_____.._ _——-….,;.. t 6
Leadership Ethics
DESCRIPTION
This chapter is different from many of the other chapters in this book.
Most of the other chapters focus on one unified leadership theory or
approach (e.g., trait approach, path-goal theory, or transformational lead­
ership), whereas this chapter is multifaceted and presents a broad set of
ethical viewpoints. The chapter is not intended as an “ethical leadership
theory,” but rather as a guide to some of the ethical issues that arise in
leadership situations.
Probably as long ago as our cave-dwelling days, human beings have
been concerned with the eth ics of our leaders. Our history books are
replete with descriptions of good kings and bad kings, great emp ires and
evil empires, and strong presidents and weak presidents. But despite a
wealth of biographical accounts of great leaders and their morals, very little
research has been published on the theoretical foundations of leadership
ethics. There have been many studies on business ethics in general since
the early 1970s, but these studies have been only tangentially related to
leadership ethi cs. Even in the literature of management, written primarily
for practitioners, there are very few books on leadership ethics. This sug­
gests that theoretical formulations in this area are still in their infancy.
One of the earliest writings that specifically focused on leadership ethics
appeared as recently as 1996. It was a set of working papers generated from
a small group ofleadership scholars, brought together by the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation. These scholars examined how leadership theory and practice
could be used to build a more caring and just society. The ideas of the
Kellogg group are now published in a volume titled Ethics, the Heart of
Leadership (Ciulla, 1998).
423

424
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
Interest in the nature of ethical leadership has continued to grow, par­
ticularly because of the many recent scandals in corporate America and
the political realm. On the academic front, there has also been a strong
interest in exploring the nature of ethical leadership (see Aronson, 2001;
Ciulla, 2001, 2003; Johnson , 2011; Kanungo, 2001; Price, 2008; Trevino,
Brown, & Hartman, 2003).
Ethics Defined
From the perspective of Western tradition, the development of ethical
theory dates back to Plato (427-347 B.c.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). The
word ethics has its roots in the Greek word ethos, which translates to cus­
toms, conduct, or character. Ethics is concerned with the kinds of values
and morals an individual or a society finds desirable or appropriate. Fur­
thermore, ethics is concerned with the virtuousness of individuals and
their motives. Ethical theory provides a system of rules or principles that
guide us in making decisions about what is right or wrong and good or bad
in a particular situation. It provides a basis for understanding what it means
to be a morally decent human being.
In regard to leadership, ethics has to do with what leaders do and who
leaders are. It is concerned with the nature of leaders’ behavior, and with
their virtuousness. In any decision-making situation, ethical issues are either
implicitly or explicitly involved. The choices leaders make and how they
respond in a given circumstance are informed and directed by their ethics.
Ethical Theories
For the purposes of studying ethics and leadership, ethical theories can
be thought of as falling within two broad domains: theories about leaders’
conduct and theories about leaders’ character (Table 16.1 ). Stated another
way, ethical theories when applied to leadership are about both the actions
of leaders and who they are as people. Throughout the chapter, our discus­
sions about ethics and leadership will always fall within one of these two
domains: conduct or character.
Ethical theories that deal with the conduct of leaders are in turn
divided into two kinds: theories that stress the consequences of leaders’
actions and those that emphasize the duty or rules governing leaders’
actions (see Table 16.1). Teleological theories, from the Greek word telos,
I~
16.1 Practical Ethical Theory
Chapter 16
Table 16.1
I Leadership Ethics
425
Domains of Ethical Theories
Conduct
Character
Consequences (telelogical theories)
Virtue-based theories
•
Ethical egoism
•
Utilitarianism
Duty (deontological theories)
mea ning “ends” or “purposes,” try to answer questions about right and
wrong by focusing on whether a person’s conduct will produce desirable
consequences. From the teleological perspective, the question “What is
right?” is answered by looking at results or outcomes. In effect, the conse­
quences of an individual’s actions determine the goodness or badness of a
particular behavior.
In assess ing consequences, there are three different approaches to mak­
ing deci sions regarding moral conduct (Figure 16.1): ethical egoism, utili­
tarianism, and altruism. Ethical egoism states that a person should act so
as to create th e greatest good for herself or himself. A leader with this ori­
entation would take a job or career that he or she selfishly enjoys (Avolio
& Locke, 2002 ). Self-interest is an ethical stance closely related to transac­
tional leadership theories (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Ethical egoism is
common in some business contexts in which a company and its employees
make decisions to achieve its goal of maximizing profits. For example, a
midlevel, upward-aspiring manager who wants her team to be the best in
the company could be described as acting out of ethical egoism.
A second teleological approach, utilitarianism, states that we should
behave so as to create the greatest good for the greatest number. From this
viewpoint, the morally correct action is the action that maximizes social
benefits while minimizing social costs (Schumann, 2001). When the U.S.
government allocates a large part of the federal budget for preventive
health care rather than for catastrophic illnesses, it is acting from a utilitar­
ian perspective, putting money where it will have the best result for the
largest number of citizens.
Closely related to utilitarianism, and opposite of ethical egoism, is a
third teleological approach, altruism. Altruism is an approach that suggests
that actions are moral if their primary purpose is to promote the best inter­
ests of others. From this perspective, a leader may be called on to act in the
426
LEADERSHIP
Figure 16.1
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
Ethical Theories Based on Self-Interest Versus Interest
for Others
I
High
CONCERN
FOR
SELF-INTEREST
• Ethical Egoism
• Utilitarianism
Medium
Low
• Altruism
I
Low
Medium
High
CONCERN FOR
THE INTEREST OF OTHERS
interests of others, even when it runs contrary to his or her own self­
interests (Bowie, 1991 ). Authentic transformational leadership is based on
altruistic principles (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca,
1996). The strongest example of altruist ethics can be found in the work of
Mother Teresa, who devoted her life to helping the poor.
Quite different from looking at which actions will produce which out­
comes, deontological theory is derived from the Greek word deos, which
means “duty.” Whether a given action is ethical rests not only with its
consequences (teleological), but also with whether the action itself is good.
Telling the truth , keeping promises, being fair, and respecting others are
all examples of actions that are inherently good, independent of the con­
sequences. The deontological perspective focuses on the actions of the
leader and his or her moral obligations and responsibilities to do the right
thing. A leader’s actions are moral if the leader has a moral right to do
them, if the actions do not infringe on others’ rights, and if the actions
further the moral rights of others (Schumann, 2001).
In the late 1990s, the president of the United States, Bill Clinton, was
brought before Congress for misrepresenting under oath an affair he had
Chapte r 16
I Leadership Ethics
427
maintained with a White House intern. For his actions, he was impeached
by the U.S. House of Representatives, but then was acquitted by the U.S.
Senate. At one point during the long ordeal, the president appeared on
national television and, in what is now a famou s speech, declared his inno­
cence. Because subsequent hearings provided information that suggested
that he may have lied during this television speech , many Americans felt
President Clinton had violated his duty and responsibility (as a person,
leader, and president) to tell the truth. From a deontological perspective,
it could be said that he failed his ethical responsibility to do the right
thing-to tell the truth.
Whereas teleological and deontological theories approach ethics by look­
ing at the behavior or conduct of a leader, a second set of theories approaches
ethics from the viewpoint of a leader’s character (see Table 16.1 ). These
theories are called virtue-based theories; they focus on who leaders are as
people. In this perspective, virtues are rooted in the heart of the individual
and in the individual’s disposition (Po jman, 1995). Furthermore, it is
believed that virtues and moral abilities are not innate but can be acquired
and learned through practice. People can be taught by their families and
communities to be morally appropriate human beings.
With their origi n traced back in th e Western tradition to the ancient
Greeks and the works of Plato and Aristotle, virtue theories are experiencing
a resurgence in popularity. The Greek term associated with these theories
is aretaic, which means “excellence” or “virtue.” Consistent with Aristotle,
current advocates of virtue-based theory stress that more attention should be
given to the development and training of moral values (Velasquez, 1992).
Rather than telling people what to do, attention should be directed toward
telling people what to be, or helping them to become more virtuous.
What, then , are the virtues of an ethical person? There are many, all of
which seem to be important. Based on the writings of Aristotle, a moral
person demonstrates the virtues of courage, temperance, generosity, self­
control, honesty, sociability, modesty, fairness, and justice (Velasquez,
1992). For Aristotle, virtues allowed people to live well in communities.
Applying ethics to leadership and management, Velasquez has suggested that
managers should develop virtues such as perseverance, public-spiritedness,
integrity, truthfulness, fidelity, benevolence, and humility.
In essence, virtue-based ethics is about being and becoming a good,
worthy human being. Although people can learn and develop good values,
this theory maintains that virtues are present in one’s disposition . When
428
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
practiced over time, from youth to adulthood, good values become habit­
ual, and part of the people themselves. By telling the truth, people become
truthful; by giving to the poor, people become benevolent; by being fair to
others, people become just. Our virtues are derived from our actions, and
our actions manifest our virtues (Frankena, 1973; Pojman, 1995).
Centrality of Ethics to Leadership
As discussed in Chapter 1, leadership is a process whereby the leader
influences others to reach a common goal. The influence dimension of
leadership requires the leader to have an impact on the lives of those being
led. To make a change in other people carries with it an enormous ethical
burden and responsibility. Because leaders usually have more power and
control than followers, they also have more responsibility to be sensitive to
how their leadership affects followers’ lives.
Vhether in group work, organizational pursuits, or community proj­
ects, leaders engage subordinates and utilize them in their efforts to reach
common goals . In all these situations, leaders have the ethical responsibil­
ity to treat followers with dignity and respect-as human beings with
unique identities . This “respect for people” demands that leaders be
sensitive to followers’ own interests, needs , and conscientious concerns
(Beauchamp & Bowie, 1988) . Although all of us have an ethical respon­
sibility to treat other people as unique human beings, leaders have a spe­
cial responsibility, because the nature of their leadership puts them in a
special position in which they have a greater opportunity to influence
others in significant ways.
Ethics is central to leadership, and leaders help to establish and rein­
force organizational values. Every leader has a distinct philosophy and
point of view. “All leaders have an agenda, a series of beliefs, proposals,
values, ideas, and issues that they wish to ‘put on the table”‘ (Gini, 1998,
p. 36). The values promoted by the leader have a significant impact on th e
values exhibited by the organization (see Carlson & Perrewe, 1995;
Schminke, Ambrose, & Noel, 1997; Trevino, 1986). Again, because of their
influence, leaders play a major role in establishing the ethical climate of
their organizations.
In short, ethics is central to leadership because of the nature of the
process of influence, the need to engage followers in accomplishing
mutual goals, and the impact leaders have on the organization’s values .
I ~ 16.1 Consequences
Chapter 16
I Leadership
Ethics 429
The following section provides a discussion of some of the work of
prominent leadership scholars who have addressed issues related to ethics
and leadership. Although many additional viewpoints exist, those pre­
sented are representative of the predominant thinking in the area of ethics
and leadership today.
Heifetz’s Perspective on Ethical Leadership
Based on his work as a psychiatrist and his observations and analysis of
many world leaders (e.g., President Lyndon Johnson, Mohanclas Gandhi,
and Margaret Sanger), Ronald Heifetz ( 1994) has formulated a unique
approach to ethical leadership. His approach emphasizes how leaders help
followers to confront conflict and to address conflict by effecting changes.
Heifetz’s perspective is related to ethical leadership because it deals with
values: the values of workers and the values of the organizations and com­
munities in which they work. According to Heifetz, leadership involves the
use of authority to help followers deal with the conflicting values that
emerge in rapidly changing work environments and social cultures. It is an
ethical perspective because it speaks directly to the values of workers.
For Heifetz ( 1994), leaders must use authority to mobilize people to face
tough issues. The leader provides a “holding environment” in which there
is trust, nurturance, and empathy. In a supportive context, followers can feel
safe to confront hard problems. Specifically, leaders use authority to get
people to pay attention to the issues, to act as a reality test regarding infor­
mation, to manage and frame issues, to orchestrate conflicting perspectives,
and to facilitate decision making (Heifetz, 1994, p. 113). The leader’s duties
are to assist the follower in struggling with change and personal growth.
Burns’s Perspective on Ethical Leadership
As discussed in Chapter 9, Burns’s theory of transformational leadership
places a strong emphasis on followers’ needs, values, and morals. Transfor­
mational leadership involves attempts by leaders to move followers to higher
standards of moral responsibility. This emphasis sets transformational leader­
ship apart from most other approaches to leadership because it clearly states
that leadership has a moral dimension (see Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).
Similar to that of Heifetz, Burns’s ( 1978) perspective argues that it is
important for leaders to engage themselves with followers and help them
I0
16.1 Ethical Norms
430
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
in their personal struggles regarding conflicting values. The resulting con­
nection raises the level of morality in both the leader and the follower.
The origins of Burns’s position on leadership ethics are rooted in the
works of such writers as Abraham Maslow, Milton Rokeach, and Lawrence
Kohlberg (Ciulla, 1998). The influence of these writers can be seen in
how Burns emphasizes the leader’s role in attending to the personal moti­
vations and moral development of the follower. For Burns, it is the respon­
sibility of the leader to help followers assess their own values and needs in
order to raise them to a higher level of functioning, to a level that will stress
values such as liberty, justice, and equality (Ciulla, 1998).
Burns’s position on leadership as a morally uplifting process has not
been without its critics. It has raised many questions: How do you choose
what a better set of moral values is? Who is to say that some decisions rep­
resent higher moral ground than others? If leadership, by definition,
entails raising individual moral functioning, does this mean that the lead­
ership of corrupt leaders is not actually leadership? Notwithstanding these
very legitimate questions, Burns’s perspective is unique in that it makes
ethics the central characteristic of the leadership process. His writing has
placed ethics at the forefront of scholarly discussions of what leadership
means and how leadership should be carried out.
Principles of Ethical Leadership
In this section, we turn to a discussion of five principles of ethical lead­
ership, the origins of which can be traced back to Aristotle. The impor­
tance of these principles has been discussed in a variety of disciplines,
including biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994), business
ethics (Beauchamp & Bowie, 1988), counseling psychology (Kitchener,
1984), and leadership education (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998), to
name a few. Although not inclusive, these principles provide a foundation
for the development of sound ethical leadership: respect, service, justice,
honesty, and community (Figure 16.2).
Ethical Leaders Respect Others
Philosopher Immanuel Kant ( 1724- 1804) argued that it is our duty
to treat others with respect. To do so means always to treat others as ends
in themselves and never as means to ends. As Beauchamp and Bowie
I~
16.2 Teaching Ethical Leadership
Chapter 16
Figure 16.2
I Leadership Ethics
431
Principles of Ethical Leadership
ETHICAL
LEADERSHIP
( 1988, p. 37) pointed out, “Pe rsons must be treated as having their own
autonomously established goals and must never be treated purely as the
means to another’s personal goals.” These writers then suggested that
treating others as ends rather than as means requires that we treat other
people’s decisions and values with respect: Failing to do so would signify
that we were treating them as a means to our own ends.
Leaders who respect others also allow them to be themselves, with cre­
ative wants and desires. They approach other people with a sense of their
unconditional worth and valuable individual differences (Kitchener,
1984). Respect includes giving credence to others’ ideas and confirming
them as human beings. At times, it may require that leaders defer to others.
As Burns ( 1978) suggested, leaders should nurture followers in becoming
aware of their own needs, values, and purposes, and assist followers 111
integrating these with the leader’s needs, values, and purposes.
Respect for others is a complex ethic that is similar to but goes deeper
than the kind of respect that parents teach little children. Respect means
that a leader listens closely to subordinates, is empathic, and is tolerant of
opposing points of view. It means treating subordinates in ways that con­
firm their beliefs, attitudes, and values. When a leader exhibits respect to
I !j 16.1 Ethical Role of Management
432
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
subordinates, subordinates can feel competent about their work. In short,
leaders who show respect treat others as worthy human beings.
Ethical Leaders Serve Others
Earlier in this chapter, we contrasted tvvo ethical theories, one based on
a concern for self (ethical egoism) and another based on the interests of oth­
ers (eth ical altruism). The service principle clearly is an example of altruism.
Leaders who serve are altruistic: They place their followers’ welfare foremost
in their plans. In the workplace, altruistic service behavior can be observed
in activities such as mentoring, empowerment behaviors, team building, and
citizenship behaviors, to name a few (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996).
The leader’s ethical responsibility to serve others is very similar to the
ethical principle in health care of beneficence. Beneficence is derived
from the Hippocratic tradition, which holds that health professionals
ought to make choices that benefit patients. In a general way, beneficence
asserts that providers have a duty to help others pursue their own legitimate
interests and goals (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994 ). Like health profes­
sionals, ethical leaders have a responsibility to attend to others, be of ser­
vice to them, and make decisions pertaining to them that are beneficial
and not harmful to their welfare.
In the past decade, the service principle has received a great deal of
emphasis in the leadership literature. It is clearly evident in the writings of
Block (1993), Covey (1990), DePree (1989), Gilligan (1982), and Kouzes
and Posner ( 1995 ), all of whom maintained that attending to others is the
primary building block of moral leadership. Further emphasis on service
can be observed in the work of Senge ( 1990) in his well-recognized writing
on learning organi zations. Senge contended that one of the important
tasks of leaders in learning organizations is to be the steward (servant) of
the vision within the organization. Being a steward means clarifying and
nurturing a vis ion that is greater than oneself. This means not being self­
centered, but rather integrating one’s self or vision with that of others in
the organization. Effective leaders see their own personal vision as an
important part of something larger than themselves-a part of the organi­
zation and the community at large.
The idea of leaders serving others was more deeply explored by Robert
Greenleaf (1970, 1977), who developed the servant leadership approach.
Servant leadership, which is explored in depth in Chapter 10, has strong
I fl) 16.2 Ethical School Leadership
Chapter 16
I Leadership Ethics
433
altruistic ethical overtones in how it emphasizes that leaders should be atten­
tive to the concerns of their followers and should take care of them and
nurture them. In addition, Greenleaf argues that the servant leader has a
social responsibility to be concerned with the have-nots and should strive to
remove inequalities and social injustices. Greenleaf places a great deal of
emphasis on listening, empathy, and unconditional acceptance of others.
In short, whether it is Greenleaf’s notion of waiting on the have-nots or
Senge’s notion of giving oneself to a larger purpose, the idea behind service
is contributing to the greater good of others. Recently, the idea of serving
the “greater good” has found an unusual following in the business world. In
2009, 20% of the graduating class of th e Harvard Business School, consid­
ered to be one of the premier schools producing today’s business leaders,
took an oath pledging that they will act responsibly and ethically, and
refrain from advancing their own ambitions at the expense of others. Simi­
larly, Columbia Business School requires all students to pledge to an honor
code requiring they adhere to truth, integrity, and respect (Wayne, 2009).
In practicing the principle of service, these and other ethical leaders must
be willing to be follower centered, must place others’ interests foremost in
their work, and must act in ways that will benefit others.
Ethical leaders Are Just
Ethical leaders are concerned about issues of fairness and justice. They
make it a top priority to treat all of their subordinates in an equal manner.
Justice demands that leaders place issues of fairness at the center of their
decision making. As a rule, no one should receive special treatment or
special consideration except when his or her particular situation demands
it. When individuals are treated differently, the grounds for different treat­
ment must be clear and reasonable, and must be based on moral values.
For example, many of us can remember being involved with some type
of athletic team when we were growing up. The coaches we liked were
those we thought were fair with us. No matter what, we did not want the
coach to treat anyone differently from the rest. When someone came late
to practice with a poor excuse, we wanted that person disciplined just as
we would have been disciplined. If a player had a personal problem and
needed a break, we wanted the coach to give it, just as we would have been
given a break. Without question, the good coaches were those who never
had favorites and who made a point of playing everyone on the team. In
essence, what we wanted was that our coach be fair and just.
I
0
16.2 Ethics in Management
434
LEADERSHIP
I
THEORY AND PRACTICE
When resources and rewards or punishments are distributed to employ­
ees, the leader plays a major role. The rules that are used and how they are
applied say a great deal about whether the leader is concerned about jus­
tice and how he or she approaches issues of fairness.
Rawls ( 1971) stated that a concern with issues of fairness is necessary
for all people who are cooperating together to promote their common
interests. It is similar to the ethic of reciprocity, otherwise known as the
Golden Rule- “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”­
variations of which have appeared in many different cultures throughout
the ages. If we expect fairness from others in how they treat us, then we
should treat others fairly in our dealings with them. Issues of fairness
become problematic because there is always a limit on goods and
resources, and there is often competition for the limited things available.
Because of the real or perceived scarcity of resources, conflicts often
occur between individuals about fair methods of distribution. It is impor­
tant for leaders to clearly establish the rules for distributing rewards. The
nature of these rules says a lot about the ethical underpinnings of the
leader and the organization.
Beauchamp and Bowie ( 1988) outlined several of the common princi­
ples that serve as guides for leaders in distributing the benefits and burdens
fairly in an organization (Table 16.2 ). Although not inclusive, these prin­
ciples point to the reasoning behind why leaders choose to distribute things
as they do in organizations. In a given situation, a leader may use a single
principle or a combination of several principles in treating subordinates.
To illustrate the principles described in Table 16.2, consider the fol­
lowing hypothetical example: You are the owner of a small trucking com­
pany that employs 50 drivers . You have just opened a new route, and it
Table 16.2
Principles of Distributive Justice
These principles are applied in different situations.
To each person
•
•
•
•
•
•
An equal share or opportunity
According to individual need
According to that person’s rights
According to individual effort
According to societal contribution
According to merit or performance
Chapter 16
I Leadership
Ethics 435
promises to be one that pays well and has an ideal schedule. Only one
driver can be assigned to the route, but seven drivers have applied for it.
Each driver wants an equal opportunity to get the route. One of the drivers
recently lost his wife to breast cancer and is struggling to care for three
young children (individual need). Tvo of the drivers are minorities, and
one of them feels strongly that he has a right to the job. One of the drivers
has logged more driving hours for three consecutive years, and she feels
her effort makes her the logical candidate for the new route . One of the
drivers serves on the National Safety Board and has a 20-year accident-free
driving record (societal contribution). Two drivers have been with the
company since its inception, and th eir performance has been meritorious
year after year.
As the owner of the company, your challenge is to assign the new route
in a fair way. Although many other factors could influence your decision
(e.g., seniority, wage rate, or employee health), the principles described in
Table 16.2 provide guidelines for deciding who is to get the new route.
Ethical Leaders Are Honest
When we were children, grown-ups often told us we must “never tell a
lie.” To be good meant we must be truthful. For leaders the lesson is the
same: To be a good leader, one must be honest.
The importance of being honest can be understood more clearly when
we consider the opposite of honesty: dishonesty (see Jaksa & Pritchard,
1988). Dishonesty is a form of lying, a way of misrepresenting reality. Dis­
honesty may bring with it many objectionable outcomes; foremost among
those outcomes is the distrust it creates. vVhen leaders are not honest, oth­
ers come to see them as undependable and unreliable. People lose faith in
what leaders say and stand for, and their respect for leaders is diminished.
As a result, the leader’s impact is compromised because others no longer
trust and belie·e in the leader.
When we relate to others, dishonesty also has a negative impact. It puts
a strain on how people are connected to each other. When we lie to others,
we are in essence saying that we are willing to manipulate the relati onship
on our own terms. We are saying that we do not trust the other person in
the relationship to be able to deal with information we have. In reality, we
are putting ourselves ahead of the relationship by saying that we know what
is best for the relationship. The long-term effect of this type of behavior is
Ie
16.3 Developing Leadership Character
436
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
that it weakens relationships. Even when used with good intentions, dis­
honesty contributes to the breakdown of relationships.
But being honest is not just about telling the truth. It has to do with
being open with others and representing reality as fully and completely as
possible. This is not an easy task, however, because there are times when
telling the complete truth can be destructive or counterproductive. The
challenge for leaders is to strike a balance between being open and candid
while monitoring what is appropriate to disclose in a particular situation.
Many times, there are organizational constraints that prevent leaders from
disclosing information to followers . It is important for leaders to be authen­
tic, but it is also essential that they be sensitive to the attitudes and feelings
of others. Honest leadership involves a wide set of behaviors.
Dalla Costa ( 1998) made the point clearly in his book, The Ethical
Imperative, that being honest means more than not deceiving. For leaders
in organizations, being honest means, “Do not promise what you can’t
deliver, do not misrepresent, do not hide behind spin-doctored evasions,
do not suppress obligations, do not evade accountability, do not accept that
the ‘survival of the fittest’ pressures of business release any of us from the
responsibility to respect another’s dignity and humanity” (p. 164 ). In addi­
tion, Dalla Costa suggested that it is imperative that organizations recog­
nize and acknowledge the necessity of honesty and reward honest behavior
within the organization.
Ethical Leaders Build Community
In Chapter 1, we defined leadership as a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. This defini­
tion has a clear ethical dimension because it refers to a common goal. A
common goal requires that the leader and followers agree on the direction
to be taken by the group. Leaders need to take into account their own and
followers’ purposes while working toward goals that are suitable for both of
them. This factor, concern for others, is the distinctive feature that delin­
eates authentic transformational leaders from pseudotransformationallead­
ers (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Concern for the common good means that
leaders cannot impose their will on others. T hey need to search for goals
that are compatible with everyone.
Burns ( 1978) placed this idea at the center of his theory on transforma­
tional leadership. A transformational leader tries to move the group toward
Chapter 16
I Leadership Ethics
437
a common good that is beneficial for both the leaders and the followers. In
moving toward mutual goals, both the leader and the followers are
changed. It is this feature that makes Burns’s theory unique. For Burns,
leadership has to be grounded in