Craig E. Johnson
The arrival of the new millennium brought with it a tsunami of corporate scandals. Just as the publicity from one wave of discredited companies (Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia) subsided, another wave rose to take its place (Health South, Strong Mutual Funds), only to be followed by yet another (Fannie Mae, AIG Insurance). All of these cases of moral failure serve as vivid reminders of the importance of ethical leadership. In every instance, leaders engaged in immoral behavior and encouraged their followers to do the same.
Despite its significance, scholars, educators, and practitioners frequently overlook the ethical dimension of leadership. Social scientific research into leadership ethics is “a relatively new topic.”[1] Management school instructors often limit discussion of the subject to a single period scheduled near the end of the quarter or semester, which may be dropped if time runs short. Many organizational leaders pay grudging attention to ethics largely in response to outside pressures like media scrutiny, federal sentencing guidelines, and congressional investigations.[2] They institute ethics programs (ethics hotlines, written codes, complaint procedures) but then give them minimal support. As a result, these procedures have little influence on day-to-day operations.[3]
This chapter brings ethics to the forefront of leadership practice, based on the premise that exerting moral influence is critical to organizational performance. The first section defines the task of ethical leadership and identifies key practices that enable leaders to carry out this responsibility. The second section introduces resources or tools that leaders can draw on when assuming ethical duties. The final portion of the chapter describes the positive outcomes produced by ethical leadership.
There are two components to ethical leadership. First, leaders behave morally as they carry out their roles. Second, they shape the ethical contexts of their groups and organizations. These dual responsibilities intertwine (the leader’s behavior acts as a model for the rest of the organization, for example), but examining each one separately provides a more complete picture of the task facing leadership practitioners.
The nature of the leadership role imposes a particular set of ethical responsibilities.[4] As compared to followers, leaders (1) are more powerful, (2) enjoy greater privileges, (3) are privy to more information, (4) have wider spans of authority or responsibility, (5) deal with a broader range of constituencies who demand consistent treatment, and (6) balance a wider variety of loyalties when making decisions.[5] Because leaders exert widespread influence, how they respond to the ethical demands of their roles has an immediate impact on followers, for good or ill. Educator Parker Palmer argues that the difference between moral and immoral leadership can be as dramatic as the contrast between light and darkness. He describes a leader as “a person who has an unusual degree of power to create the conditions under which other people must live and move and have their being, conditions that can either be as illuminating as heaven or as shadowy as hell.”[6]
Table 7.1 summarizes issues raised by each of the ethical demands of leadership. The last column highlights some of the ways that leaders cast shadows by failing to meet these moral challenges. Name a fallen leader, and the chances are good that he or she failed to adequately address one or more of the issues posed by power, privilege, information, responsibility, consistency, and loyalty. Enron’s chairman Kenneth Lay and chief executive officer (CEO) Jeffrey Skilling cast a great many shadows by threatening their enemies, spending lavishly, manipulating information, failing to take responsibility for their actions, bending the rules for star performers, and violating the trust of employees.
Table 7.1. Ethical Demands of the Leadership Role.
Responsibility | Issues | Abuses |
|---|---|---|
Greater Power | What forms of power to use What goals to pursue How much power to keep How to avoid the corruptive influence of having too much power | Exclusive reliance on positional power (legitimate, coercive, reward) Serving selfish interests Hoarding power/reducing the power of followers Refusing to be influenced Petty tyranny/brutality |
Greater Privilege | How many additional privileges leaders should have Determining the relative difference in privileges between leaders and followers How to close the gap between the haves and have-nots | Excessive compensation and severance packages Extreme pay gaps between leaders and followers Self-absorption/ignoring the less fortunate |
Greater Information | When to release information and to whom Whether to reveal possession of information Whether to lie or to tell the truth What information to collect How to collect information | Withholding needed information Releasing information to the wrong people Lying, deception Using information solely for personal benefit Violation of privacy rights |
Multiple Constituencies | Whether to treat all followers equally When to bend the rules and for whom How to treat outsiders | Playing favorites/creating “out groups” Acting arbitrarily Privileging some outside groups at the expense of others |
Broader Responsibility | How far the leader’s responsibility extends Whether leaders are responsible for the unethical behavior of followers What leaders “owe” followers What standards should apply to leaders | Failing to prevent follower misdeeds Ignoring ethical problems Failing to take responsibility for the consequences of directives Denying duties to followers Holding followers to higher standards |
Multiple Loyalties | How to balance loyalties or duties to many different groups Where to place loyalties Whether to keep or to break trust | Serving selfish interests Ignoring the larger community Breaking promises Taking advantage of vulnerable followers |
Other experts have joined Palmer in pointing out the “shadow” side of leadership. Lipman-Blumen[7] uses the term “toxic” to describe leaders who engage in a range of destructive behaviors and exhibit dys-functional personal characteristics. Toxic behaviors include damaging followers and violating their rights, encouraging dependence, lying, accumulating power, scapegoating, and playing favorites. Toxic personal characteristics include a lack of integrity, insatiable ambition, avarice, ethical insensitivity, and cowardice. Kellerman classifies “bad” leaders as both ineffective and unethical.[8] Ineffective leaders fail to produce the required results; unethical leaders violate “common codes of decency and good conduct.” Unethical leaders put personal needs first, fail to display private virtues like courage and temperance, and put their group’s narrow interests ahead of the larger good. The actions of unethical leaders stem in large part from unhealthy motivations, including:
Fear. Leaders are particularly afraid of chaos and failure. To combat disorder, they impose structures, rules, and regulations that can stifle creativity and dissent.[9] Such petty rules and regulations (for example, making employees rewrite their resignation letters, chaining laptop computers to desktops) provide plenty of material for Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams to poke fun at. To stave off failure, leaders take few risks, extend the life of outdated projects and programs, and punish those who take initiative but fall short. Too few have the attitude of the founder of the Johnson & Johnson company, who declared, “If I wasn’t making mistakes, I wasn’t making decisions.”[10] Two realizations can calm fears of chaos and disorder. First, the creative process is naturally “messy” and chaotic. Second, many successful leaders have experienced significant failure at some point during their careers.[11]
Greed. Greed encourages dishonesty, blinds leaders to the needs of others, and focuses attention on selfish interests rather than the greater good. There are plenty of examples of leader excess. Former Adelphia CEO John Rigas looted the cable company to build a golf course in his backyard, buy a hockey team, and enrich his family members. Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski paid for expensive artwork with money from a program designed to help employees buy company stock. He then tried to avoid paying New York state sales tax on his purchases.[12] Greed can be dampened with a change in perspective. Leaders who adopt a stewardship orientation are much less likely to take advantage of others.[13] They believe that they are entrusted with their roles and use their authority to serve the needs of followers.
Ego. Ego distorts decision-making processes, which can lead to a number of immoral choices. Those in positions of high authority, like former House majority leader Tom DeLay, Martha Stewart, and WorldCom founder Bernie Ebbers, are most in danger of suffering from inflated egos that lead to foolish choices.[14] Their access to many sources of information convinces them that they are all-knowing (the sense of omniscience). Possessing great power, they mistakenly believe that they can do anything they want in or outside their organizations (the sense of omnipotence). Subservient employees and staff seduce powerful individuals into believing that they are well protected from the consequences of lying, stealing, manipulating earnings, accepting gifts from congressional lobbyists, and other misbehaviors (the sense of invulnerability). One way to keep ego in check is by asking a series of questions, such as “Have I invited and tolerated dissent?”“What have I omitted from my analysis?”“Are my decisions or behavior having a negative impact on the relationships involved?”“Am I rewarding ego-dominant, relationship-destroying attitudes in others?”[15]
Moral leaders practice self-reflection, looking inward to identify and then to combat unhealthy motivations that lead to ethical failures. In addition to behaving morally, ethical leaders have to convince others to do likewise. Moral leadership actively influences the ethical context. Fulfilling this second component of the ethical leadership task calls for both defensive and proactive measures. Defensive strategies seek to prevent unethical, destructive behaviors; proactive tactics intentionally foster a positive ethical climate. Johnson & Johnson tries to prevent uncivil behavior by including the following statement in its credo: “We are responsible to our employees. . . . We must respect their dignity.” Former Waste Management CEO Maurice (Marty) Myers led a successful effort to reform the ethical culture of his corporation after previous executives were accused of overstating a billion dollars in earnings between 1992 and 1997. Myers created a positive ethical climate by meeting with employees to regain their trust, creating an anonymous hotline to receive reports of unethical behavior, honestly reporting financial results, and reinstituting the position of ethics officer.[16]
There is a shadow side to organizations just as there is to individual leaders. “Dark side” organizational behaviors are deliberate attempts to harm others or the organization.[17] Categories of misbehaviors include:
Incivility. Rude or discourteous actions, intentional or unintentional, that disregard others and violate norms for respect (for example, failing to acknowledge a coworker, claiming credit for someone else’s work, and making a sarcastic comment about a peer).[18]
Aggression. Consciously trying to hurt or injure others or the organization itself. Can be physical-verbal (destructive words or deeds); active-passive (doing harm by acting or by failing to act); or direct-indirect (doing harm directly to the individual or indirectly through an intermediary and by attacking something the target values).[19]
Sexual Harassment. A form of aggression largely directed at women. Quid pro quo harassment consists of forcing someone to provide sexual favors in return for keeping a job or getting a promotion. Hostile work environment harassment occurs when job conditions (sexist behavior, threats, and demeaning comments) interfere with job performance.[20]
Discrimination. Putting members of selected groups at a disadvantage based on prejudice and stereotypes. Often expressed subtly through such behaviors as avoiding members of low status groups and dismissing the achievements of women and people of color.[21]
How leaders respond to these unethical behaviors has a significant impact on the ethical context. Unfortunately, leaders set a negative tone in far too many cases. Their positions of power and influence make it more likely that they will act uncivilly, bully others, and offer favors in return for sex. Even if they refrain from misbehaving, leaders signal that destructive activities are sanctioned or tolerated if they take no action against offenders. The ethical climate deteriorates as a result. Unchecked incivility escalates into more aggressive behavior. An organizational culture of aggression emerges when abusive individuals are allowed to act as role models.[22] Incidents of sexual harassment go unreported when organizational leaders fail to investigate charges or to punish offenders.[23] Discriminatory behavior continues unless leaders intervene to challenge these patterns.[24]
Ethical leadership means taking steps to prevent and control dark side behaviors, starting at the top of the organization. Executives create zero-tolerance policies that outlaw antisocial behaviors and follow these guidelines themselves. They use their power constructively, confronting and punishing offenders at the first sign of trouble.[25] Moral leaders also address contextual triggers of destructive actions such as oppressive supervision, job stress, unpleasant working conditions, perceived injustice, threats to group identity, and extreme competitiveness.[26]
Financier Warren Buffett demonstrated his commitment to rooting out misbehavior when he took over Salomon Inc in the early 1990s after a government bond-trading scandal erupted in the firm’s highly competitive, reckless culture. Buffett appointed himself as the company’s chief compliance officer. He then ordered all Salomon officers to report every legal and moral violation, with the exception of parking tickets, directly to him. Much of Buffett’s time was devoted to cooperating with federal investigators and answering questions from the press. His commitment to restoring the firm’s ethical image saved it from collapse.[27]
Leaders engaged in combating destructive behaviors often behave like firefighters, trying to prevent misbehavior from flaring up and putting out unethical blazes when they break out. However, to adequately shape the ethical context, leaders also need to act as architects, designing sound moral climates. An ethical climate describes the perceptions members share of the organization’s moral atmosphere.[28] Climate improves when leaders ensure that the following elements are in place:
As noted earlier, reporting mechanisms, disciplinary procedures, and ethics officers do not create a positive ethical climate on their own. They are an important first step, however, to reaching this end.[29] Formal ethics statements and procedures focus attention on ethical issues and signal that leaders are committed to moral behavior. Such documents also address misbehaviors by identifying them, outlining penalties, and providing investigation procedures. The Boeing Company instituted a strict code of ethics after employees of the firm were caught stealing secrets from competitor Lockheed Martin and offering an Air Force procurement official a job in return for federal contracts. Workers had to sign a pledge stating, “Employees will not engage in conduct or activity that may raise questions as to the company’s honesty, impartiality, reputation or otherwise cause embarrassment to the company.” Based on this pledge, Boeing’s board decided to fire CEO Harry Stonecipher (married at the time) for carrying on a consensual affair with a corporate vice president that threatened the company’s efforts to restore its reputation.[30]
Core ideology is the central identity or character of an organization, which remains constant even as the group changes to meet shifting environmental conditions.[31] Ideology, in turn, consists of core values and core purpose. Worthy moral values (for example, quality, excellence, concern for the less fortunate, innovation) rally people to common causes, empower leaders and followers to act, gain the support of larger audiences outside the organization, and broaden the moral perspective of members. Values also serve as criteria for making decisions and for judging the behavior of individuals and departments.
Purpose is the group’s reason for being and reflects the ideals of its members. Formal mission statements must not only be clear; they should be motivating as well. Making a profit is not sufficient motivation for many followers. They want to pursue more inspiring goals, such as providing valuable products and services and improving the community.
Starbucks is one large corporation with a clear ideology. The company’s guiding principles include (1) respect and dignity for partners (employees), (2) embracing diversity, (3) applying the highest standards of excellence to the coffee business, (4) developing “enthusiastically satisfied customers;” (5) contributing positively to communities and the environment, and (6) maintaining profitability. Its stated mission is to “establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles as we grow.”[32]
Integrity refers to ethical soundness, wholeness, and consistency, which come from (1) incorporating core ideology throughout every organizational unit and level and (2) living out ethical commitments and codes. Leaders who act with integrity treat ethics as “a driving force of an enterprise.”[33] They recognize that values serve as the organization’s core and draw upon these principles when making every type of decision—planning, budgeting, hiring, marketing. Further, they equip constituents to govern their own behavior following these same values.
In positive moral climates, elements of an organization’s structure encourage higher ethical performance.[34] Employee orientation and training reinforce important values and ethical guidelines. Performance evaluation systems use anonymous feedback to detect dark side behaviors, which are often hidden because lower- and middle-level leaders may abuse their followers at the same time they present a positive image to superiors.[35] Reward systems promote honesty, fair treatment of customers, courtesy, excellent service, and other moral behaviors. At AES, the world’s largest independent energy producer, executives are evaluated based on their adherence to corporate principles as well as on their financial performance. Board members assign bonuses based on whether top managers promote AES values (integrity, fairness, fun, social responsibility), safety, a cleaner environment, and community relations.[36]
Concern for how a group achieves its goals is a marker of a healthy ethical climate. High rates of unethical behavior occur when leaders set demanding goals without specifying how these objectives are to be reached. Followers experience anomie, a feeling of powerlessness and alienation because the rules have lost their force.[37] This estrangement reduces their motivation to act morally as well as their resistance to authority figures who want them to break the law.
Leaders address the problem of anomie by ensuring that goals are achieved through ethical means. All debts must be fully disclosed to investors, for example, profits must not be overstated, and false promises cannot be used to land accounts. The U.S. Army’s chief recruiting officer recognized the importance of ethical process when a number of recruiters were caught helping unqualified applicants cheat so that they could enlist. He instituted a “values stand down,” a daylong session focused on the importance of adhering to military values during the recruiting process. During that day recruiters reviewed their oaths of office and proper procedures, viewed a video on Army values, and engaged in small-group discussions of current recruiting conditions.[38]
Carrying out the task of ethical leadership requires the proper tools. Fortunately, practitioners can draw upon a variety of resources as they tackle their moral responsibilities. Two sets of tools are particularly useful to leaders—character building and mastering the components of moral action.
Character deficiencies are a major contributing factor to the shadow side of leadership. Palmer[39] believes that leaders project darkness onto their external worlds because they do not master the inner fears and insecurities described earlier. Lipman-Blumen[40] and Kellerman’s[41] “toxic” and “bad” leaders fail to demonstrate such traits as integrity, courage, moderation, and compassion for the needs of others.
Ethicists refer to positive personal qualities as virtues. Proponents of virtue ethics focus on the actor, believing that individuals of high moral character will make positive ethical choices.[42] Virtues emerge over time and are woven into the leader’s unique core identity.[43] As a result, there is no universal blueprint for character development. However, several approaches have found to be effective: locating role models, telling and living out collective stories, fostering virtuous habits, and learning from leadership passages.
Observation and imitation play a critical role in the development of virtues. Role models demonstrate what it means to act with compassion, courage, persistence, and consistency. These moral exemplars can be drawn from friends and associates, contemporary political, business, and military leaders, and historical figures. Malden Mills CEO Aaron Feuerstein acted as a role model when he continued to pay the salaries of his workers after the company’s plant burned down, for example. He also decided to rebuild in Lawrence, Massachusetts, rather than moving operations overseas. Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher demonstrated that a highly successful business could be built around the principles of equality, strong relationships, and doing business in a loving manner.[44]
Families, schools, businesses, governments, religious bodies, and other organizations provide the context for character development.[45] These collectives impart values and encourage self-discipline and integrity through narratives.[46] Shared stories provide a framework for interpreting events and promote desired behavior. For example, the tale of a new employee who successfully challenges a vice president’s dishonesty encourages other workers to speak up about ethical misdeeds.
Collective stories are lived as well as told. Leaders are actors in the group’s ongoing narrative.[47] They need to ensure that they align themselves with worthy organizational stories marked by significant purpose and values. Leaders experience character growth as they live up to their roles in these narratives. As virtue ethicist Alasdair MacIntyre explains, “I can only answer the question ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior questions, ‘Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?’”[48]
Habits are regular routines or practices designed to foster virtuous behavior—treating every person courteously, carrying through on every promise (no matter how small), and never hiding bad news from followers or supervisors. These practices take significant time and effort to develop but become easier to maintain once in place. Some leaders also turn to such spiritual disciplines as meditation, study, simplicity, solitude, and service to enhance their character development.
Intense experiences that challenge leaders help to mold their characters. These significant events, which often involve hardship, serve as passages in leadership development. Leadership passages fall into four categories:[49] (1) diversity of work experiences (joining an organization, accepting a major new assignment); (2) work adversity (significant failure, coping with a bad boss, losing a job); (3) diversity of life experiences (living abroad, blending work and family into a meaningful whole); (4) life adversity (death or divorce, illness). These passages offer the opportunity to develop empathy, become more resilient, open up to others, let go of ambitions, and so forth.[50] However, benefiting from these experiences takes “adaptive capacity.”[51] Effective leaders of all ages learn important principles and skills from their struggles that they then apply to upcoming challenges. They see passages, particularly the most difficult ones, as learning opportunities that serve as opportunities for growth. Václav Havel prepared for his role as Czech president while imprisoned during the Communist regime. Instead of falling into despair, he developed a deeper understanding of the importance of the ethical and spiritual dimension of leadership.
Knowing how moral decisions are made and implemented can greatly improve a leader’s personal ethical performance and that of the organization as a whole. According to psychologist James Rest,[52] moral behavior is the product of four psychological subprocesses: (1) moral sensitivity (recognition); (2) moral judgment or reasoning; (3) moral motivation; and (4) moral character.
The term moral sensitivity refers to the identification of ethical problems. To recognize the presence of a moral dilemma, leaders must be aware of how their behavior impacts others, identify possible courses of action, and then determine the likely consequences of each option. Moral sensitivity is critical because it is impossible to solve a dilemma without first recognizing that a problem exists. Also, a great many ethical miscues are the result of moral insensitivity. Executives at the Nestlé Company saw no moral problem with marketing baby formula to poor African women in the 1980s, for instance.[53] They failed to recognize that (1) poor women were better off breast feeding and saving their money for other basic needs, and (2) mixing formula with polluted water caused thousands of infants to sicken and die.
Moral muteness and moral blind spots make it difficult to recognize ethical issues. Leaders often follow an ethical code of silence, rarely talking about problems in ethical terms.[54] They may want to avoid controversy or believe that keeping silent will make them appear powerful and self-sufficient. However, their silence keeps followers from framing events as ethical scenarios and engaging in moral reasoning. In addition, managers can also fail to recognize the ethical implications of their decisions.[55] Their typical ways of thinking or mental models don’t include important ethical considerations, so they are blind to important moral dilemmas. For example, officials at Nike gave little thought to working conditions at their overseas manufacturing facilities during the company’s formative years, arguing that treatment of foreign workers was not their responsibility since the work was done by subcontractors.[56] Public criticism later forced the company to recognize that low pay and poor working conditions were significant moral dilemmas. In response, the firm has taken steps to curb abuses and became the first athletic clothing manufacturer to reveal the locations of all its foreign facilities.[57]
There are two steps that leaders can take to enhance their and their followers’ ethical sensitivity. First, employ moral terminology to highlight the moral dimension of decisions. Use such terms as justice, values, immoral, right, and wrong to encourage followers to frame an event as an ethical problem and to engage in moral reasoning. Second, incorporate ethical considerations into every important decision. Harvard ethics professor Lynn Paine offers a “moral compass” for doing so.[58] Paine believes that leaders can focus their attention (and that of the rest of the group) on the moral dimension of choices by engaging in four frames of analysis. Taken together, these lenses increase moral sensitivity, making it easier for organizational members to recognize and discuss moral issues.
Will this action serve a worthwhile purpose? Proposed courses of action need to serve worthy goals.
Is this action consistent with relevant principles of our organization? This mode of analysis applies ethical standards to the problem at hand. These guidelines can be general ethical principles, norms of good business practice, codes of conduct, legal requirements, and personal ideals.
Does this action respect the legitimate claims of the people likely to be affected? Identifying possible harm to stakeholder groups can prevent damage. Such analysis requires understanding the perspectives of others as well as careful reasoning.
The second step of moral action is to choose among the courses of action identified in component 1 (moral sensitivity), determining what is the right or wrong thing to do in this specific situation. Understanding cognitive moral development is key to this stage. Kohlberg[59] argued that individuals progress through a series of moral stages just as they do physical ones. Each stage is more advanced than the one before. Reasoning becomes more sophisticated as decision makers become less self-centered and develop a broader understanding of what it means to act morally. The most advanced moral thinkers (postconventional) use universal moral principles when making choices. Kohlberg found that most adults are conventional rather than principled. They want to live up to the expectations of family members and other significant people. At the same time, conventional thinkers recognize the importance of fulfilling job responsibilities and going along with the laws of society.
Based on the conventional level of moral reasoning of most adults, it should come as no surprise that organizational members rarely challenge unethical organizational practices. They look to others for guidance and believe that they are acting morally by faithfully carrying out their work responsibilities. Nevertheless, decision makers of all ages can improve their moral reasoning through training and education.[60] Leaders can develop the decision-making abilities of followers (and themselves) by encouraging continuing education and by providing ethics workshops. They can also improve the moral climate of the organization through becoming postconventional thinkers. By engaging in principled reasoning themselves, they encourage those around them to do the same.[61]
After reaching a conclusion about the best course of action, decision makers must be motivated to follow through on their choices. Moral behavior will only result if ethical considerations take priority over competing priorities such as job security and social acceptance. As noted earlier, ethical values are more likely to take precedence when reinforced by reward systems.[62] Be careful not to encourage unethical behavior by rewarding it, as in the case of the software company that paid programmers $20 to correct each software bug they found. Soon programmers were deliberately creating bugs to fix.[63] Instead, honor those who act with integrity. Eligibility for the incentive compensation plan at Lockheed Martin is based on promoting moral conduct. Business and personal goals must be reached in keeping with the company’s ethics policy. Regular performance reviews include criteria that measure ethical conduct and support for the firm’s ethics program.[64]
Emotional states also impact moral motivation. Positive affect (joy, happiness, contentment) makes members more optimistic and therefore more inclined to follow through on ethical choices. Those in positive moods are also more likely to help coworkers and others. In contrast, negative affect (jealousy, rage, envy) is linked to antisocial behaviors.[65] Those who regulate their moods (replacing negative thoughts with calmer ones) enhance their moral motivation.[66] These findings suggest that leaders need to honor and reward moral behavior, create working environments that foster positive emotions, and carefully monitor and manage their emotions when facing ethical choices.
The fourth and final stage of moral action—executing the plan—draws upon the virtues described earlier. Leaders have to overcome a number of obstacles, such as fatigue, opponents, and distractions, to carry out their choices. To succeed, they have to have a strong will, self-confidence, and a belief that the individual can actively influence events.[67] Leaders must complement their resolve with the necessary skills required to take action. Take the case of a regional sales manager who wants to convince her organization to change an unethical marketing practice. In order to reach this goal, she must utilize political, interpersonal, persuasive, organizational, and communication skills in order to recruit allies, build working relationships, construct arguments, develop a strategy, and speak and write effectively.
Engaging in ethical leadership greatly reduces the risk of falling victim to the same types of large-scale corporate scandals that marked the arrival of the new millennium. These scandals demonstrate that the price of moral failure is steep. Tens of thousands lost their jobs and retirement savings; stock values shrank; top executives were ousted and, in some cases, faced lawsuits, criminal charges, and jail time; individual and organizational reputations were tarnished.
Avoiding such negative consequences would be justification enough for taking the task of ethical leadership seriously. The advantages of ethical leadership extend well beyond reduced exposure to risk, however, to include a number of important individual and organizational benefits. These positive outcomes serve as markers of ethical progress, signaling that practitioners are successfully carrying out their moral responsibilities. Tools for measuring each outcome are listed in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2. Ethical Leadership: Outcome Measures.
Individual Outcomes | Measures |
|---|---|
Greater Personal Integrity | Credibility ratings Self-reports of ethical/unethical behavior Loss data (theft, lawsuits, discrimination cases) Employee turnover |
Mental, Physical, and Career Health | Absenteeism records Safety data Job and career satisfaction scores Stress inventories Employee turnover |
Expanded Ethical Capacity | Ethics performance evaluations 360-degree feedback Moral judgment and sensitivity scales |
Organizational Outcomes | Measures |
Greater Collaboration | Trust scales Job satisfaction scores Organizational commitment instruments Performance data (sales, productivity, quality) |
Improved Social Standing and Market Share | Public opinion surveys Consumer feedback Sales and market data Stock price |
Collective Moral Development | Ethics audits Ethics climate inventories Annual social responsibility reports |
Organizational integrity encourages personal integrity. Those who work for organizations with codes of ethics judge themselves and others as more ethical than those employed by organizations without codes.[68] Organizations that take steps to combat destructive behavior see a drop in employee theft[69] as well as lower levels of violence and harassment.[70] Operating in a positive moral climate reduces the tension that frequently arises when members abandon their personal moral codes in order to succeed at work. Most leaders and followers want to the right thing. They can do so in ethical organizations and, as a result, are more committed to collective goals and are less likely to seek employment elsewhere.[71]
All destructive behaviors have something in common. They do significant damage to individual well-being, producing mental anguish, emotional disturbances, physical ailments, injuries, derailed careers, and other negative outcomes. Preventing antisocial behaviors greatly reduces these human costs. Building an ethical climate promotes wellness by generating positive emotions, safer environments, higher job satisfaction, and greater commitment to the organization.
Leaders develop their ethical competence in the same way that they develop other leadership capacities, such as heightened self-confidence, greater creativity, and strategic thinking.[72] Ethical skills, attitudes, and motivations developed in one leadership role can increase effectiveness in other leadership positions. Moral sensitivity and principled moral reasoning, as noted earlier, are two particularly important ethical abilities. Those who successfully carry out the task of ethical leadership are more sensitive to the possible ethical implications of their choices and base their reasoning on sound moral principles.
Collaboration is essential to the success of any collective effort, as individuals, small group members, departments, and organizations must coordinate their actions in order to achieve their goals. Trust is the key element underlying collaborative efforts. Those who trust believe that other parties will carry through on their commitments and promises.[73] High levels of trust have been linked to greater satisfaction, commitment, and performance levels.[74] Interpersonal trust is one of the first causalities of shadowy leader and organizational behavior. Abuse of power and privilege, incivility, aggression, and other immoral acts poison the atmosphere, making it less likely that followers will put themselves in vulnerable positions. Ethical behavior has just the opposite effects. Moral leaders set the stage for greater collaboration as parties learn that they can rely on others.
Corporations and other groups are expected to act as responsible citizens contributing to the well-being of the environment and the community. Ethical leaders enable organizations to meet and exceed these expectations, building their social standing. Consumers, investors, and donors are increasingly attracted to both business and nonprofit organizations with ethical reputations. They want to shop, invest, and give to such groups. Eighty-four percent of Americans surveyed said that, if price and quality were similar, they would switch brands to companies associated with worthy causes. Social investing is surging in popularity as well. Over $2 trillion is now invested in mutual funds that screen investments based on firms’ commitment to the environment, ethics, and social responsibility.[75] Ethical businesses often outperform other companies making up the S&P 500.[76]
The ethical capacity of the organization, like that of the individual, expands in a positive moral environment. Reidenbach and Robin[77] offer one typology that can be used to benchmark the progress of organizational ethical development.
Stage I amoral organizations are the least developed. Such companies (telemarketers, spammers) focus solely on the bottom line while largely ignoring ethical considerations.
Stage II legalistic organizations (tobacco manufacturers) equate ethics with following government regulations. Their primary focus is on protecting their groups from adverse publicity, fines, and lawsuits.
Stage III responsive organizations like Proctor & Gamble respond to ethical problems when they arise.
Stage IV emergent ethical organizations (Starbucks) actively manage their cultures to improve ethical climate.
Stage V ethical organizations (independent power producer AES, Johnson & Johnson) demonstrate the highest level of ethical development. They integrate values into all decisions and try to anticipate ethical issues before they arise.
Ethics has always been at “the heart of leadership.”[78] Unfortunately, a great many contemporary scholars, educators, and practitioners have downplayed that fact, contributing to wave after wave of organizational scandal. Providing ethical leadership may well be a leader’s most important task. Managers can prepare themselves for this responsibility by meeting the ethical challenges of leadership, shaping the ethical setting or context, acquiring the tools of ethical leadership, and monitoring moral progress.
The first component of ethical leadership is behaving morally when entrusted with a leadership position. Carrying out this task requires that leaders:
Accept the ethical burdens of leadership. As compared to followers, leaders (1) are more powerful, (2) enjoy greater privileges, (3) are privy to more information, (4) have wider spans of authority or responsibility, (5) deal with a broader range of constituencies who demand consistent treatment, and (6) balance a wider variety of loyalties. Leaders have a moral responsibility to take these challenges seriously. How they respond to the ethical demands of the leadership role will determine whether they exert positive or negative influence over the lives of followers.
Avoid casting shadows. Immoral leaders cast shadows by abusing their power and privilege, misusing information, acting irresponsibly and inconsistently, and breaking loyalties. Avoiding the shadow side of leadership starts with acknowledging its existence and confronting unhealthy motivations—fear, greed, and ego. Recognize that leaders and followers have intrinsic value no matter what their job description. It is critical for leaders to learn from failures, seek to serve followers, and keep their egos in check.
The second component of ethical leadership is creating a moral environment in the group or organization. This requires both defensive tactics that prevent unethical behaviors and proactive measures that intentionally foster a positive moral climate.
Adopt defensive strategies to prevent unethical, destructive behaviors. Organizations have shadow sides just like leaders. “Dark side” organizational behaviors are deliberate attempts to harm others or the organization. They include such misbehaviors as incivility (rude, discourteous actions), aggression, sexual harassment, and discrimination. The ethical climate deteriorates if leaders engage in such activities or fail to take action against offenders. Leaders need to create (and follow) zero-tolerance policies that outlaw antisocial behaviors and punish violators at the first sign of trouble. Further, they can eliminate contextual triggers that provoke destructive actions, like oppressive supervision, unpleasant working conditions, perceived injustice, job stress, threats to group identity, and extreme competitiveness.
Take proactive steps to create a positive ethical climate. Ethical leaders act as architects who design sound moral climates. Ethical climate—the perceptions that members share of the organization’s moral atmosphere—improves when leaders ensure that the following elements are in place:
Formal ethics statements and procedures. These include codes of ethics, reporting mechanisms, ethics offices, and disciplinary procedures.
Core ideology. Core ideology reflects the central identity or character of an organization revealed through clearly identified values and purpose.
Integrity. Integrity refers to ethical soundness, wholeness, and consistency that comes from linking values and mission to every decision and operation.
Structural reinforcement. In positive moral climates, every element of an organization’s structure—employee orientation, training, and performance evaluation systems—promotes and rewards ethical behavior.
Process focus. Concern for how a group achieves its goals is a marker of a healthy ethical climate. Objectives are achieved through ethical means. Customers are treated honestly and fairly, losses are fully disclosed to investors, and so on.
Carrying out the task of ethical leadership requires the proper tools. Two sets of tools are particularly important to leaders: character building and mastering the components of moral action.
Build personal character (develop personal virtues). Character deficiencies are a major contributing factor to the shadow side of leadership. Leaders are more likely to make positive ethical choices if they develop high character based on personal virtues. Approaches to character building include (1) observing and imitating moral role models; (2) becoming part of worthy organizational stories that encourage virtue development; (3) building habits (routines or practices) that foster virtuous behavior; and (4) learning principles and skills from intense life experiences called passages.
Master the components of moral action. Learning how moral decisions are made and implemented can greatly improve a leader’s personal ethical performance as well as that of the organization as a whole. Moral behavior is the product of four processes: moral sensitivity (recognition), moral judgment or reasoning, moral motivation, and moral character. Moral sensitivity is the ability to identify ethical problems. Sensitivity is heightened when managers use moral terms (justice, values, right, and wrong) to describe situations and when they consider the ethical aspects of every important decision. Moral judgment improves when decision makers incorporate widely used ethical theories and principles into the problem-solving process. Such thinking can be encouraged through ethics training and education. Motivation to follow through on ethical choices is highest when leaders honor and reward moral behavior, create working environments that foster positive emotions, and regulate their moods to eliminate destructive thoughts. Executing the plan requires personal character and developing the necessary communication and political skills to take action.
Engaging in ethical leadership greatly reduces the risk of costly scandal and generates a number of important individual and organizational benefits. These positive outcomes mark moral progress, signaling that practitioners are successfully carrying out their moral responsibilities.
Positive individual outcomes. Organizational integrity encourages personal integrity, reducing the frequency of destructive behavior. Serving an important purpose and upholding worthy values helps create a sense of personal fulfillment or meaning. Building an ethical climate promotes wellness by generating positive emotions, safer environments, higher job satisfaction, and greater commitment to the organization. Managers who master the task of ethical leadership are more sensitive to the possible moral implications of their choices and base their reasoning on sound ethical principles.
Positive organizational outcomes. Ethical leadership builds a foundation of trust that encourages collaboration. Collaboration, in turn, is linked to higher satisfaction, commitment, and performance levels. Organizations perceived as ethical gain higher standing in the community and a greater market share. Finally, ethical leaders promote organization-wide moral development, helping their groups better anticipate and respond to ethical dilemmas.