Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership

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

 

 

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