney, J. (2014). The dilemma of accountability for professionals: A
challenge for mainstream management theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 123 (1),
45-56.
Marquardt, D. J., Brown, L. W., and Casper, W. J. (2018). Ethical leadership perceptions:
Does it matter if you’re black or white?. Journal Of Business Ethics, 151(3), 599-612.
doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3250-3
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., and Salvador, R. B. (2009). How
low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13.
McLaughlin, D. J. (1995). Strengthening executive decision making. Human Resource
Management, 34(3), 443-461.
Mendonca, M. (2001). Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l’Administration, 18(4), 266-276.
Mkandawire, T. (2010). Aid, accountability, and democracy in Africa. Social Research,
77(4), 1149-1182.
http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/mut/mjt-engl.htm
http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/mut/mct-certification.htm#certification
http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/mut/mct-certification.htm#certification
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
161
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Mohamed Saat, M., Porter, S., and Woodbine, G. (2010). The effect of ethics courses on
the ethical judgement-making ability of Malaysian accounting students. Journal of
Financial Reporting and Accounting, 8(2), 92-109.
Mordhah, N. (2012). Self-Accountability: The link between self-accountability and
accountability in Islam. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(5),
240-245.
Mulla, Z. R. and Krishnan, V. R. (2014). Karma-yoga: The Indian model of moral
development. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 339-351. doi:10.1007/s10551-
013-1842-8.
Musah, M. B. (2011). The culture of individualism and collectivism in balancing
accountability and innovation in education: An Islamic perspective. OIDA International
Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(8), 69-76.
Neubert, M., Wu, C., and Roberts, J. (2013). The influence of ethical leadership and
regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 269-296.
doi:10.5840/beq201323217.
Northouse, P. (2013). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (6th Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Newman, A., Round, H., Bhattacharya, S., and Roy, A. (2017). Ethical climates in
organizations: A review and research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(4), 475-
512. doi:10.1017/beq.2017.23.
Nunn, S. G. and Avella, J. T. (2017). Symposium introduction: Achieving ethical
leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(2), 37-41. doi:10.1002/jls.21521.
Page, D. and Wong, T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant
leadership. The human factor in shaping the course of history and development, 69-
110.
Paolini, S., Crisp, R. J., and McIntyre, K. (2009). Accountability moderates member-to-
group generalization: Testing a dual process model of stereotype change. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 45(4), 676–685.
Park, S. (2017). Accountability as justice for the Multilateral Development Banks?
Borrower opposition and bank avoidance to US power and influence. Review of
International Political Economy, 24(5), 776-801.
doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1363798.
Park, C. H., Kim, W., and Song, J. H. (2015). The impact of ethical leadership on
employees’ in-role performance: The mediating effect of employees’ psychological
ownership. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(4), 385-408.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.21217.
Peloza, J., White, K., and Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self
accountability in influencing references for products with ethical attributes. Journal
of Marketing, 77(1), 104-119.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
162
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Petrick, J. A. and Quinn, J. F. (2001). The challenge of leadership accountability for
integrity capacity as a strategic asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3/4), 331-343.
Pierce, B. and Sweeney, B. (2010). The relationship between demographic variables and
ethical decision making of trainee accountants. International journal of
auditing, 14(1), 79-99.
Pies, I., Beckmann, M. and Hielscher, S. (2010). Value creation, management
competencies, and global corporate citizenship: An ordonomic approach to business
ethics in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 265-278.
Quinn, A. and Schlenker, B. R. (2002). Can accountability produce independence? Goals
as determinants of the impact of accountability on conformity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 472-483.
Resick, C. J., Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Dickson, M. W., Kwan, H. K., and Peng, C.
(2011). What ethical leadership means to me: Asian, American, and European
perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 435-457.
Rhodes, C. and Badham, R. (2018). Ethical irony and the relational leader: grappling with
the infinity of ethics and the finitude of practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(1), 71-
98. doi:10.1017/beq.2017.7
Royle, M. T. (2006). The nature and effects of informal accountability for others (Order
No. AAI3252192). Available from Sociological Abstracts. (61770677; 200915164).
Saari, L. M. and Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human
resource management, 43(4), 395-407.
Samuel, M. (2006). Creating the accountable organization: A Practical guide to improve
performance execution. California: Xephor Press.
Sankar, Y. (2003). Character not charisma is the critical measure of leadership
excellence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 45-55.
Schatz, F. (2013). Fighting corporation with social accountability: A comparative analysis
of social accountability mechanisms’ potential to reduce corruption in public
administration. Public Administration & Development, 33(3), 161-174.
doi:10.1002/pad.1648.
Schillemans, T. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal
accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 175.
Schlenker, B. and Weigold, M. (1989). Self-identification and accountability. In R.
Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld, Impression management in the organization (pp. 21-43).
Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., and Neubaum, D. O. (2005). The effect of leader moral
development on ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 135-151.
JOURNAL OF VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
163
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
Sikka, P. (December, 2017). Using freedom of information laws to frustrate
accountability: Two case studies of UK banking frauds. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 41,
No. 4, pp. 300-317). Elsevier.
Sims, R. and Felton, E. (2006). Designing and delivering business ethics teaching and
learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 297-312. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-
3562-1.
Sivanathan, N. and Cynthia Fekken, G. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning
and transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
23(4), 198-204.
Solomon, J. (2009). Corporate governance and accountability (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley
and Sons.
Steinbauer, R., Renn, R. W., Taylor, R. R., and Njoroge, P. K. (2014). Ethical leadership
and followers’ moral judgment: The role of followers’ perceived accountability and
self-leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 381-392.
Trevino, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., and Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un) ethical
behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635-660.
Umphress, E. E. (2003). In the name of the company: Unethical behaviors perpetrated by
employees in response to accountability and fair treatment (Order No. 3084136).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (305305234).
Wachter, R. M. (2013). Personal accountability in healthcare: Searching for the right
balance. BMJ quality & safety, 22(2), 176-180.
Walumbwa, F. O. and Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee
voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological
safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286.
Weiss, J. (2008). Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach (5th
Ed.). Macon, OH: Cengage Learning.
Zhou, Y., Poon, P., and Huang, G. (2012). Corporate ability and corporate social
responsibility in a developing country: The role of product involvement. Journal of
Global Marketing, 25(1), 45-56.
About the Authors
Dr. Kassem A. Ghanem is a management consultant in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. His
research interests include ethical leadership, accountability, and organizational
leadership development.
VOLUME XII • ISSUE I • Winter/Spring 2019
164
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
IP
He can be contacted at:
Kassem A. Ghanem, DBA
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
kayoubgha@ltu.edu
519.992.0180
Dr. Patricia A. Castelli is a professor of management at Lawrence Technological
University in Southfield, Michigan, USA. Her research interests include leadership
development, global leadership, reflective leadership and motivational theories.
She can be contacted at:
Patricia Castelli, PhD
Professor, College of Business and IT
Lawrence Technological University
21000 West Ten Mile Road Southfield, MI 48075-1058, USA
pcastelli@ltu.edu
248.204.3066
mailto:kayoubgha@ltu.edu
mailto:pcastelli@ltu.edu
- The Journal of Values-Based Leadership
- Binder1
January 2019
Winter/Spring 2019
Recommended Citation
jvbl_cover_12.1_2019
jvbl_cover_12.1_2019_2
Binder1
Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership
Alan Lawton • Iliana Páez
Received: 4 April 2013 / Accepted: 6 June 2014 / Published online: 29 June 2014
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Interest in ethical leadership from academics
and practitioners has grown enormously in recent years.
This article addresses this literature through a framework
that identifies three interlocking questions. First, who are
ethical leaders and what are their characteristics? Second,
how do ethical leaders do what they do? Third, why do
leaders do as they do and what are the outcomes of ethical
leadership? Different dimensions to ethical leadership are
examined and presented as three interlocking circles; Vir-
tues, Purposes and Practices. This framework presents an
integrated approach to ethical leadership and argues that
future research take this holistic framework and apply it to
different sectors or contexts.
Keywords Ethical leadership � Ethical theory � Ethical
practices
Introduction
The ethical dimension of leadership has, increasingly, been
of interest to both the general public and to scholars,
motivated partly by the corporate scandals that have
involved the unethical behaviour of top executives in
leading organizations throughout the world and has gen-
erated responses from both the academic and practitioner
communities (see, for example, the Index of Leadership
Trust developed by the Institute of Leadership and Man-
agement and Management Today). Notwithstanding recent
concerns, the relationship between ethics and leadership
has been explored by management academics for some
time and constituted early definitions of leadership (Bar-
nard 1938; Burns 1978; Selznick 1957). Part of the role of
leadership, it was claimed, included creating the ‘moral
organization’, promoting development in others, and in-
stitutionalising values within the organization’s culture.
More recently, Whetstone (2005) has presented a frame-
work for organizational virtues that is based upon the
relationships between mission, culture and leadership.
There are a number of key issues and questions that
emerge in the literature. For example, what is distinctive
about the ethics of leadership in contrast to other areas of
ethics (Ciulla 2005)? Do leaders stand apart from normal
ethical considerations? Is there something unique about
leadership such that leaders need demonstrate ethical
standards over and above the norm in the way that certain
of the professions might (see Carlisle and Manning 1996)?
Ciulla argues, for example, that what is distinctive is the
concept of vision; ‘Visions are not simple goals, but rather
ways of seeing the future that implicitly or explicitly entail
some notion of the good’ (2005, p. 325). Other areas of
distinctiveness might include their obligations to others,
particularly their followers, as a result of the leaders’
special position in terms of power, status, and authority.
Ciulla also argues that leadership is distinctive because of
its range—moral failure impacts a large number of people.
At the same time, and discussed extensively in the political
science and philosophy literature, do the requirements of
ethics not apply to certain roles such that the judgements of
ethics are, in some sense, deemed inappropriate (see the
discussion of the ‘Dirty Hands’ of politicians introduced by
Walzer and discussed in Coady 2008; Mendus 2009).
A. Lawton (&)
Federation University, Ballarat, Australia
e-mail: alan.lawton@federation.edu.au
I. Páez
Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
e-mail: Il.paez105@uniandes.edu.au
123
J Bus Ethics (2015) 130:639–649
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2244-2
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-014-2244-2&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-014-2244-2&domain=pdf
Second, we are interested in what is the relationship
between being a good leader in a moral sense and being an
effective leader; a simple distinction but one that raises
interesting issues. In the literature, there is often a dis-
tinction between moral excellence and technical excellence
(see Ciulla 2005; Price 2008). A different view suggests
that, depending upon our approach to virtue, the two are
compatible and that Machiavelli’s virtú combines both
virtue and skill (see Macaulay and Lawton 2006). A further
view argues that leadership is about ‘being’ rather ‘than
‘doing’ (Cunliffe 2009). We propose, below, that the dif-
ferent views can be reconciled through the interlocking of
Virtues and Purposes.
Third, how are self-interest, the interests of the organi-
zation and the interests of the wider community recon-
ciled? How are the interests of shareholders and wider
stakeholders balanced? Does a psychological approach to
leadership privilege the individual at the expense of others?
Has there been too much focus on the self such that ethical
leadership becomes unattainable? (Knights and O’Leary
2006). Indeed what is the concept of the self in leadership
studies (Ford 2006)? What is the context within which
ethical leadership takes place (see Knights and O’Leary
2006) and can the concept of a social practice help in
locating that context (see MacIntyre 1985)? We discuss the
concept of a practice below and propose Practices as the
third interlocking circle in our framework.
These are all ‘big’ questions and they have been
addressed in different ways; at this stage it is appropriate to
offer preliminary remarks concerning the nature of lead-
ership and then to outline the scope of the article. We
identify three dimensions to leadership: Leadership in,
leadership of, and leadership for. Leadership in involves
activity; in this context those who lead may be motivated
by the desire to explore new territories (geographical or
otherwise), whether exercised in the practice of science, of
art, music, sport or a whole range of other activities.
Leaders are driven by curiosity and may stretch rules or
conventions to see where their imaginations will take them.
Leading is not being bound by convention, it is being
curious for the sake of it, seeking new challenges; it may
offer its own reward and not necessarily be concerned with
the outcome since that can rarely be predicted. From this
perspective, being recognised as a leader in whatever field
requires peer recognition yet such individuals may not
crave followers or be interested in setting an example to
others. It is likely that such leaders will be concerned with
excellence in that activity and will attract followers. The
pursuit of excellence is compatible with a virtue approach
to ethics.
In contrast, leadership of may include setting an exam-
ple to others, motivating them and inspiring them to follow
in pursuit of some set of goals. It involves engagement in a
set of relationships, and will involve responsibilities to, and
for, others. It will be compatible with a deontological
approach to ethics. Leadership for will involve the pursuit
of some organisational or societal goal; it may be con-
cerned with creating a vision of an ethical purpose. If
leadership is about outcomes then it will be compatible
with a consequentialist approach to ethics.
Thus, this article focuses on a number of key questions;
1. Who are ethical leaders and what are their character-
istics; the article examines key definitions of leader-
ship and ethical character and virtues, including
integrity and authenticity.
2. How do ethical leaders do what they do; this section of
the article examines how leaders treat others and what
are their relationships with others and in what contexts
do these relationships take place.
3. Why do ethical leaders do what they do, for what
purpose; what is the relationship between leadership
and outcomes, both for individuals and the
organization.
Figure 1 captures the relationship between these three
questions; between who, how and why.
We suggest that the three circles will interlock and will
not necessarily form discrete areas of ethics. For example,
a public official will need to be of good character exhib-
iting, for example, honesty, selflessness and objectivity.
These will be exercised in their relations with patients,
clients or consumers through non-maleficence and benefi-
cence in order to promote justice and the common good
(Beauchamp and Childress 2008; Lawton et al. 2013). We
use these three dimensions to frame our discussion of the
literature and then propose a research framework that maps
onto these dimensions.
Who are ethical
leaders and what
are their
characteristics?
How do they
do what they
do?
Why do they
do what they
do?
Fig. 1 The who, how and why of leadership ethics
640 A. Lawton, I. Páez
123
Who are Ethical Leaders and What are Their
Characteristics?
One much-used definition of ethical leadership is the one
offered by Brown and colleagues, which proposes that
ethical leadership is ‘‘the demonstration of normatively
appropriate conduct through personal actions and inter-
personal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct
to followers through two-way communication, reinforce-
ment, and decision-making’’ (Brown, Treviño and Harrison
2005, p. 120). Here, ethical leadership involves some
aspect of personal conduct, deemed ethically appropriate,
in decision-making and developing relations with others,
such that these others are inspired to follow. Yet prior to
the question of what do leaders do, is what kind of person
they are. Much of the literature has focused on the use of a
virtues approach. However, we need to know what we
mean by person—is there a difference between an indi-
vidual qua individual and an individual qua position holder,
in an organisation or otherwise? Thus a distinction has
been made between the moral person and the moral man-
ager (Treviño et al. 2000; Brown and Treviño 2006),
raising the question is the good manager necessarily the
good person and vice versa. According to this account the
ethical leader reflects both the moral person in terms of
individual virtues such as honesty and integrity, and the
moral manager in terms of setting an example, communi-
cating ethical standards and so on. We also introduced
earlier the distinction between moral excellence and tech-
nical excellence; whereas virtue is bound up in ideas of
morality, offering perspectives that shape the way we live,
competence embodies notions of learned skills and tech-
nical efficiency. Competence highlights action rather than
character, as it is ‘‘built around the fundamental principle
of demonstrating capability’’ (Naquin and Holton 2003
p. 25). However, Machiavelli’s virtù, which has been lar-
gely ignored in the literature (see Macaulay and Lawton
2006), may reconcile the two. Virtù was considered, more
generally, as the skills and excellences of leadership
including military prowess and diplomatic sensitivity and
was not a moral construct as such yet still required right
action. ‘‘Machiavelli’s conflation of virtue and skill argu-
ably fits in more comfortably with notions of managerial
(or leadership) competencies, than the more moral char-
acter traits of virtue theory.’’ (Macaulay and Lawton 2006,
p. 704).
Our discussion of leadership ‘in’ suggests that technical
excellence may not necessarily be ethical in character.
Judging technical excellence, or competency, and the
extent to which it is ethical or not, will depend upon the
practice within which it is found and we discuss this below.
At the same time there may be a tension between leader-
ship ‘of’ and leadership ‘for’; if leadership ‘for’ is to ‘make
the trains run on time’ does it matter how this is done?
Thus, our three perspectives on leadership are compatible
with different versions of ethics but do not require ethics.
Virtues
The concept of virtue, derived from Aristotle (1947), has
featured prominently in the discussion of leadership ethics
(Arjoon 2000; Bragues 2006; Cawley et al. 2000; Sarros
et al. 2006). Aristotle identified a number of moral vir-
tues—courage, temperance, pride, good temper, friendli-
ness and truthfulness—that as excellences of character
enabled man (sic) to live the good life. Virtue, both moral
and intellectual, is the means by which we become fully
human because it allows us to achieve our natural end, the
eudaimonic good life. Eudaimonia has been variously
translated as ‘happiness’, ‘bliss’ or ‘well-being’. ‘‘Virtues
are character traits which we need to live humanly flour-
ishingly lives’’ (Oakley and Cocking 2001 p. 18).
Virtues are central to character (Sarros et al. 2006), and
in leadership character is seen as ‘‘moral excellence’’
(Hendrix et al. 2004), and can be developed (Peterson and
Seligman 2003, 2004); Mendonca 2001). Typically, such
virtues include humility, courage, integrity, compassion,
humour, passion; and wisdom (Sarros et al. 2006); honesty,
fairness, kindness (London 1999); or altruism (Engelbrecht
et al. 2005); determination, tolerance, enthusiasm and
responsibility (Guillen and Gonzalez 2001; Solomon
1999); love, forgiveness, and trust (Caldwell and Dixon
2010).
Clearly, there is a danger of providing lists of virtues to
pick-and-mix from. However, two virtues that appear
prominently in the literature are integrity and authenticity.
Integrity
Many authors see integrity as fundamental to ethical
leadership (Brown et al. 2005; Engelbrecht et al. 2005;
Parry and Proctor-Thomson 2002; Heres 2010; Huberts
et al. 2007; Keating et al. 2007; Kolthoff et al. 2010; Re-
sick et al. 2006). Brown and Treviño (2006) assert that
subordinates are accustomed to thinking about their leader
in terms of ethics and integrity.
According to Badaracco and Ellsworth (1991), the word
integrity suggests wholeness, coherence, and a sense of
moral soundness, in which the core values are honesty and
justice. These authors hold that leaders with integrity will
try to keep consistency and coherence between their beliefs
and the way they act. Integrity is also about demonstrating
exemplary moral behaviour (Brenkert 2004), consistent
with laws and codes (Dobel 1999), and in accordance with
moral principles, norms and values (Fijnaut and Huberts
2002).
Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership 641
123
Integrity is demonstrated in daily behaviour and recog-
nized as a key factor in ethical leadership behaviour (De
Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Den Hartog and De Hoogh
2009). It reflects the coherence of the leader in his/her
behaviours by which he/she obtains credibility. Simons
(2002) defined behavioural integrity as ‘‘the perceived
pattern of alignment between an actor’s words and deeds’’
(p. 19). Behaving with integrity entails the ability to
determine the ethically correct course of action in a given
situation (Keating et al. 2007) and the ability to both
determine and engage in morally correct behaviour (Den
Hartog and De Hoogh 2009). Integrity is also considered a
fundamental component of character (Petrick and Quinn
1997), and has been recognized cross-culturally as one of
the pillars of ethical leadership (Resick et al. 2006). A
major research programme, the GLOBE project (Global
Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness)
was designed to explore the effects of culture on leader-
ship, organizational effectiveness, economic competitive-
ness of societies, and the human condition of members of
the societies (House et al. 2004), in 62 different societies
during the mid-1990s. The framework for cultural values
was derived from Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural
dimensions viz uncertainty avoidance, power distance,
institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender
egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, perfor-
mance orientation, and humane orientation. Concerning
leadership in general, House and his colleagues found that
charismatic/value-based leadership and integrity attributes
were positively endorsed as contributors of outstanding
leadership by all cultures included in their study (House
et al. 1999).
Integrity is also considered as part of the conscien-
tiousness trait of personality in relation to leadership.
According to Hogan et al. (1994), conscientious individuals
have integrity and generate trust. For (Engelbrecht et al.
2005), integrity implies virtue, honesty and sincerity. Pa-
lanski and Yammarino (2007) identify four behavioural
aspects of integrity: integrity as consistency of words and
actions, integrity as consistency in adversity, integrity as
being true to oneself, and integrity as moral/ethical
behaviour. It is interesting to note that it could be argued
that the first three behaviours may not, in fact, require
ethics at all. They also highlight that integrity is expected
to be accompanied by similar virtues such as authenticity,
honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and compassion; and
moreover, these other virtues may form a boundary con-
dition for integrity. Accordingly, then, integrity involves
wholeness, consistency, coherence and involves acting in
accordance with principles, norms and values, or in
accordance with laws and codes.
Integrity, then, seems to consist of both a character trait
and behaviour; it is both a possession and an action.
Authenticity
Authenticity is about knowing oneself and acting trans-
parently in accordance with one’s beliefs and values (May
et al. 2003; Avolio et al. 2004). Self-awareness, self-con-
trol and consistency and coherence in behaviours are key
features of the authentic leader (Avolio and Gardner 2005;
Shamir and Eilam 2005). For Luthans and Avolio (2003),
the authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic,
resilient, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority
to developing associates to be leaders. The authentic lea-
der is true to him/herself and the exhibited behaviour
positively transforms or develops associates into leaders
themselves (p. 243).
Yet the notion of ‘being true to oneself’ may be prob-
lematic. The idea of the one, and consistent, self is usually
taken for granted and yet, at the same time, the notion of
the self as a series of self-contained multiple selves
sometimes in competition with each other may also obtain
(i.e. we move, occasionally uneasily, between different
roles of, for example, father, spouse, brother etc.). Identity
may be fragmented and multiple, containing contradictory
selves and, within organisations, competing discourses (see
Ford 2006).
For (Walumbwa et al. 2008), authentic leadership is
more than being true to oneself, and they developed a
multi-dimensional model of the authentic leadership con-
struct, in which four elements are defined: self-awareness,
relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and
balanced processing. Their construct built upon previous
definitions of Luthans and Avolio’s (2003), (Gardner et al.
2005) and Ilies et al. (2005), resulting in the following
definition: authentic leadership is a pattern of leader
behaviour that draws upon and promotes both positive
psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to
foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral per-
spective, balanced processing of information, and rela-
tional transparency on the part of leaders working with
followers, fostering positive self-development (p. 94).
Leadership is perceived as relational and the idea of
authenticity transcends the self and, as such, is recog-
nized and legitimated by others. Thus, Shamir and Eilam
(2005) argue that to be an authentic leader it is not
sufficient that the leader has a high sense of self-
awareness and consistency, authenticity emerges from the
narrative process in which others play a constitutive role.
Leadership is co-constructed on an ongoing basis (Fair-
hurst and Grant 2010; Grint 2005). This is distinct from
the possibility of self-centred forms of self-fulfilment that
Taylor identified as part of the post-modern malaise
(Taylor 1991).
On these accounts then, both integrity and authenticity
are about doing, not just being.
642 A. Lawton, I. Páez
123
How do Leaders do What They do and How are Their
Relations with Others Constituted?
For MacIntyre (1985) a virtue requires some prior account of
social and moral life and virtue is a complex, historical and
multi-layered concept. Virtue requires a practice, an account of
what constitutes a moral tradition. The paradigm of human
excellencewilldependuponthecontext—thewarrior(Homer),
the Athenian gentleman (Aristotle) or, more recently, the
sportsman or woman, or the entrepreneur. MacIntyre argues
that we cannot identify, for example, the Homeric virtues until
we have identified the key social roles in Homeric society.
Therefore our concept of leadership comes after our under-
standing of key roles in our society. For MacIntyre, the virtues
are grounded in human practices and consist of internal goods
such that standards of excellence are appropriate to the practice
of, for example, administration, farming, or medicine. External
goods exist outside, and independently, of that practice and
include fame, money, power, and reputation. Virtues are those
qualities that enable us to achieve internal goods. Not all
practices must be good and it is not always clear what makes up
a practice. Is leadership a practice, is business a practice? These
questions are unresolved (Beadle 2008; Moore 2005 but see
Beabout 2012). MacIntyre also distinguishes between a prac-
tice and an institution and he identifies institutions with the
potential to corrupt this practice. Thus medicine is a practice
and a hospital is an institution, education is a practice and a
university is an institution. ‘Without justice, courage and
truthfulness, practices could not resist the corrupting power of
institutions’ (MacIntyre 1985, p. 194). At the same time the
idea that only those involved in a practice can understand and,
therefore, pass judgment on the practice is contestable (Kieran
1995; Moore 2008).
If we assume, for the moment, that leadership constitutes a
practice, what might be the internal goods of leadership? A
concern with how leaders engage with others has been a major
theme in the literature, focusing on both the nature of rela-
tionships with others and the content of that relationship.
Underpinning such relationships is a focus on responsible
leadership (Freeman et al. 2006; Maak and Pless 2006).
According to Enderle (1987), ‘‘when managers put the
question of ethical responsibility seriously, they become more
sensitive to the voices of those who will be affected by their
decisions’’ (p. 658).
Maak and Pless (2006) propose a relational understanding
of the concept of leadership. They define responsible leader-
ship as the art of building and sustaining relationships with all
relevant stakeholders. Relational leaders are described as the
‘weavers’ and facilitators of trusting stakeholder relations
(Howell and Avolio 1992), who have the capacity to assess
complex situations and problems from the perspectives of
different stakeholder and recognise that these stakeholders
may have diverse and conflicting objectives. Such leaders
balance the relationship dynamics aligning the different val-
ues of the various parties in a way that servesthe interest ofall.
A key question is how and where to draw a boundary around
those whom will be affected. The concept of the ‘other’ is
engaging scholars. Knights and O’Leary (2006) argue that
leadership theories tend to be overly focused on the ‘autono-
mous subject of Enlightenment thinking’ and leadership is seen
to be the property of individuals not that of social groups or
institutions, which results in individualistic theories of leader-
ship. These authors build on Levinas work about the ethics of
responsibility,inwhich the notionofthe self isgenerated notby
the self but rather through engagement with the Other, an
engagementthat isdefinedbya sense of responsibility (Levinas
1966). According to Knights and O’Leary, leaders’ ethical
responsibility is in their relations with others.
Similarly, Painter-Morland (2008), for example, argues
that the responsibility to nurture and encourage a relationally
responsive ethical attitude among the members of an orga-
nizationalsystemissharedbyall whoparticipate init.Painter-
Morland holds that leadership is socially construed from
complex interactions between individuals and groups, in
which creating and sustaining relationships of trust is how to
deal with complex organizational systems within dynamic
environments. Not only that, but also concepts such as trust
are important insofar as they may enhance the effectiveness of
the organization. High trust may lead to low transaction
costs—ethical business practices are not only important in
themselves as part of exchange relationships but also for
organizational outcomes. Leadership of, and as we argue
below, leadership for, both find expression within an institu-
tion. Institutions may nurture the relationships between the
leader and their followers and not, as MacIntyre has it, corrupt
the practice of leadership.
However, one of the characteristics of ethical leaders is
a concern with how their decisions affect others (Murphy
and Enderle 1995). When managers take this into account,
they became more sensitive of others needs inside and
outside of the organization. In order to make ethical deci-
sions, leaders require the use of ethical concepts and
principles (Dukerich et al. 1990) in their moral judgments.
At the same time is there something distinctive about the
scope, scale and types of decisions that leaders make?
Decisions by leaders may be far-reaching and wide-rang-
ing, non-routine, complex, with high stakes, and require the
exercise of judgment and not just the application of rules.
Why do Leaders do What They do and What are
the Outcomes of Leadership?
Much of the literature has focused on the relationship
between leadership and effectiveness in bringing about a
number of outcomes. The main foci have been with:
Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership 643
123
(i) individual outcomes for employees such as
followers’ voice behaviour (Walumbwa and
Schaubroeck 2009), follower job satisfaction,
commitment and perceptions of ethical climate
(Neubert et al. 2009; Rowold et al. 2009),
subordinate’s job performance (Piccolo et al.
2010).
(ii) individual outcomes concerning the leader them-
selves, such as promotability (Rubin et al. 2010).
(iii) group level outcomes such as organizational
citizenship behaviours -OCBs (Mayer et al.
2009), and group counter-productive work
behaviours—CWBs (Detert et al. 2007).
Thus, leaders, acting fairly and with consideration for
others may elicit positive responses in employees’ attitudes
and behaviours (Brown et al. 2005; Brown and Treviño
2006). According to Caldwell and Dixon (2010), leaders
who exhibit love, forgiveness, build relationship with
employees based on trust, and treat them with dignity and
respect, enhance employees’ self-efficacy, as well as,
commitment and loyalty (Cameron et al. 2003) and per-
formance (Cameron et al. 2004).
Kalshoven et al. (2011) build upon the behavioural
perspective of Brown et al. (2005), and developed a new
measure. They suggested, following De Hoogh and Den
Hartog (2008), that ethical leadership is a multi-dimen-
sional construct. That is, it involves different behaviours
that may have different antecedents and outcomes, which
as a whole, describe ethical leadership. Their aim was to
evaluate which types of leader behaviours may be seen as
ethical. Kalshoven (2010) developed the Ethical Leader-
ship at Work (ELW) questionnaire in which seven
dimensions of ethical leadership are developed and tested:
fairness, power sharing, role clarification, people orienta-
tion, integrity, ethical guidance, and concern for sustain-
ability. In line with this multi-dimensional construct, she
found different relationships between the various behav-
iours of ethical leadership and outcomes. For example,
fairness and power sharing were positively related to
employees’ organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs).
In general, she found that ethical leadership is positively
related to leader effectiveness, trust in the leader, employee
effectiveness, OCBs and satisfaction with the leader. Kal-
shoven also tested for the antecedents of ethical leadership
using the Big Five model of factors of personality (McCrae
and John 1992) finding that conscientiousness and agree-
ableness were the most related to ethical leadership. Thus,
ethical leadership can be understood as a more complex
construct involving a broader set of ethical behaviours.
However, outcomes at the organisational and societal
level have been more difficult to identify. The concept of
purpose is crucial to Aristotle’s account, and yet modern
scholars have, we believe, sought to identify virtues in
organizations at the neglect of a discussion of purpose.
Virtue is the means by which we become fully human
because it allows us to fulfil our particular human end, the
eudaimonic good life. This concept relates to Aristotle’s
teleological belief that something can only be understood
and fulfilled once it has reached its natural end. There is a
purpose to it. The good life can thus be recognized,
understood and, most importantly, attained. Aristotle’s
virtue theory, therefore, necessarily prioritizes the good
over the right, a distinction that remains crucial to virtue
ethics today (Mangini 2000; Oakley and Cocking 2001).
Macaulay and Lawton (2006) hold that not only is virtue
necessary for good governance, but it is also political in a
broader sense, as it cannot be cultivated or practiced out-
side of the polis. Man can only achieve eudaimonia inside
the polis because it is only this particular form of associ-
ation that facilitates the development of his human self.
There have, however, been a limited number of attempts
to link virtue to organisational purpose. Arjoon (2000),
Bragues (2006), and Flynn (2008) offer frameworks to
understand business and leadership ethics from the point of
view of virtue ethics. According to Bragues (2006), the
greatest ethical imperative for business (from an Aristote-
lian point of view) is to give individuals opportunities to
participate in the management of the organisation and to
contemplate wider implications. ‘‘Affording individuals
chances to apply their leadership skills and engage in
philosophic reflection constitutes the most important mis-
sion of Aristotelian business ethics’’ (Bragues 2006, p.355).
Arjoon (2000) developed a meta-theory of business based
on virtue theory which links the concept of virtues, the
common good, and the economy into a unifying and
comprehensive theory of business. According to Arjoon,
leadership falls into the realm of ethics where true lead-
ership is ethical leadership. Arjoon holds that true leaders
should have a clear vision of the common good and the
means to promote it, and that leaders are supposed to lead
people to attain some goal or objective, and this objective,
from a virtue theory perspective, must be the common
good. Finally, Flynn (2008) argues that leadership is
placing business at the service of society. Flynn proposes
that leaders should recognise the psychological, social and
spiritual values, and associated needs, of individual work-
ers and their families, in which the character of the leader is
essential. Clearly, the problem with such views is their
normative character, and it raises a whole host of questions
concerning the extent to which individuals seek purpose
from their work places.
The notion of ethical stewardship has been used in this
context. Ethical stewardship is described as an ‘‘ethically
superior governance model that creates long-term organi-
zational wealth by generating increased employee
644 A. Lawton, I. Páez
123
commitment’’ (Caldwell 2009, p. 161). According to
Caldwell and colleagues, leaders engender commitment
when they build trust and ensure the welfare, growth, and
‘wholeness’ of all stakeholders (Caldwell et al. 2002).
However, we concur with Kempster et al. (2011) that
there has been too little discussion of the relationship
between leadership and organizational purpose. From an
ethical point of view, the focus on the individual agent, and
his or her actions, is appropriate. To examine the ethics of
the organization is more problematic if ethics is to be found
in the processes, and the relationships, through which the
organization achieves its goals. Morality may be said to
establish the conditions, not the goals, of conduct.
Discussion
We recognise, with other scholars, that there have been
neglected areas of ethical leadership research; in particular,
research on antecedents (Kalshoven et al. 2011; Eisenbeiß
and Giessner 2012), purpose (Kempster et al. 2011) or
indeed, ethical theory itself (Ciulla 2005; Rost, 1995).
Different approaches have been taken to the study of eth-
ical leadership and in so doing have raised a number of
fundamental issues. The development of measures to
explore the ethical behaviour of leaders and the subsequent
use of these measures has led to some interesting findings.
Thus, some studies have endorsed the idea that certain
dimensions of ethical leadership are cross-culturally
endorsed (Resick et al. 2011; Den Hartog et al. 1999).
Other studies have found divergence based on the indivi-
dualist-collectivist dimension (Keating et al. 2007; Martin
et al. 2009). Some authors take a non-Western approach to
study the ethical dimension of leadership, for example,
Kemavuthanon and Duberley (2009) who use a Buddhist
view of leadership in a case study in Thailand or Prince
(2005) examining Taoism and leadership. Other scholars
have offered an integrated, holistic approach (Eisenbeiss
2012). Drawing on different religious and ethical traditions
Eisenbeiss (2012) identifies 4 ethical orientations for
leadership; 1) humane orientation, 2) justice orientation, 3)
responsibility and sustainability orientation, and 4) mod-
eration orientation.
However, the question of the universalizability of ethics
is not new and raises key questions concerning the foun-
dation and source of ethical beliefs, values and justifica-
tions of ethical behaviour. Thus studies have moved
beyond a focus on individual attributes and have intro-
duced cultural, political and social norms. This resonates
with our earlier discussion of the relationships between
virtue, the practice and the norms of particular societies.
However, we need to separate questions of fact and value.
Cross-cultural studies demonstrate the existence of
common ethical attributes and also differences; this is not
the same as endorsing a particular set of values. Dworkin
(2012) argues for the unity of value but he distinguishes
between moral judgments within a system of values (first-
order or substantive) and judgments about a system of
values (second-order or meta). We need to be clear about
the kinds of claims that are being made, empirical or
normative, and the extent to which ‘living well’ can be
found within organizational life as those who seek to link
virtue to purpose seek to demonstrate. Can individual
purpose be identified with organizational purpose in much
the same way as individual purpose was embedded within
the Athenian polis?
Clearly, there have been a range of different approaches
adopted and it is difficult to get a sense of research into
ethical leadership as a coherent body of study. We suggest
the following framework, Fig. 2, to draw together the dif-
ferent dimensions to ethical leadership. These dimensions
interlock in terms of the who, why and how of leadership.
Authentic leaders act with integrity through their rela-
tionships with others to achieve ethical outcomes. Ethical
outcomes require virtuous leaders who engage with others
responsibly and build trust.
We argue that a discussion of the virtues cannot be
separated from the context within which they are practised.
We also suggest that the exercise of different virtues will
be appropriate to the different roles that leaders play. For
example, the creation of a vision and purpose may require
courage and moral imagination; ethical decision-making,
as part of a practice, may require judgement, competence
and prudence; inspiring others may require honesty,
transparency and providing a moral exemplar. In this sense
virtues cannot be separate from practices and purposes. Our
holistic approach to ethical leadership might best be
understood in terms of distinct types of activities where the
interplay of virtues, practices and purposes will lead to
different forms of ethical leadership. This could, for
example, be found in sectoral differences; the professional
Practices
VirtuesPurposes
Fig. 2 Research framework
Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership 645
123
practices of public officials, not to break the law, to act on
behalf of the public, to treat citizens equitably and impar-
tially, and so on, will require different ethical consider-
ations, particularly in terms of purpose. Context will have a
bearing on vision — e.g. public officials both elected and
appointed subscribe to the notion of acting in the public
interest, and will have a view of what that actually means.
The justification for their actions may be different than for
those in other sectors. We need more on the nature of
explanation and justification. Thus ethnographic research
might ask ‘Why did you act in the way that you did and
what reasons can you give for acting in such a way? Or
‘Why did you make the decisions that you did’? In her
study comparing the understanding of ethical leadership
between public and private organizations in The Nether-
lands, Heres (2010) found both similarities and differences.
Concerning similarities, she found that in general, man-
agers of both type of organizations view ethical leadership
as grounded in the person of the ethical leader. That is,
ethical leadership is highly associated with the ‘moral
person’. The traits in which there seem to be a general
agreement are authenticity, openness, and moral courage.
She found differences in ethical leaders’ traits in a pref-
erence for altruism and concern for the common good in
public sector managers, and for honesty in private sector
managers.
A virtues approach has much to commend it, particu-
larly if it is drawn more widely than Aristotelian virtues.
Whilst virtues may focus on the individual they will be
found in organizational practices that provide a context. At
the same time, they will be shaped by the wider purpose of
the organisation. Thus, practical wisdom is needed in or-
ganisations that link particular activities to organisational
ends and the good life (Beabout 2012).
Conclusions
A number of authors have argued for more ethical theory
(Ciulla 2005; Rost 1995). A different issue is to what extent
are their limits to the scope of ethics (Coady 2008). Why
should it be applied to everything as though it is an
umbrella that covers all our activities? Do we stop and
think of ethics in our day-to-day activities e.g. going
shopping, playing sport, playing chess etc. Coady (2008)
makes the distinction between morality and moralism,
which he considers a vice, which includes judging others in
the light of the moralizer’s own considerations. We have
argued that leadership can be examined from an ethical
perspective and that different dimensions of leadership are
compatible with different approaches to ethics.
We asked a number of questions in our Introduction and
we turn to our responses to these questions.
Question 1: What do Leaders do and What are Their
Characteristics?
Clearly there is a wealth of research in response to this
question, and a measure of disagreement. We pointed to the
notion that leadership is concerned with a vision, with
imagining some future state, and from an ethical point of
view this involves some notion of the good life. Rather
than this idealist approach we may take a more pragmatic
view and consider more modest ambitions i.e. in health
organizations this might be ‘do no harm’, in other orga-
nizations it might be ensuring that all employees are treated
with dignity, respect and justice. From these more humble
ambitions might flow the achievement of ‘grander’
ambitions.
We might also consider further the extent to which
leadership is, in MacInytre’s terms, a practice. We cannot
fulfil ourselves through having merely instrumental rela-
tionships. The implications is that leadership has its own
intrinsic rewards irrespective of consequences and these
rewards might be, for example, the sense of playing a part
in the development of others – the professor who sees the
development of their former Research Assistant into a
professor in their own right. If leadership constitutes such a
practice then it may be corrupted by an institution. Our
framework allows for external goods that might consist of,
for example, the public interest, which actually provides a
context for the practice rather than corrupting it.
Question 2: How do They do What They do?
What can leaders be held responsible for? One argument is
that the capacity to take responsibility when and where
needed should be nurtured throughout the organization
irrespective of the existence of a formal organizational
hierarchy. Yet we need to know more about what kinds of
decisions do individuals within organizations and at dif-
ferent levels make? We need more research on the links
between leadership and ethical decision-making (O’Fallon
and Butterfield 2005; Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008;
Treviño et al. 2006).
At the same time, discretion requires judgement and
thus an element of leadership where individuals assess,
decide and act in ways that are not predetermined by rules
and regulations but require initiative and responsibility is
important.
Question 3: For What Purpose do They do it?
When assessing the impact of ethical leadership, as distinct
from leadership per se, then we might consider, for
example, personal freedom, human dignity, social har-
mony, or environmental sustainability as indicators of
646 A. Lawton, I. Páez
123
impact? At present the effectiveness of leaders is deter-
mined by organisational factors rather than ethical factors,
notwithstanding the fact that the concept of ethical per-
formance is extremely tricky. At the same time whilst we
might expect our public sector organizations to promote
and pursue an ethical agenda is it enough that businesses
are comply with that agenda? We concur with Mumford
(2011, p. 5) that ‘‘…we need a better taxonomy of the key
outcomes associated with leadership.’’
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the anonymous
reviewers of this article who provided comprehensive and thought-
provoking feedback on earlier versions of the paper.
References
Aristotle, (1947). Nicomachean ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross. New
York: Random House.
Arjoon, S. (2000). Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business.
Journal of Business Ethics, 28(2), 159–178.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership
development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
Avolio, B., Luthans, F., Walumbwa, F.O. (2004). Authentic leader-
ship: Theory-building for veritable sustained performance.
Working paper. Lincoln: Gallup Leadership Institute, University
of Nebraska.
Badaracco, J. L, Jr, & Ellsworth, R. R. (1991). Leadership, integrity
and conflict. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
4(4), 46–55.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge:
Harvard
University Press.
Beabout, G. R. (2012). Management as a domain-relative practice that
requires and develops practical wisdom. Business Ethics Quar-
terly, 22(2), 405–432.
Beadle, R. (2008). Why business cannot be a practice. Analyse &
Kritik, 30, 229–241.
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2008). Principles of biomedical
ethics (6th ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Bragues, G. (2006). Seek the good life, not money: The Aristotelian
approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4),
341–357.
Brenkert, G. G. (2004). Corporate integrity and accountability.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-
ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97(2), 117–134.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Caldwell, C. (2009). Identity, self-awareness, and self-deception:
Ethical implications for leaders and organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(3), 393–406.
Caldwell, C., Bischoff, S. J., & Karri, R. (2002). The four umpires: A
paradigm for ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,
36(1/2), 153–163.
Caldwell, C., & Dixon, R. D. (2010). Love, forgiveness, and trust:
Critical values of the modern leader. Journal of Business Ethics,
93(1), 91–101.
Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the
relationships between organizational virtuousness and perfor-
mance. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766–790.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive
organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Carlisle, Y. M., & Manning, D. J. (1996). The Domain of Professional
Business Ethics. Organization, 3(3), 341–360.
Cawley, M. J., Martin, J. E., & Johnson, J. A. (2000). A virtues
approach to personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
28(5), 997–1013.
Ciulla, J. B. (2005). The state of leadership ethics and the work that
lies before us. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4),
323–335.
Coady, C. A. J. (2008). Messy morality: The challenge of politics.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2009). The philosopher leader: On relationalism,
ethics and reflexivity—A critical perspective to teaching lead-
ership. Management Learning, 40(1), 87–101.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and
despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsi-
bility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’
optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3),
297–311.
Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2009). Empowering
behaviour and leader fairness and integrity: Studying perceptions
of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis perspective.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
18(2), 199–230.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.
A., Dorfman, P. W., et al. (1999). Culturally specific and cross-
culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attri-
butes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally
endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219–256.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007).
Managerial modes of influence and counter productivity in
organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 993–1005.
Dobel, J. P. (1999). Public integrity. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press.
Dukerich, J. M., Nichols, M. L., Elm, D. R., & Vollrath, D. A. (1990).
Moral reasoning in groups: Leaders make a difference. Human
Relations, 43(5), 473–493.
Dworkin, R. (2012). Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdis-
ciplinary integrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5),
791–808.
Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Giessner, S. R. (2012). The emergence and
maintenance of ethical leadership in organizations: A question of
embeddedness? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 7–19.
Enderle, G. (1987). Some perspectives of managerial ethical leader-
ship. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(8), 657–663.
Engelbrecht, A. S., van Aswegen, A. S., & Theron, C. C. (2005). The
effect of ethical values on transformational leadership and
ethical climate in organisations. South African Journal of
Business Management, 36(2), 19–26.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Grant, D. (2010). The social construction of
leadership: A sailing guide. Management Communications
Quarterly, 24(2), 171–210.
Fijnaut, C. J. C. F., & Huberts, L. W. J. C. (2002). Corruption,
integrity and law enforcement. Dordrecht: Kluwer Law
International.
Flynn, G. (2008). The virtuous manager: A vision for leadership in
business. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 359–372.
Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership 647
123
Ford, J. (2006). Discourses of leadership: Gender, identity and
contradiction in a UK public sector organization. Leadership,
2(1), 77–99.
Freeman, R. E., Martin, K., Parmar, B., Cording, M. P., & Werhane,
P. H. (2006). Leading through values and ethical principles. In R.
J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Inspiring leaders (pp. 149–174).
Abingdon:
Routledge.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa,
F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of
authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372.
Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social con-
struction of ‘leadership’. Human Relations, 58, 1467–1494.
Guillen, M., & Gonzalez, T. F. (2001). The ethical dimension of
managerial leadership: Two illustrative case studies in TQM.
Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3/4), 175–189.
Hendrix, W. H., Barlow, C. B., & Luedtke, C. J. (2004). Multimethod
approach for measuring changes in character. Journal of
Research in Character Education, 2(1), 59–80.
Heres, L. (2010). What makes the difference? Ethical leadership
across the public-private continuum. Amsterdam: Faculty of
Social Sciences, Vrije Universitei.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications Inc.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,
behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about
leadership. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V.
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE
study of 62 societies. California: Sage Publications Inc.
House, R., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S., Dorfman, P., Javidan, M.,
Dickson, M., et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and
organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. Mobley, M. Gessner, & V.
Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1,
pp. 171–233). Stamford: JAI Press.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic
leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management
Executive, 6(2), 43–52.
Huberts, L. W. J. C., Kaptein, M., & Lasthuizen, K. (2007). A study
of the impact of three leadership styles on integrity violations
committed by police officers. Policing: An International Journal
of Police Strategies & Management, 30(4), 587–607.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic
leadership and eudaemonic wellbeing: Understanding leader-
follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373–394.
Kalshoven, K. (2010). Ethical leadership: Through the eyes of
employees. Doctoral dissertation. The Netherlands: Faculty of
Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam. ISBN
978-90-9024946-9.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).
Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development
and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(1), 51–69.
Keating, M., Martin, G. S., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2007). A
comparative study of the endorsement of ethical leadership in
Ireland and the United States. The Irish Journal of Management,
28(1), 5–30.
Kemavuthanon, S., & Duberley, J. (2009). A Buddhist view of
leadership: The case of the OTOP project. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 30(8), 737–758.
Kempster, S., Jackson, B., & Conroy, M. (2011). Leadership as
purpose: Exploring the role of purpose in leadership practice.
Leadership, 7(3), 317–334.
Kieran, M. (1995). Applied philosophy and business ethics. Journal
of Applied Philosophy, 12(2), 175–187.
Knights, D., & O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, ethics and respon-
sibility to the other. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 125–137.
Kolthoff, E., Erakovich, R., & Lasthuizen, K. (2010). Comparative
analysis of ethical leadership and ethical culture in local
government: The USA, The Netherlands, Montenegro and
Serbia. International Journal of Public Sector Management,
23(7), 596–612.
Lawton, A., Rayner, J., & Lasthuizen, K. (2013). Ethics and
management in the public sector. London and New York:
Routledge.
Levinas, E. (1966). On the Trail of the Other (D J. Hoy, Trans.)
Philosophy Today, 10(1), 34-46.
London, M. (1999). Principled leadership and business diplomacy: A
practical, values-based direction for management development.
Journal of Management Development, 18(2), 170–192.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive
development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.
E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a
stakeholder society: A relational perspective. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 66(1), 99–115.
Macaulay, M., & Lawton, A. (2006). From virtue to competence:
Changing the principles of public service. Public Administration
Review, 66(5), 702–710.
MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.).
London: Duckworth.
Mangini, M. (2000). Character and well-being: Towards an ethic of
character. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 26(2), 79–98.
Martin, G. S., Resick, C. J., Keating, M. A., & Dickson, M. W.
(2009). Ethical leadership across cultures: A comparative
analysis of German and US perspectives. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 18(2), 127–144.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003).
Developing the moral component of authentic leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,
R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a
trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-
factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2),
175–215.
Mendonca, M. (2001). Preparing for ethical leadership in organiza-
tions. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4),
266–276.
Mendus, S. (2009). Politics and Morality. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moore, G. (2005). Corporate character: Modern virtue ethics and the
virtuous corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4), 657–685.
Moore, G. (2008). Re-imaging the morality of management: A
modern virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4),
483–511.
Mumford, M. D. (2011). A hale farewell: The state of leadership
research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1–7.
Murphy, P. E., & Enderle, G. (1995). Managerial ethical leadership:
examples do matter. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 117–128.
Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F. (2003). Redefining state leadership and
management development: A process for competence-based
development. Public Personnel Management, 32(1), 23–46.
Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., &
Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical
leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(2), 157–170.
648 A. Lawton, I. Páez
123
O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the
empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.
Oakley, J., & Cocking, D. (2001). Virtue ethics and professional
roles. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Painter-Morland, M. (2008). Systemic leadership and the emergence
of ethical responsiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2),
509–524.
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership:
Clearing the conceptual confusion. European Management
Journal, 25(3), 171–184.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of
transformational leaders in organisational settings. Journal of
Business Ethics, 35(2), 75–96.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Character strengths before
and after September 11. Psychological Science, 14(4), 381–384.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and
virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Petrick, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. (1997). Management ethics: Integrity at
work. Thousand Oaks: Sage Series in Business Ethics.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R.
(2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job
characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2/3),
259–278.
Price, T. L. (2008). Leadership ethics: An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Prince, L. (2005). Eating the menu rather than the dinner: Tao and
leadership. Leadership, 1(1), 105–126.
Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K.
(2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of
ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345–359.
Resick, C. J., Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Dickson, M. W., Kwan,
H. K., & Peng, C. (2011). What ethical leadership means to me:
Asian, American and European perspectives. Journal of Business
Ethics, 101, 435–457.
Rost, J. C. (1995). Leadership: A discussion about ethics. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 129–142.
Rowold, J., Borgmann, L., & Heinitz, K. (2009). Ethical leadership:
Psychometric properties of a German adaptation of Brown et al.
(2005) Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS-D). Zeitschrift fur arbeits-
und organizations psychologie, 53(2), 57–69.
Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010). Do ethical
leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotabil-
ity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 215–236.
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Hartican, A. M. (2006). Leadership
and character. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
27(8), 682–699.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological
interpretation. New York: Harper and Row.
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). What’s your story? A life-stories
approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 395–417.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment
between manager’s words and deeds as a research focus.
Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.
Solomon, R. (1999). A better way to think about business: How
personal integrity leads to corporate success. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision
making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. The
Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.
Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person
and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for
ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4),
128–142.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral
ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management,
32(6), 951–990.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., &
Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and
validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management,
34(1), 89–126.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits
and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical
leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.
Whetstone, J. T. (2005). A framework for organizational virtue: The
interrelationship of mission, culture and leadership. Business
Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 367–378.
Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership 649
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
- c.10551_2014_Article_2244
Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership
Abstract
Introduction
Who are Ethical Leaders and What are Their Characteristics?
Virtues
Integrity
Authenticity
How do Leaders do What They do and How are Their Relations with Others Constituted?
Why do Leaders do What They do and What are the Outcomes of Leadership?
Discussion
Conclusions
Question 1: What do Leaders do and What are Their Characteristics?
Question 2: How do They do What They do?
Question 3: For What Purpose do They do it?
Acknowledgments
References
Ethics Draw Customers BE HONEST AND
DEPENDABLE; TAKE RESPONSIBILITY:
Otherwise, Nos 1-9 won’t matter.
Watkins, Steve . Investor’s Business Daily ; Los Angeles [Los Angeles]25 Sep 2015: A03.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
Customers want to buy from companies that they trust. Employees want to work for those firms, too. That’s why
trust is so vital to operate ethically. Tips: Make rules. Set boundaries for receiving gifts, being entertained by
suppliers and reporting expenses, says Bob Buck, chairman of Beacon Roofing Supply (BECN). You’ll set the
framework for the type of behavior that you expect. Hire for it. Make integrity the priority when you hire. Sure,
FULL TEXT
Non-USASCII text has been omitted.
Customers want to buy from companies that they trust. Employees want to work for those firms, too. That’s why
trust is so vital to operate ethically. Tips:
[bullet] Make rules. Set boundaries for receiving gifts, being entertained by suppliers and reporting expenses, says
Bob Buck, chairman of Beacon Roofing Supply ([STOCK[NASDAQ:BECN]]). You’ll set the framework for the type of
behavior that you expect.
[bullet] Hire for it. Make integrity the priority when you hire.
Sure, skills are important. But a strong performer who puts the firm’s reputation at risk will be a liability. Bring in
people you feel are honest, and promote only those you can trust. “Good and ethical people attract more good and
ethical people,” said Buck, author of “Well Built: Inspiring Stories from the Boardroom to the Frontline.”
[bullet] Show it. Execs often say that the company won’t cross an ethical line. But the key is how they act when a
tough choice arrives. Stick to your guns even if it means losing a sale to a company that wants a kickback. Your
people notice. “They hear what you do, not what you say,” said Marianne Jennings, professor emeritus of business
ethics at Arizona State University.
[bullet] Walk around. Talk to people in your company rather than sitting in the corner office. Jennings says that this
personal touch will keep you abreast of potential problems before they occur. “It makes you more accessible, too.”
[bullet] Set the tone. When Buck was Beacon’s CEO, he wrote weekly updates to employees, frequently discussing
how the firm should operate ethically. It showed his people how important ethics were in his eyes. “People felt they
got to know me,” he told IBD. “It does break down barriers.”
[bullet] Show what you want. Recognize people who make the right choice. If an employee finds money on a job
site and turns it in, tell the whole company about it.
“Make heroes of the people who behave ethically,” Buck said.
[bullet] Adjust incentives. Pay employees based on performance over a long span, like three years, rather than on
yearly or quarterly results, Jennings says. You’ll reduce the temptation to change a depreciation schedule or toy
with reserves to make a financial target.
“People see those things, and it introduces an element of hypocrisy,” Jennings said. “If people understand there’s a
longer time frame, they’ll make better decisions.”
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1716082296?accountid=33337
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1716082296?accountid=33337
[bullet] Set up consequences. Stick to your rules. Live by the punishments you’ve put in place, whether they’re for
the lowest-level employee or a group vice president. Jennings knows of one company that fired a sales person
whose ethical breach involving foreign corruption got the company in trouble. Then it quickly hired the guy back.
That doesn’t work. “You have to enforce what you’re saying,” she said.
[bullet] Reinforce. Buck made Beacon’s most coveted award based on character and integrity. “That really made
ethics more important than sales or profits,” he said.
[bullet] Look ahead. You can handle most sticky situations by knowing in advance how to deal with them, Jennings
says. If you sell overseas in developing markets, set up a no-bribery policy and make it clear to your people in those
countries how to handle such situations.
“Anticipate the types of things that could happen,” Jennings said.
[bullet] Make the hard choice. Go with your principles even if it’s costly in the short term.
If a sales rep falsely pads monthly numbers, dole out the same punishment, whether he’s your best sales person or
your worst.
“Stick to the policy,” Buck said. “Sometimes you have to take the hard right.”
DETAILS
Subject: Ethics; Chief executive officers; Sales; Employees
Publication title: Investor’s Business Daily; Los Angeles
First page: A03
Publication year: 2015
Publication date: Sep 25, 2015
column: IBD’S 10 SECRETS TO SUCCESS
Section: Management
Publisher: Investor’s Business Daily, Inc.
Place of publication: Los Angeles
Country of publication: United States, Los Angeles
Publication subject: Business And Economics–Investments
ISSN: 10612890
Source type: Newspapers
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 1716082296
Database copyright 2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
Document URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1716082296?accountid=33337
Copyright: Copyright 2015 Investor’s Business Daily, Inc
Last updated: 2015-09-24
Database: ABI/INFORM Collection
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1716082296?accountid=33337
https://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontact
- Ethics Draw Customers BE HONEST AND DEPENDABLE; TAKE RESPONSIBILITY: Otherwise, Nos 1-9 won’t matter.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
