Synthesize Ethical Components of Leadership Theory
OLB 7005, Assignment 3
DuBose, Justin Z.
Dr. Jamiel Vadell
20 May 2018
Five Leadership Theories
This paper will examine five leadership theories, their primary theorist, and the development of the theory since its inception. The five leadership theories chosen for this paper are transformational leadership, servant leadership, transactional leadership, situational leadership, and charismatic leadership. These theories will be overviewed in the chronological order in which they were theorized. Following an overview of these five leadership theories, each will then be synthesized with ethical stances and the impact of ethics on leadership. Finally, current real-world examples will be provided that highlight the importance of and need for ethical leadership.
The oldest of these five theories is that of charismatic leadership. The leading theorist for charismatic leadership is Weber, who first formulated the theory in 1947 (Landis, 2014). The central tenet of charismatic leadership is that leaders inherently possess a charisma which is visionary and inspiring to those within the organization (Landis, 2014). Following charismatic leadership, the theory of situational leadership was developed in 1952 by Gerth & Mills (Landis, 2014). The central tenet of situational leadership is that leadership is a combination of an individual and their leadership in unique situations (Landis, 2014). In other words, leadership develops in unique situations by bringing out leadership qualities within the leader. In 1977, Greenleaf developed the theory of servant leadership (Landis, 2014). Servant leadership states that leaders who serve others make the most effectual leaders (Landis, 2014). Servant leadership espouses the idea that leaders who genuinely care about the people they lead will generate the greatest level of motivation and dedication throughout all echelons of the organization. Following servant leadership, the leadership theory of transactional leadership emerged in 1981 by Bass (Landis, 2014). Bass theorized that a leader’s primary method of motivating stakeholders is through reward and punishment incentives (Landis, 2014). Transactional leadership theorizes that through a system of punishment and rewards a leader motivates stakeholders throughout the organization to perform effectively. The fifth and final theory of transformational leadership was theorized in 1998 by Bass (Landis, 2014). Transformational leadership theorizes that leaders transform both the expectation and reality of followers throughout the organization by their personal behavior and values as well as their interactions with followers.
Leadership theories provide an insight into personality and character traits which make a leader effective. However, they do not provide any ethical framework in which a leader operates. Therefore, leadership theories need to be synthesized with ethical stances in order to establish ethical climates. Yazdani (2014) provides an overview of ethical stances which provides the data which are utilized in this section. Following this examination of these ethical stances, the importance of ethical leadership and ethical organizational climate will be looked at considering current issues.
Yazdani (2014) delineates ethical stances by looking at both the leading philosopher as well as the major ethical stance. These ethical stances extend from Confucius and his stance of virtue ethics to John Rawls and his stance of deontological ethics (Yazdani, 2014). In considering these various ethical stances, Yazdani (2014) applies these ethical stances to organizations, noting that leaders will exhibit some form of ethical stance through their leadership style. These ethical stances range from virtue ethics – certain virtues are valued and are to be lived out – to utilitarian ethics, which provide an ethical framework where the end justifies the means.
While leaders will possess different strengths and subscribe to different leadership theories, each will also establish an ethical climate for the organizations they lead. This can be either through conscious and intentional effort or through their behavior. Kouzes & Posner (2002) noted that leaders must first model the behavior which they expect of their stakeholders. What is presupposed within such an expectation is that leaders themselves know and model the principles they expect others within the organization to embody. Leaders must be aware of the ethical climate they establish and be conscious of the behavior and values they exhibit to stakeholders.
Theories in Practice
While each leader will have their own leadership style, they must also consider which ethical stance or framework they will utilize in setting the ethical climate of the organization. There are many recent examples of failures in business which highlight the need for ethical organizations, leaders, and climates. More specifically, the importance of ethical leadership and ethical organizational climates are highlighted two highly visible corporate problems: the increasing number of scandals (such as Enron) and the growing pay inequalities within organizations (Yazdani, 2014). These are just two problems highlighted by researchers which illustrate this need.
Schwepker (2015) noted that ethical climate is important because it establishes the expectations for behavior for members of the organizations. Furthermore, Schwepker (2015) noted that ethical climate is a stronger motivational factor than organizational climate. While many leaders may give much thought as to the overall climate of the organization, research indicates that motivating employees and other stakeholders is best accomplished by the establishment of a strong ethical climate. This can be accomplished using any of the five chosen leadership styles.
Singh (2011) noted, for example, that transformational leaders must meet three important leadership objectives: vision development, mobilization of organizational assets, and institutionalizing changes so that they endure over time. Each of these three objectives are best accomplished by establishing a strong ethical climate through consistent ethical leadership. However, these same objectives could easily be imposed upon any form of leadership as these are broad targets for any organizational leaders. Thus, whether leaders espoused transformational leadership, servant leadership, transactional leadership, situational leadership, or charismatic leadership they would be seeking to accomplish these same organizational objectives.
While organizational leaders are aiming at the same targets, they are also addressing the same problems. In looking at the two problems mentioned – corporate scandals and pay inequalities – leaders of any style must combat such problems. Establishing an ethical climate is a proven and effective way of combating these issues and this can be accomplished by leaders of all styles. Singh (2011) noted that one way of establishing an effective ethical climate and motivating stakeholders throughout the organization is to link individual values with organizational values. Additionally, research suggests that leaders not only shape the ethical climate of the organization but of the individual as well (Hood, 2003). Organizational leaders must consider not only the organizational values they will espouse, but also personal values. Embodying personal values will not only shape the ethical climate of the organization, but of the individual stakeholders. This linkage between personal values and organizational will not only make the organization more effective and efficient and motivate stakeholders, but it will also mitigate these problems and others by establishing an ethical climate which makes an inhospitable environment for unethical behavior. This can and should be accomplished by leaders of all styles.
Regardless of a leader’s unique leadership style, research demonstrates the need for ethical leadership. Leaders who are transactional in nature must base their system and rewards and punishments upon ethical standards and values which are objective in nature. Leaders who find themselves in difficult situations in which leadership is needed (situational leadership) will discover that the establishing of an ethical climate will provide them the trust necessary to lead effectively in such situations. Leaders who seek to transform their followers by their behavior will do so most effectively if their behavior is rooted in established ethics and principles. Similarly, servant leaders who demonstrate a care for those within their organization will base such care upon ethical stances and values. Likewise, charismatic leaders will maximize the power of their charisma if their employees and stakeholders are motivated by working in an ethical climate.
Research has highlighted that not only are leaders integral in establishing ethical climates, but that establishing ethical climates actually drives those within the organization to increase their own ethical standards and behavior. This establishes an organizational climate where employees are not only motivated to perform and behave well, but also to increase their continually raise the standard of their performance and behavior. Leaders are poised to not only tap into stakeholder motivation and personal values, but, more importantly, to increase and expand motivation and personal values by motivating them to take such values to higher levels (Singh, 2011). Organizational leaders of every style must give honest, careful, and thoughtful consideration to the ethical climate of their organization.
Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical practices in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 263-273. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from https://link.springer.com/journal/10551
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014) A synthesis of leadership theories and styles. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2). Retrieved May 20, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1913-8067_Journal_of_Management_Policy_and_Practice
Schwepker, C. H., & Schultz, R. J. (2015). Influence of the ethical servant leader and ethical climate on customer value enhancing sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(2), 93-107. doi:10.1080/08853134.2015.1010537
Singh, K. (2011). Develop Ethics at the Workplace through Transformational Leadership: A Study of Business Organizations in India. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 4(2), 31-58. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from http://www.kglobal.org/journal.html
Yazdani, N., & Murad, H. S. (2014). Toward an Ethical Theory of Organizing. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 399-417. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2049-3
Research A Retail Organization
OLB 7005, Assignment 1
DuBose, Justin Z.
Dr. Jamiel Vadell
7 May 2018
Introduction to Organization
The retail chain of Hobby Lobby is an organization which has maintained a consistent presence in the news media in recent years. In 2014, Hobby Lobby won a landmark case in the Supreme Court, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (Liptak, 2014). The nature of this case centered around an ethical concern by the Green family, who owns the chain of retail craft stores. The Green family expressed a concern that a particular mandate of the Affordable Care Act violated their personal and corporate ethical standards.
Portions of the Affordable Care Act required them to provide a form of birth control to their employees which they considered akin to abortion. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, 5-4, and declared that other “closely held” companies could not be required to provide such contraceptives to their employees because it violated their religious freedoms and conscience (Liptak, 2014).
Hobby Lobby is a privately owned, for-profit retail chain owned and run by the Green family. Steve Green serves as the President of the company and has served in this capacity since 2004 (Green, 2018). The Green family has owned and controlled the company from its inception. David Green, Steve Green’s father, started the company out of a garage in Oklahoma City in 1970 (Shellnutt, 2017). The company, its founders, and present leadership are known as much for their conservative, evangelical Christian stance as they are for the arts and crafts they sell. This analysis will examine a recent unethical business practice by the company which resulted in negative public relations and the forced re-evaluation by the Green family of the way in which Hobby Lobby conducts business.
While Hobby Lobby made national news in 2014 for their landmark Supreme Court victory, they have recently been in the public eye due to their acquisition of ancient artifacts (Green, 2018). Steve Green, President of Hobby Lobby, also serves as the CEO of the recently opened “Museum of the Bible” in Washington DC (Shellnutt, 2017). Through Hobby Lobby, Green purchased thousands of ancient Sumerian artifacts, many of which were to be displayed in the Museum of the Bible (Shellnutt, 2017). However, after an investigation by the Justice Department, it was determined that these artifacts were actually looted from war-torn Iraq and not acquired from Israel or Turkey, as the customs forms on the items had claimed (Shellnutt, 2017).
Federal prosecutors determined that over 5,000 of these artifacts, purchased by Hobby Lobby, had to be returned to their country of origin. Hobby Lobby successfully returned these artifacts earlier this month. Additionally, Hobby Lobby was forced to pay $3 million in fines to the Department of Justice as punishment for their unethical business practices (Shellnutt, 2017). The end result of this debacle for Hobby Lobby is not simply negative press, but it also highlighted certain ethical failures within the organization and, more pointedly, within the leadership.
Perhaps the most glaring ethical failure of the part of Steve Green and the leaders of Hobby Lobby is their failure to recognize how such procedural ethical failures reflect on their own character and organizational influence. In tying leadership to ethical behavior and businesses practices, one author noted that leadership must be able to “differentiate not only between leadership and good ethical character, but also between leadership and power, authority, influence…” (Levine, 2013). The embrace of such unethical business practices on the part of Steve Green and others in leadership potentially cause their stakeholders to question their individual ethical standards as well as the way in which they use their power, authority, and influence within the company. Such an ethical oversight on the part of organizational leadership makes it difficult for stakeholders to trust the character and decision-making abilities of those in positions of authority.
Trust in leadership, and the communication of trust on the part of leadership, are vital not just to the bottom-line of the company, but also, and arguably more importantly, to the morale and buy-in of its individual members. One author places such a high degree of importance on trust and communication that he refers to it as the "emotional glue...between leader and follower" and, he adds, that the "form and quality of interactions between trusting parties" cannot be overstated (Savolainen, 2014). It follows, then, that not only the quality of communication must be carefully considered by those in leadership, but also the form of communication, as this also impacts this "emotional glue".
Another major consideration for Hobby Lobby and its leadership is the potential impact – either positive or negative – Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has on its stakeholders. Social responsibility and sustainability initiatives fall under the umbrella of CSR. CSR is a growing trend which is continually being embraced by a wider variety of businesses, and which ties in directly to the treatment of corporate ethics by the leadership. In fact, CSR "is a priority item on the agenda of almost every business organization" (Babin, 2011). One of the primary factors driving this business priority is "society’s rising demand for corporations to be more environmentally and socially responsible" (Persons, 2012). In the case of the acquisition of looted Sumerian artifacts, it casts an entirely negative light on Hobby Lobby in the area of CSR. While Hobby Lobby donates generous portions of their profit to evangelical, Christian causes (such as the Museum of the Bible, this example causes them to appear terribly irresponsible in regard to foreign cultures. As CSR greatly impacts stakeholder trust and motivation both inside and outside the organization, such an obviously negative business decision should cause Hobby Lobby to revisit its ethical priorities as they relate to CSR.
As a result of this corporate ethical failure, Hobby Lobby has made some corporate changes to the process of acquiring artifacts in the future. “Hobby Lobby has implemented acquisition policies and procedures based on the industry’s highest standards established by the Association of Art Museum Directors (“AAMD”). The AAMD policies have been vetted by global museum directors and lawmakers alike, and represent the gold standard for protecting ancient heritage artifacts” (Green, 2018).
By virtue of this decision, Hobby Lobby clearly recognized their shortcomings in the process by which they acquired these thousands of artifacts. These steps work both to restore and build trust in Steve Green and the other leaders of the company while also demonstrating a degree of commitment to CSR in regard to protecting ancient heritage artifacts. The larger failure of Hobby Lobby, however, was in permitting such grossly unethical businesses practices to exist in the first place.
Whether fair or unfair, the perception of organizational leadership and its embrace or neglect of ethical conduct is tied to the practices of the organization itself. To highlight this point, one author asks the question, “If leadership neither implies or requires ethics, then why is it that we still demand and expect – or at least have the illusion of demanding and expecting – that would-be leaders be ethical?” (Levine, 2013). Both the stakeholders and the general public demand that leaders of companies and organizations uphold ethical codes of conduct both personally and professionally. It is when those expectations are not met that such issues are brought to light by the press and companies are forced to explain and re-evaluate their businesses practices.
Since their public and landmark Supreme Court victory in 2014, both Hobby Lobby and the Green family have occupied a place in the national spotlight and remained under public scrutiny. With such scrutiny comes greater expectations of both ethical leaders and ethical leadership. In the case of these ancient Sumerian artifacts, Hobby Lobby and the Green family have had certain business practices illuminated as ethically questionable. This causes stakeholders and the general public to question the ethics and integrity of leaders, which, consequently, leads to a lack of trust in organizational leadership.
This is the greatest concern for both Hobby Lobby as a company and the Green family as the organizational leaders. While their decision to institute new business practices in regard to acquiring artifacts is a step in the right direction, they must re-evaluate related issues such as CSR. In other words, do our business practices fully communicate our ethical code of conduct to our stakeholders? Do they see that our practices are a result of our ethical standards and not simply as a corporate response to public scrutiny?
If Hobby Lobby and its leadership can be viewed as having high ethical standards, and those standards being evident in its corporate practices, procedures, and standards, then public trust can begin to be restored. However, as long as their business practices are seen simply as reactionary to scrutiny or punishment, then stakeholders will continue to question the ethical standards of both the organization as a whole and the organizational leaders who are making decisions.
Babin, R., Briggs, S., & Nicholson, B. (2011). Emerging Markets Corporate Social Responsibility and Global IT Outsourcing. Communications of the ACM, 54(9), 28-30. doi:10.1145/1995376.1995387
Green, Steve. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2018, from https://newsroom.hobbylobby.com/team/steve-green/
Levine, M. P., & Boaks, J. (2013). What Does Ethics Have to do with Leadership? Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 225-242. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1807-y
Liptak, A. (2014, June 30). Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations. Retrieved May 7, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html
Persons, O. (2012). Incorporating Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Into a Business Course: A Shared Experience. Journal of Education for Business, 87(2), 63-72. doi:10.1080/08832323.2011.562933
Savolainen, T. (2014). Trust-building in e-leadership: A case study of leaders' challenges and skills in technology-mediated interaction. Journal of Global Business Issues, 8(2), 45-56. Retrieved from www.globip.com/globalinternational.htm
Shellnutt, K., Zylstra, S. E., Becker, A. J., & Isaacs, S. E. (2017, July 6). Hobby Lobby Returns 'Priceless' Artifacts Smuggled from Iraq. Retrieved May 7, 2018, from https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/july/hobby-lobby-steve-green-artifacts-smuggled-from-iraq.html
NG, LR, NCU, USAR
My collection of personal papers written over the years