Ethics and Responsible Leadership in Business

Various reports on managerial misconduct, financial crisis and corporate scandals are seems
to be an interest in participating the failures to the challenges of international business.
Ethics, leader’s responsibilities, morality and individual’s responsibilities have once again
become main headlines in the business news.

According to Doh and Stumpf, 2005; Maak and Pless, 2006; Waldman and Siegel, 2008

//

//
In a time when it has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to delineate
Systemic outcomes and individual responsibilities, ethics and morality have once again
become front-page news.
As a consequence, theory and practice are struggling with the task
of re-conceptualizing the role of corporations (Scherer and Palazzo, 2008a, 2011) and their
leaders (Doh and Stumpf, 2005a; Maak and Pless, 2006a; Waldman and Siegel, 2008) in
society, in order to address the surge of public concerns.

So far leadership ethics, as the overarching term for the inclusion of ethical aspects in
leadership, has remained an underdeveloped field (Ciulla, 1995; 2005; Doh and Stumpf,
2005b). Only recently, leadership research once again turns its focus on the phenomenon of
leadership ethics in its different facets. Thus, many new approaches within leadership connect
to ethical or moral themes. Among these are the concept of ethical leadership, which tries to
measure empirically what ethical leadership means (Brown, 2007; Brown and Trevino, 2006;
Brown et al., 2005; Trevino et al., 2000; Trevino et al., 2003); the already well established
transformational leadership concept, where more recent research (Bass and Steidlmeier,
1999) tries to regain an awareness of the moral roots of its founder, James M. Burns (1978),
also e.g. by looking at the connection between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
transformational leadership (Waldman et al., 2006); authentic leadership, understood as
leadership that displays leader behavior true to the inherent moral values of the leader (Avolio
and Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004a; Avolio et al., 2004b; Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al.,
2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008); an understanding of leaders as “servants” in the conception of
servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977; Liden et al., 2008) and other approaches that address the
ethical or moral challenges of leaders (e.g., Fry, 2005; Johnson, 2009; von Weltzien Hoivik,
2002).
Though these efforts have undoubtedly made vital contributions to the field, we argue
that they are limited due to conceptual constraints, because they do not adequately encompass
the causes and implications of present leadership challenges. As we outline below, we see
these challenges rooted in the economic and moral implications of globalization (Scherer and
Palazzo, 2008b, 2011). An appropriately extended understanding of leadership has to take
these into account with regard to the individual’s actions as well as their organizational and
societal embeddedness. The inclusion of the latter poses a significant research gap, since
present leadership theory remains primarily focused on the micro level perspective of internal
organizational behavior (House and Aditya, 1997, pp. 445f; Osborn et al., 2002; Waldman et
al., 2006, p. 1705). Yet, it is our understanding that only by bridging the organizational level
of corporate responsibility and the individual level of leadership responsibility does one do
justice to the pluralistic and multifaceted tasks present leaders have to attend to (see also Bies
et al., 2007; Doh and Stumpf, 2005b; Palazzo and Scherer, 2008, pp. 583f; Waldman et al.,
2006; Waldman and Siegel, 2008, p. 117). Furthermore, leadership ethics can benefit from the
discussions on the responsibility of the firm with concepts like CSR, Corporate Citizenship or
Business Ethics (e.g. Garriga and Melé, 2004; Matten and Crane, 2005; Scherer et al., 2009;
Scherer and Palazzo, 2008a, 2011; Windsor, 2006) that have addressed some of the present
challenges of globalization and global public goods problems.
This paper acknowledges these challenges and the indications offered by the CSR
discourse. We thereby connect to an upcoming research stream under the umbrella term of
responsible leadership. Responsible leadership is understood by its proponents as an
emerging
concept at the overlap of studies in ethics, leadership and CSR (Ciulla, 2005; De Hoogh and
-4-
Den Hartog, 2008; Doh and Stumpf, 2005a; Maak, 2007; Maak and Pless, 2006a; Waldman
and Galvin, 2008; Waldman and Siegel, 2008). The concept tries to answer the question: who
is responsible for what and towards whom in an interconnected business world?
Our approach adds to the discussion by drawing upon a conception of leadership
responsibility that reconsiders the role of leaders in a globalizing society in the context of
Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy (Habermas, 1999; 2001b). Building on this
normative conception of leadership responsibility, the paper suggests a model of responsible
leadership that provides the premise for future empirical testing.
We thereby contribute, first, to the conceptualization of an emerging concept of
responsible leadership by offering a philosophical foundation and a theoretical background
both for the analysis of responsible leadership and the problems of globalization. Second, the
article shows how responsible leadership can address the challenges of globalization. It thus
adds the individual level of leadership to the discussion on corporate social responsibility.
Third, we put responsible leadership in the organizational context by highlighting possible
influences of responsible leadership on micro-, meso-, and macro-level orgaizational
outcomes. This shows important interdependencies and contributes to the knowledge of an
emerging research field. Further, it offers a way of how to translate a philosophical
foundation
into a practically relevant theory.
Accordingly, the paper first recapitulates the argumentation regarding our
understanding of leadership responsibility, depicting deliberative democracy (Bohmann and
Rehg, 1997; Habermas, 1998; 2001b) as our explicitly normative cornerstone with respect to
the understanding and integration of present leadership challenges. We transform these
philosophical foundations into a definition that is the starting-point in modeling responsible
leadership. Second, we distinguish responsible leadership from prior leadership concepts.
Third, we present a model of responsible leadership, pointing to outcomes of responsible
leadership conduct across levels of analysis. The outcomes that will be discussed connect to
-5-
the rise in problems organizations are facing due to the process of globalization. The
presented model of responsible leadership thereby connects the micro perspective of
leadership with the macro perspective of CSR, corporate legitimacy, and other important
future business challenges. The aim is to provide a research agenda for responsible leadership
in order to stimulate future efforts in this field, and to advance the understanding of
responsible leadership and its future empirical testing.
2. The process of globalization and the concept of responsible leadership
In accordance with Scherer and Palazzo and others we argue that globalization, understood as
an increased integration of value creation transcending national boundaries, impedes the
capability of the nation state system to moderate the outcomes of the economical, political
and
social systems. As a consequence, this development leads to governance gaps so that the
public interest is insufficiently served (Chandler and Mazlish, 2005; Kobrin, 2008; Scherer et
al., 2006; Scherer et al., 2009; Scherer and Palazzo, 2007; see also, Beck, 2000; Habermas,
2001c). The regulatory power of democratic rule of law states is territorially bound, and due
to non-intervention in internal affairs international organizations cannot intervene in the
public policy of sovereign nation states. As a result, many externalities and global public
goods problems, such as protecting human rights, enforcing labor standards, saving the
natural environment, or fighting corruption, remain unaddressed (Kaul et al., 2003). In order
to fill the apparent gaps in global governance, many corporations and their leaders voluntarily
engage in self-regulation and the production of global public goods (see e.g., Young, 2006).
This is a widespread phenomenon, as can be seen in the growing membership of companies
in
the UN Global Compact, or booming CSR initiatives like the Global Reporting Initiative, the
Forest Stewardship Council, or the Social Accounting 8000.
This political engagement, as well as prominent cases of misconduct or negligence by
leaders that have affected all stakeholders alike (one might think of cases like Enron or
-6-
Siemens), have put corporate leaders in the spotlight of public interest (e.g., Kellerman, 2004;
Lipman-Blumen, 2005). It seems that the negative side effects of globalization and the
increasing number of corporate scandals lead to an erosion of corporate legitimacy (Palazzo
and Scherer, 2006), a loss of public trust in leaders and corporations, and to a degradation of
social capital.
The globalization of business has far-reaching implications for the constitutional
elements of leadership, which include the persons involved, their interaction and the exerted
influence as well as their common goal (Patzer, 2009; see also exemplary, Bennis, 2007;
Drath et al., 2008; Yukl, 2006). Leaders (and followers alike) are increasingly confronted
with
heterogeneous cultural contexts, devoid of shared moral orientations or legal frameworks. As
moral or ethical conflicts arise in the process of economic activities, business leaders are left
without any orientation in regard to morally adequate action. In this situation the idea of
value
maximization often becomes the sole surrogate for moral principles. This problem is
aggravated by the need to transcend the traditional, internally bound focus of leadership
theory (Maak, 2007; Maak and Pless, 2006b). As leaders increasingly interact with external
stakeholders, the notion of influence as based on hierarchical power has to be reconsidered. It
needs to be explained what form legitimate influence takes in this context. Lastly, CSR has
become a strategic impetus on the organizational agenda representing the companies’
struggles to maintain legitimacy as a vital resource of business conduct (Palazzo and Scherer,
2006; Suchman, 1995). Hence, corporate leaders have to mediate social and financial goals
without divulging the one or the other in the process of maintaining corporate legitimacy,
building trust, and producing social capital.
In order to address these challenges, research emphasizes a stakeholder-perspective of
leadership (Waldman and Galvin, 2008; Waldman and Siegel, 2008), understanding
responsible leadership as a “value-based and through ethical principles driven relationship
between leaders and stakeholders” (Pless, 2007, p. 438). We connect to this research stream
-7-
(Maak, 2007; Maak and Pless, 2006a; Pless, 2007) and extend it by offering a philosophical
basis for the ethical principles that are called for.
We propose an understanding of responsible leadership in the sense of deliberative
processes
1
Within this societal deliberation process, business leaders as exponents of powerful
and resource-commanding organizations become central actors, who can secure the quality
and (moral) legitimacy of decisions through proactive engagement in the process of societal
self-determination and the inclusion and mobilization of stakeholders. This idea of business
leaders involved in the deliberative democratic processes as the premise of an understanding
of responsible leadership provides normative orientation as well as a pragmatic approach to
the problems of globally engaged leaders. It does the former through an understanding of
practical reason, anchored in the conditions of communicative exchange, that approaches
culturally alien contexts via an open and reciprocal learning process in which conflicting
interests are evaluated (and settled) through rational discourse (Habermas, 1993; 2001a;
Steinmann and Scherer, 1998; Wohlrapp, 1998). Such a politically enlarged concept of
leadership implies, for the latter, the inclusion of all affected stakeholders in the leadership
process in a fair and balanced manner (Waldman and Galvin, 2008, pp. 330ff).
. Our procedural conception of leadership ethics is based upon Habermas’s
thoughts on deliberative democracy (e.g., Habermas, 1998; 1999; 2001b) that refer to the idea
of legitimate lawmaking issuing from public deliberation, and that rest on the philosophical
foundation of discourse ethics (Habermas, 1993; 1996). It represents an ideal of political
autonomy based on the practical reasoning of citizens. The systemic means of coordination,
money and power, are supplemented with solidarity as the premises of societal integration
and
coordination (Habermas, 1999).
For leaders this means that they should think of the consequences of their conduct for
all constituencies that could be affected, that they recognize the legitimate claims of the
affected stakeholders, and that they use their influence to initiate active stakeholder dialogues

-8-
where the involved parties can come to balanced and fair decisions. The inclusion of the
(relevant) stakeholders supports a legitimate process, while the weighing and balancing of the
legitimate claims leads to a fair outcome. Responsible leaders thereby foster the public
exchange of opinions and try to establish institutional modes of communication with
stakeholders and the public.
With regard to this, responsible leadership as deliberation and discursive conflict
resolution forwards a pragmatic approach to the daily practice of leadership that centers on a
communicative engagement with its stakeholders. In the context of this paper we therefore
understand responsible leadership as the awareness and consideration of the consequences of
one’s actions for all stakeholders, as well as the exertion of influence by enabling the
involvement of the affected stakeholders and by engaging in an active stakeholder dialogue.
Therein responsible leaders strive to weigh and balance the interests of the forwarded claims.
Additionally, responsible leaders foster the public exchange of opinions and engage in public
will formation (for a similar definition, see Voegtlin, 2011).
Leading responsibly, according to this understanding, means for leaders to open up to
a broader target group (the stakeholders) with the goal of securing the legitimacy of the
organization in a given society and establishing and maintaining mutually beneficial
stakeholder relations. The definition comprises the steps of discursive conflict resolution
(Habermas, 1993; 1996). Leaders are thereby seen as the exposed persons in an organization
who should be able to recognize (moral) problems in their decision-making processes (by
being aware of and considering the consequences of one’s actions for all stakeholders). They
use their influence to provide the arenas for discursive conflict resolution (by enabling the
involvement of the affected stakeholders) and invite the affected stakeholder-groups to join
the
discourse (by engaging in an active stakeholder dialogue). During the discursive decision
process, the task of the responsible leader is to try to achieve a consensus among the
participants (by weighing the arguments and balancing the interests of the stakeholder
-9-
claims). This allows for leaders to influence through cooperation and to aim for consensual
solutions, as they interact not through a supervisor-subordinate relationship but eventually
with equally powerful or resource commanding entities. Responsible leaders, thus, represent
the position and the interest of their organization by joining the discourse with arguments that
emphasize their point of view.
This definition represents an ideal of responsible leadership that can encounter
restrictions in the organizational day-to-day business (see e.g., Stansbury, 2009). We therefore
assume that the conceptualization of responsible leadership represents a continuum, ranging
from the non-responsible leader to the ideal responsible leader. The end of the continuum,
representing the non-responsible leader, could be characterized as self-interested, egoistic
leadership behavior acting solely on an instrumental rationale. The other end, representing the
fully responsible leader, would be based on discourse ethics and deliberation as proposed in
our political conception of responsible leadership.
3. Responsible leadership in relation to prevalent leadership conceptualizations
In studying the literature one will find that aspects of an enhanced responsibility of leaders
that go beyond the narrow scope of profit earning are rare (Brown and Trevino, 2006; Ciulla,
1995; Doh and Stumpf, 2005b; Maak and Pless, 2006c), despite the early recognition of an
enlarged leadership role in Barnard’s work (Barnard, 1960). In this part we discuss our
approach in relation to prior leadership conceptualizations. As the field of leadership is very
broad and fragmented, we cannot discuss all leadership concepts in relation to our proposed
concept of responsible leadership in this article. Rather, we try to highlight the differences of
the approach that set it apart from most other leadership concepts. These differences appear
most prominently in the limitations of current concepts in addressing the problems of
globalization.
- 10 -
First, leadership remains predominantly focused on the influence process between
leader and employees (see also the common concepts in leadership textbooks, Bass, 1990;
Rost, 1991; Yukl, 2006). It does not take into account stakeholder interactions, which become
important for securing the legitimacy of an organization. Second, the new approaches to
leadership in relation to ethics (e.g. ethical leadership; Brown et al., 2005) remain mostly
descriptive in their approach to assessing leadership ethics. Yet, by only describing prevailing
moral norms, they do not allow for a critical justification of what is ethically correct. This
leads to common sense being the only actual benchmark for what is ethically right (Ciulla,
1998). These theories cannot provide ethical orientation for leaders or offer normative advice.
Thus, there is still a need for a philosophical foundation of responsible leadership that
provides an orientation of how to deal with the conflicting norms of a heterogeneous
stakeholder society. This leads to the third point, the tension between ethics and effectiveness.
It is often implicitly assumed that a good leader is ethical and effective (Ciulla, 1995). The
“usual answer [of what a competent leader is,] is a leader who knows how to get results,
make
profits, etc.” (Ciulla, 2005, p. 333). But does this mean that he or she is acting responsibly?
This question is not fully addressed in leadership research.
Thus, the points where our concept of responsible leadership differs from prior
leadership conceptualizations are that, first, responsible leadership is based on an explicit
normative framework of discourse ethics and deliberative democracy that goes beyond
ethical
concepts based on values or deontological monologism that have been susceptible to critique
(Habermas, 1996; for a similar critique on concepts of CSR, see Scherer and Palazzo, 2007);
second, responsible leadership is conceptualized as a process model of leadership that is not
explicitly related to ethical characteristics of the leader (like most of the other leadership
theories concerned with ethics), as these characteristics (e.g., good virtues) pose problems
with regard to their intercultural justification. Rather, these ethical characteristics are
conceptualized as antecedents of responsible leadership conduct (see Voegtlin et al., 2010);
- 11 -
third, responsible leadership transcends the internal view of leadership as leader-follower
interaction to a view of leadership as leader-stakeholder interaction, which seems to be an
important necessity for leadership in a globalized world (see Liden et al., 2008; Maak, 2007;
Maak and Pless, 2006c; Schneider, 2002); finally, responsible leadership does not
conceptualize leader effectiveness in the sense of performance as the main driver of
leadership behavior, but, rather, through the effectiveness in establishing consensual solutions
that are accepted as legitimate by all affected parties (for a discussion about what is “good”
leadership, see e.g., Ciulla, 1995). This is at the heart of the responsibility towards
stakeholders and to a certain extent it implies mediating social and economic goals.
4. A research agenda of responsible leadership
The understanding of responsible leadership as presented above offers the possibility to
derive
a model relating responsible leadership to important outcomes. In this section we will deduce
formal propositions of causal relationships between responsible leadership behavior and
important organizational variables in order to advance future research (this approach has
similarly been applied for the advancement of other leadership conceptualizations, see e.g.,
ethical leadership, Brown and Trevino, 2006, or authentic leadership, Avolio et al., 2004a).
We propose a model of responsible leadership (see Figure 1) which highlights important
influences of responsible leadership on organizational outcomes across levels of analysis.
For each of the relationships anticipated in Figure 1 we theoretically derive formal
propositions in order to advance future research in the field of responsible leadership. These
relationships highlight potential causal effects in relation to responsible leadership that are
designed for further empirical investigation. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all
the possible influences being affected by responsible leadership. It rather presents proposals
that advance the conceptualization of the political concept of responsible leadership.
- 12 -
The focus was laid especially on future business challenges caused by an ongoing
globalization process, which we think can be best addressed by responsible leadership
conduct. The globalization with its consequences of loss of shared moral orientation,
widening governance gaps and a growing public awareness of critical company conduct, puts
business firms in an ever greater need to build and secure their (moral) legitimacy, to
maintain
trustful relations with stakeholders and to leverage the social capital inherent in these
relations.
On the one hand, leaders will have to be role models in terms of good corporate social
responsibility practices, thereby trying to foster an ethical culture, as well as emphasizing the
need for CSR and providing employees with sense and meaning of the socially responsible
activities of their organization. On the other hand, the increasing global competition forces
companies to enhance their performance, to innovate faster and to wage new (social)
entrepreneurial ventures.
A further important aspect of business leadership in a work environment with a
growing culturally heterogeneous workforce and increased economic pressure is to motivate
and satisfy the employees by encouraging them at the same time to engage in citizenship
behaviors. These consequences will be discussed in the new model of responsible leadership

Figure 1. Outcomes of responsible leadership across levels of analysis

4.1. How individual leadership can affect outcomes across levels of analysis
Before we discuss the proposed model in detail, we will point to the interaction between
leadership agency and (organizational) structures. This implies two questions that need to be
addressed: first, in how far is individual leadership action constrained by structures and in
how far can agency, in turn, evoke change. Second, how does individual leadership agency
affect meso- and macro-level structural dispositions. Both questions also warrant further
research and discussion in the (responsible) leadership literature.
Addressing these questions will add to the discussion around leadership and CSR,
guide the reader through the framework, and offer a starting point for future research that
may
investigate this duality in more detail. In this regard, there are limitations to the scope of the
discussion in this article. The aim is therefore to present an overview and, at the same time, to
encourage other researchers to carry this further.
The macro-level as a point of reference encompasses the interaction of organizations
with the broader (global) society, the meso-level is regarded here as the level-of-analysis of
Responsible
Leadership
Macro-level: Relations to
External Stakeholders
• Legitimacy
• Trustful Stakeholder
Relations
• Social Capital
Meso-Level: Shaping
Organizational Culture and
Performance
• Ethical Culture
• CSR Character
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Performance
Micro-Level: Personal
Interactions
• Effect on Followers’
Attitudes and Cognitions
• E.g., OCB, Motivation, Job
Satisfaction
Globalization
Challenges
Outcomes
- 14 -
internal organizational structures and practices, and the micro-level is understood as the level
of personal interaction of individual agents.
On the meso-level organizational structures can be viewed as historically evolved and
socially embedded practices that are enacted through organizational routines, actions and
discourses across all organizational levels (Giddens, 1984; Whittington, 2010). A similar
definition can be applied to institutions on the macro-level: “[institutions] are historical
accreditations of past practices and understandings that set conditions on actions” (Phillips,
Lawrence and Hardy, 2004, p. 637).
Structures and institutions, on the one hand, constrain individual agency in that they
limit the possibility of socially desirable or non-sanctioned actions and, in turn, increase the
costs of nonconformity (Giddens, 1984; Phillips et al., 2004). On the other hand, individual
agency shapes these conditions either by reproducing them or by introducing new ways of
doing things, i.e. individuals can foster changes in structural conditions over time, especially
by facilitating collective action.
The possibilities for leaders to influence these conditions can be derived from the
common understanding of leadership as an influence process to foster such collective action
(Yukl, 2006). Leaders have enhanced possibilities to promote change, as they, first, can draw
on a broader set of organizational resources (including authoritarian power provided by the
hierarchical position), second, are often seen as role models employees rely upon or look to
when directing their actions, and third, can provide meaning or visions that direct change (see
e.g., Bandura, 1986; Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2006).
In the following description of the responsible leadership model we will not focus on
the constraints imposed by structural conditions, but rather on the possible influence of
agency through responsible leadership. We thereby assume that the favorable implications of
responsible leadership agency can trigger collective action and, subsequently, affect meso-
- 15 -
and macro-level outcomes. This should be applicable for all the relationships discussed in the
following.

4.2. How responsible leadership can help to address the challenges of globalization:
Discussing the proposed model
The research agenda of responsible leadership can be extended to possible outcomes of
responsible leadership. Responsible leaders are leaders that exert influence by fostering an
active stakeholder dialogue. They estimate consequences of their actions and try to weigh and
balance different stakeholder claims, in order to achieve mutual beneficial solutions for all
involved parties. Such leadership behavior can have an effect on the quality (and quantity) of
stakeholder relations as well as on follower attitudes and other important organizational
factors.
In the following we propose positive effects of responsible leadership on stakeholder
relations (in the form of legitimacy, trust and social capital), on the ethical culture of an
organization, the perceived CSR-Character, social entrepreneurship and organizational
performance, as well as on follower attitudes and cognitions (see Figure 1). These
relationships will be discussed based on the macro-level of leadership relations with external
organizational stakeholders, the meso-level of shaping the internal organizational culture and
affecting organizational performance, and the micro-level of personal interaction with
employees.

4.2.1. Macro-level outcomes: Fostering stakeholder relations

The negative side effects of globalization and the increase in corporate scandals lead to an
erosion of corporate legitimacy (Palazzo and Scherer, 2006). On the one hand, leaders are
faced with a loss of public trust. On the other hand, the actions of organizations are being
monitored to a greater degree by different stakeholders. Leaders are confronted with the
- 16 -
challenges of securing legitimacy, (re-)building trustful stakeholder relations and enhancing
their social capital (Maak, 2007).
We propose that engaging in responsible leadership will help leaders to address these
challenges as such conduct will have a positive effect on the relationships with stakeholders.
In the following we will present hypotheses on how responsible leadership can maintain
corporate legitimacy, build trustful relationships with stakeholders, and enhance the social
capital inherent in those relations.
Legitimacy
The new challenges of globalization for the corporation and subsequently for its leaders will
eventually lie in the problem of building up and securing the (moral) legitimacy in a given
society (Palazzo and Scherer, 2006). The post-national constellation, in which the latitude of
control by nations over multinational organizations is eroding, leads to a politicization of
organizations and thus to higher demands for building up or maintaining their legitimacy
(Palazzo and Scherer, 2006; Scherer and Palazzo, 2007).
Suchman (1995, p. 574) defines legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption
that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially
constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”. The ascribed legitimacy of an
organization is important for its long-term survival. It guarantees a license to operate in a
given society and is “a precondition for the continuous flow of resources and the sustained
support by the organization’s constituents” (Palazzo and Scherer, 2006, p. 71). Suchman
(1995) distinguishes three types of legitimacy: pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy.
Pragmatic legitimacy is ascribed when an organization can satisfy the self-interested
expectations of the organization’s immediate audiences, i.e. its main stakeholders. Cognitive
legitimacy rests on the taken-for-granted assumptions of an organization’s role and behavior
- 17 -
in a society. And moral legitimacy is based on conscious moral judgments and normative
evaluation of the organization’s activities.
Palazzo and Scherer (2006) argued that the process of globalization, which is also the
starting point for our considerations, puts forward an enhanced emphasis on moral legitimacy,
as the pluralization of modern society and its resulting cultural heterogeneity erodes the
taken-
for granted assumptions (of cognitive legitimacy) and cannot be secured solely by changing
(exchange-)coalitions with stakeholders (pragmatic legitimacy).
We, therefore, propose responsible leadership as a precondition for securing the moral
legitimacy of an organization. Responsible leadership rests on deliberative practices and
discursive conflict resolution. Moral legitimacy is built and maintained through
communication and participation in public discourses, justifying organizational actions in an
active stakeholder discourse with relevant societal actors (Palazzo and Scherer, 2006;
Suchman, 1995). The incorporation of stakeholders in the decision making process and the
acknowledgement of their arguments secures legitimate decisions in terms of a fair access
(input legitimacy) and in terms of accepted outcomes (output legitimacy).
Taken together, we hold that responsible leadership produces legitimate decisions and
thus helps to secure the legitimacy of the organization. It closes the gap with corporate social
responsibility in that it guarantees legitimacy for the organizational actions, which could be
regarded as the main goal of an extended social responsibility of organizations (see e.g.,
Palazzo and Scherer, 2006, p. 73).
Proposition 1: Responsible leadership helps to build and maintain the legitimacy of an
organization.
Trustful stakeholder relations
Trust has received a lot of attention in scholarly research (see McAllister, 1995; Rousseau et
al., 1998), also in the field of leadership (e.g., Burke et al., 2007; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).
- 18 -
Trust, seen as a relational process between individuals (e.g., between leaders and followers),
has been defined as “a psychological state [comprised] of the intention to accept vulnerability
based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of another” (Rousseau et al.,
1998, p. 395). Dirks and Ferrin have distinguished two qualitatively different perspectives of
trust in leadership research, a relation-based perspective and a character-based perspective
(Dirks and Ferrin, 2002, p. 612). The relation-based perspective emphasizes the social
exchange process and relates trust to relationships of mutual obligation that inherit goodwill.
In relationships that build trust issues of care and consideration are central. From a character-
based perspective the employees place trust in the leader depending on the leader’s positive
characteristics like e.g., integrity, fairness, or ability.
2
We propose that responsible leadership conduct evokes trust among those stakeholders
a leader interacts with more frequently (not only his or her direct employees or followers) and
helps to build mutually beneficial stakeholder relationships. From this point of view the
relation-based perspective will play a more central role than the character-based perspective,
as we do not align responsible leadership with certain characteristics of the leader (which
does
not mean that responsible leaders will not have those characteristics that promote trust; it
could maybe even be hypothesized that they will be more prone to have them). Trust as a
relational construct presupposes positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of
leaders
from the side of the stakeholders. Preconditions of trustful stakeholder relationships that have
been identified are e.g., transparency, open communication, inclusion and involvement of the
stakeholders in the decision making process, and coming to accepted and traceable outcomes
(see Burke et al., 2007, pp. 610ff; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002, pp. 612ff).
These preconditions are addressed by responsible leadership conduct. Responsible
leaders are more likely to build up such trustful stakeholder relationships when they estimate
the (negative) consequences of their decisions, use their influence to engage stakeholders in
an active dialogue and weigh and balance the different interests, thereby coming to accepted

- 19 -
and mutually beneficial solutions. Being aware of and considering the consequences of
decisions helps leaders to avoid negative consequences and enables them to justify the
decisions afterwards if held accountable by stakeholders. This can lead to more transparent,
traceable and also acceptable outcomes, which in turn are promoters of trustful relationships
(Burke et al., 2007; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).
Further, by engaging in an active dialogue responsible leaders establish arenas for
open communication and foster the inclusion and involvement of the stakeholders, and by
aiming for discursive communication situations they create opportunities for acceptable and
traceable solutions for all affected parties. Thus, through their frequent engagement in fair
and
balanced stakeholder dialogues, responsible leaders are able to establish lasting and trustful
relationships. Stakeholders who experience a leader as being responsible will generate
positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of this person. This will increase the
trustworthiness of the leader and the trust in the relationship to this leader.
Proposition 2: Responsible leadership has a positive effect on building trustful
stakeholder relations.
Stakeholder social capital
Social capital reflects the goodwill inherent in social relationships and is a resource in social
networks that can be used to facilitate collective action (Adler and Kwon, 2002, p. 17). Social
capital was used in the literature as an umbrella term for resources that can be accumulated
through social relations (e.g. trust was equated with social capital) (Adler and Kwon, 2002;
Fulkerson and Thompson, 2008). What distinguishes the notion of social capital from what
we referred to as trust in the last section is that it is framed as capital that can be mobilized to
facilitate collective action. Social capital is built through social exchange processes that rely
on exchanges of favors and gifts, in contrast to exchanges that rely primarily on market or
- 20 -
hierarchical modes of interaction (Adler and Kwon, 2002). The extent of social capital is
dependent on the formal structure of the network ties and the content or quality of those ties.
Maak and Pless conceptualized social capital as an essential part of their responsible
leadership model (see e.g., Maak, 2007; Maak and Pless, 2006c). Maak argues that
responsible leadership conduct, which places an emphasis on stakeholder interaction,
contributes to building social capital (Maak, 2007). Responsible leadership behavior builds
social capital in that it facilitates the establishing of a formal stakeholder network by
engaging
in frequent stakeholder interaction and an active stakeholder dialogue. Additionally,
responsible leadership behavior should help to accumulate social capital by positively
affecting the quality of the stakeholder network as responsible leaders engage in fair and
balanced stakeholder dialogues, aiming for discursive decision situations. This signals to
stakeholders that their interests will be taken into account and that those relations with
responsible leaders go beyond a pure market orientation (in interaction with external
stakeholders), or hierarchical exchange processes (in dealing with employees).
The goodwill inherent in social capital could then, in turn, be mobilized to create
innovation and to facilitate entrepreneurship (Chong and Gibbons, 1997).
Proposition 3: Responsible leadership behavior enhances the social capital inherent
in stakeholder relations.

4.2.2. Meso-level outcomes: Affecting the internal organizational environment

In relation to meso-level outcomes we propose effects of responsible leadership conduct that
may change the shared practices and dispositions of an organization.
In the following we want to establish a preliminary theoretical link between the
individual leadership level and the organizational level of corporate responsibility in that we
discuss the influence of responsible leadership on the ethical culture and the perceived
importance of CSR of an organization. This is a needed future research direction, as, first,
- 21 -
globalization increases the relevance of CSR for multinational firms and, second, as the link
between individual agency and corporate responsibility is still insufficiently addressed (see
e.g., Crane et al., 2008; Heugens and Scherer, 2010; Scherer and Palazzo, 2008a).
Further, due to the growing complexity and dynamic of the global business
environment of organizations, companies are confronted with the challenge of continuous
adaption and innovation, also in the form of social entrepreneurial ventures. With regard to
this we focus in the following on the relation between responsible leadership behavior and
social entrepreneurship. Finally, leader effectiveness and the effect of responsible leadership
on organizational performance will be addressed.
Ethical environment
The work environment, which we refer to as an organization’s culture, plays an important
part
in shaping and directing people’s behavior (Schein, 1996; Schneider, 1975). In relation to
responsible leadership, the prevalent ethical culture and the importance of corporate social
responsibility, as perceived by the employees within an organization, are important levers for
creating a socially responsible organization.
We will look here at the understanding of an ethical culture as proposed first by
Trevino and colleagues (Trevino, 1986; Trevino et al., 1998) and later expanded by Kaptein
(2008). The research stream that focused on the concept of ethical culture in organizations
was brought forward by Trevino et al. (Trevino, 1986; Trevino et al., 1998). Ethical culture
was conceptualized as being part of the overall culture of an organization. It was later
advanced by Trevino and colleagues to encompass “the formal and informal behavioral
control systems […] that can support either ethical or unethical conduct in an organization”
(Brown and Trevino, 2006, p. 601)
3
. The conception of Trevino and colleagues thereby aims
at discovering what is generally perceived as ethics within an organization. The normative
implications of the ethical culture conception are not specified.

- 22 -
Responsible leadership can gradually influence the ethical culture over time. By
enacting responsible leadership practices such leaders may shape the formal (e.g. through
their position power and discretion) as well as the informal (e.g., in terms of role modeling)
behavioral control systems that direct the ethical behavior in organizations. By continuously
displaying a concern for long-term consequences of decisions, by fostering an active
stakeholder dialogue and by practicing inclusive communication that considers the arguments
of others, responsible leaders as role models provide an ethical vision of discursive conflict
resolution for others. This in turn may affect the perceived ethical culture in organizations by
shaping the collective, shared expectations of what is perceived as right or wrong.
In continuance of this, one could also draw on Kaptein (2008) to illustrate the impact
of responsible leadership. More recently, he has refined the construct of ethical culture by
forwarding a corporate ethics virtues model which proposes seven virtues that prevent
employees from acting unethically and, at the same time, stimulate them to act ethically.
Those virtues were derived from qualitative interviews, and Kaptein drew on them to develop
an expanded measure of ethical culture. The virtues comprise the virtue of clarity,
congruency, feasibility, supportability, transparency, discussability, and sanctionability
(Kaptein, 2008, pp. 924ff).
These are also virtues that can be positively affected by responsible leadership. If, e.g.,
responsible leaders demonstrate clear ethical standards (in terms of discourse ethical conflict
resolution) (clarity) and if those standards are recognized by the employees as a visible
guidance for action (congruency), if employees are given the discretion to act upon them
(feasibility), and if the ethical standards are supported and made transparent by leaders, as
well as left open to discussion, this should encourage an ethical culture with an emphasis on
stakeholder dialogue and discourse.
- 23 -
Taken together, we propose that responsible leadership, enacted over time, should be
able to influence the ethical culture of an organization. Responsible leadership practices will
thereby encourage a culture of discourse and deliberation.
Proposition 4: Responsible leaders can gradually change the ethical culture of an
organization over time. Responsible leadership will thereby encourage a culture of
discursive conflict resolution and deliberative practices.
Perceived corporate social responsibility
Another part of the prevalent culture in an organization that responsible leadership can help
to
shape is the perceived importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) within the
organizational setting. CSR is often used as an umbrella term for concepts dealing with social
issues and has been used in many different ways (Scherer and Palazzo, 2007). It was often
defined in terms of what organizations do in relation to social responsibility (e.g. doing more
than what is expected by the law) (see e.g., Waddock, 2008). Basu and Palazzo (2008) argued
that this content-driven understanding is not sufficient when it comes to examining how
managers and employees think, discuss and act in relation to CSR.
They propose a process model of sensemaking and define “CSR as the process by
which managers within an organization think about and discuss relationships with
stakeholders as well as their roles in relation to the common good, along with their behavioral
disposition with respect to the fulfillment and achievement of these roles and relationships”
(Basu and Palazzo, 2008, p. 124). According to this understanding, the importance of CSR in
an organization can be perceived by members of the organization through sensemaking
processes. Basu and Palazzo advance their model of CSR-sensemaking along the dimensions
of cognitive, linguistic and conative dimensions through which people in organizations make
sense of CSR-related activities. Those dimensions form the “CSR-character” of an
organization.
- 24 -
The process model of sensemaking emphasizes the importance of mental models and
frames that affect how the external world (including issues of CSR) is perceived by
organizational members. That means that these collective, shared mental frames in an
organization shape and direct attention towards what is perceived as important by the people
working there.
The influence process, which is regarded as a key aspect of the definition of leadership
(Yukl, 2006), is connected to the management of meaning (Fairhurst, 2009). That is,
leadership is also a process of sensegiving that affects the mental models of how the world is
perceived by organizational members (Fairhurst, 2009).
Responsible leaders as managers of meaning can influence the perceived “CSR-
character” of an organization by sensitizing their employees for possible social and
environmental consequences of corporate actions, by emphasizing, and also by demonstrating
in their actions the importance of stakeholder engagement and involvement.
If responsible leaders can convince their employees that CSR is an important topic in
their organization, those employees will more readily engage in active stakeholder dialogues
when social and environmental issues are at stake. Additionally, if leaders can provide a sense
of purpose for the CSR-activities of their organization, their employees will more readily
recognize issues of CSR as part of their daily practice and engage themselves in CSR-related
actions.
Therefore, we conclude that responsible leadership can contribute to an enhanced
awareness of the CSR-character of a firm.
Proposition 5: Responsible leadership can positively affect the perceived importance
of CSR in an organization.
Social entrepreneurship
- 25 -
Responsible leaders will be able to foster social innovation. Innovation can be defined as “the
generation, acceptance and implementation of new processes, products, or services for the
first time within an organizational setting” (Pierce and Delbecq, 1977, p. 29). Innovation is an
important driver of organizational change and was related to organizational success and
competitive advantages (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009).
We propose that the interrelation between responsible leaders and stakeholders from
the social and political environment, e.g. NGOs or social movements, can trigger social
innovation. For example, expanding the knowledge base and the (technical) knowledge
resources was considered to foster innovation. Responsible leadership behavior helps to
expand the knowledge base by fostering an active stakeholder dialogue where all participants
can contribute their knowledge and expertise to solve problems. The same holds for internal
and external communication. Both were related to a positive effect on innovation
4
Responsible leaders fostering social innovation can be regarded as what an evolving
stream in the literature calls social entrepreneurs (Nicholls and Cho, 2006). Social
entrepreneurship is understood as pursuing ventures that bring together a social mission, an
emphasis on innovation and a market orientation (Nicholls and Cho, 2006, p. 115). Social
entrepreneurs thereby play the role of change agents in the social sector (Bloom, 2009, p.
128). The change of the institutional systems that social entrepreneurs can achieve depends
on
the influence they can exert. We propose that responsible leaders, especially in top level
management positions, can advance social entrepreneurial ventures that can achieve
considerable changes (De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2008; Ling et al., 2008; Waldman et al.,
2006), as responsible leadership addresses the balance between a market orientation and
.
Responsible leaders engage in communications with external stakeholders like government
officials or NGOs. This creates opportunities for exchanging information and for bringing up
innovative ideas. The dialogue with internal stakeholders will in turn facilitate the dispersion
of ideas within the organization and create a favorable internal environment for innovation.

- 26 -
recognizing the interests of stakeholders pursuing a social mission, and as responsible
leadership conduct brings with it an enhanced possibility for innovation.
Proposition 6: Responsible leaders are more likely to act as social entrepreneurs than
non-responsible leaders.
Organizational performance
An important issue concerning the intersection of leadership and responsibility, or ethics,
respectively, is the question of what an effective leader is. It revolves around the issue
whether an ethically good leader is always an effective leader and vice versa (Ciulla, 1995;
2005). The main goal of responsible leadership as proposed here is to contribute to the
fulfillment of organizational performance goals. Responsible leadership connects to the
understanding of leadership in general, in that it can be regarded as a “process of facilitating
individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (Yukl, 2006, p. 8).
Yet, to act responsibly additionally implies an ethical qualification, which can be
understood as an evaluation of the means to accomplish performance goals in the light of
moral norms or ethical considerations. This ethical commitment can lead to situational
amendments of performance goals if the social cohabitation in a society is in danger of being
breached (Scherer, 2003, pp. 427ff). A negative example of not considering an ethical
qualification would be the case of BP and the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Previous
insights suggest that the managers involved chose the cheaper solution for drilling, taking
into
account higher risks for the people working on the oil platform, the surrounding environment
and those people living on the nearby shores. Their decisions were driven by financial
performance pressure from the company (Oil Spill Commission, 2011; The New York Times,
2010a; 2010b).
An ethical qualification is implicitly built into the definition of responsible leadership,
as responsible leaders evaluate their decisions and actions according to the possible
- 27 -
consequences and engage in an active dialogue to find solutions that can be accepted by the
affected parties. Thus, responsible leaders contribute to financial performance under the
caveat of only implementing means that are morally legitimate to reach their goals.
Apart from the direct link of responsible leadership and effectiveness, we assume
additional indirect positive effects of responsible leadership on the performance of an
organization. Mediated by the other outcome variables in Figure 1, responsible leadership
could have a positive effect on social and financial performance of the organization.
Responsible leadership was hypothesized to build up trustful relationships and social capital,
to foster social innovation and will in the next section be proposed to positively affect
followers’ attitudes and cognitions. Trust was shown to have a positive effect on performance
(Burke et al., 2007; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). The accumulated social capital in stakeholder
relations built up by responsible leaders can be used to facilitate collective action (Adler and
Kwon, 2002), with the aim of enhancing either the financial or social performance of an
organization. Social innovation can be hypothesized to enhance the social performance of an
organization. Finally, follower attitudes like job satisfaction, motivation or commitment have
been identified as performance drivers (Locke and Latham, 2004; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990).
Thus, taken together, it could be hypothesized that responsible leadership has an effect on the
financial and social performance of an organization.
Proposition 7: Responsible leadership contributes directly and indirectly to the
performance of an organization under the caveat of ethical or moral means.
4.2.3. Micro-level outcomes: Effects on followers’ attitudes and cognitions
Apart from the proposed outcomes, responsible leaders will also have a direct and
considerable effect on their immediate followers. To satisfy and motivate employees is still a
key challenge of leadership and this aspect should therefore not be neglected in the discussion
on responsible leadership.
- 28 -
Leaders in organizations occupy an exposed position, and as such are often regarded
as role models (Brown et al., 2005; Trevino et al., 2000). Bandura’s social learning theory
(Bandura, 1986) emphasizes the importance of positive role models that help individuals to
learn and reinforce what they have learned. Brown et al. (Brown et al., 2005; Brown and
Trevino, 2006) build their concept of ethical leadership around the reinforcing effect of
leaders as positive ethical role models in organizations.
Responsible leaders will have a two-fold effect on follower attitudes and cognitions.
First, we propose a positive effect of responsible leaders as role models (Bandura, 1986;
Brown et al., 2005). If followers see that their supervisor incorporates the affected parties in
the decision-making process and seeks to make balanced decisions, ideally resolving decision
situations in a consensus, they may perceive their leader as an attractive and legitimate role
model from whom they can learn the importance of involving others and engaging in
discursive practices. An example of how responsible leaders as role models could have a
positive effect on follower behavior would be an enhanced organizational citizenship
behavior
of followers (OCB) (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 2000). OCB is defined as
behavior that shows engagement beyond what is requested from the organization, or what
would be an enforceable part of the job description or employment contract (Podsakoff et al.,
2000, p. 513). Responsible leaders will be positive role models in relation to citizenship
behavior, as they think about consequences for stakeholders from the social and political
environment and incorporate them in decision situations. This helps to solve the needs of
both
sides and shows an engagement with societal interest groups, which moves beyond what is
requested from the immediate job description. Employees may learn from such appealing
leadership behavior.
Second, there will be a direct effect of responsible leadership on followers, since
engaging in an active stakeholder dialogue means that responsible leaders also incorporate
the
immediate followers in far reaching decision-making processes if those decisions would
affect
- 29 -
them. Participative practices and involving followers in the decision making process was
shown to enhance work related attitudes (e.g. empowerment, see Spreitzer, 1996). If
employees feel that they can actively contribute to decision situations, and if they feel they
are
regarded as important by their supervisor, this may be hypothesized to affect their attitude
towards satisfaction with their job (Spector, 1997), their motivation (Locke and Latham,
2004), or their commitment to the organization they are working for (Mathieu and Zajac,
1990).
Proposition 8: Responsible leadership will have a positive effect on followers’
attitudes and cognitions (e.g., job satisfaction, motivation, commitment or
organizational citizenship behavior).
5. Conclusion
This article has advanced a model of responsible leadership that embeds the leader’s
responsibility in the process of globalization and the societal efforts of self-regulation in the
light of regulative deficits of the nation state and the new quality of global problems. As
leadership is increasingly confronted with problems of cultural heterogeneity, moral
dilemmas
and ethical conflicts, our understanding of responsible leadership places deliberative and
discursive practices at the heart of leadership, thereby aiming for a legitimate and peaceful
mode of conflict resolution.
In pragmatic terms, this means that responsible leaders should think about the
consequences of decisions for all affected parties and engage in an active stakeholder
dialogue, weighing and balancing the differing interests. Based on this approach, we
discussed positive outcomes of responsible leadership in order to advance the understanding
of responsible leadership and its consequences. We addressed the outcome variables along
various levels of analysis and focused especially on future business challenges that
companies
will face due to the globalization process. We proposed responsible leadership as a lever to
- 30 -
handle these globalization challenges by highlighting how responsible leadership conduct
could positively affect them.
Responsible leadership is distinct from extant leadership approaches, such as e.g.,
transformational leadership, ethical leadership or authentic leadership, as it draws on the
theory of discourse ethics and deliberative democracy, conceptualizes leadership as leader-
stakeholder interaction, implies an ethical qualification, and proposes consensual solutions as
an effectiveness criterion. Subsequently, we suggest that responsible leadership as active
stakeholder engagement and discursive conflict resolution should be better able to address the
challenges of globalization than existing leadership conceptions. Our model tries to show this
theoretically by relating the distinct aspects of responsible leadership to these challenges.
We thus contributed to the literature, first, by advancing the concept of responsible
leadership (Maak, 2007; Maak and Pless, 2008; Waldman and Galvin, 2008), and second, by
providing a new model that presents a research agenda for the field. The model allows a
highlighting of positive effects of responsible leadership and offers a way of how to translate
a philosophical foundation into a practically relevant concept.
Finally, we will highlight directions for future research that directly connect to the
model of responsible leadership. The first direction would be to empirically test those
propositions set up in the article. Therefore, responsible leadership would have to be
operationalized. Thoughts could be given on the advancement of an empirical measure of
responsible leadership (Voegtlin, 2011). In addition to a quantitative research agenda,
qualitative approaches could offer further insights for the field in that such research may help
to understand how people in organizations make sense of the proposed responsible leadership
practices. A fruitful direction would be, for example, to analyze stakeholder dialogues or
discursive practices around leadership (Fairhurst, 2009; Phillips et al., 2004).
Further, we acknowledge that the presented model of responsible leadership is not
final and does not encompass all possible factors that are affected by responsible leadership.
- 31 -
Future research could advance the concept by offering additional factors that relate to
responsible leadership, such as focusing on drivers of responsible leadership or opportunities
for training and development. Additionally, there still needs to be addressed the limitations of
the ideal of responsible leadership in daily business, e.g. by discussing the problems of
stakeholder dialogues, the costs of establishing consensual solution, or the limits of engaging
in public will formation (Stansbury, 2009).
Therefore, we suggest expanding the model to a contingency model of responsible
leadership. Such a model can be helpful to show the contingencies that foster or allow for
responsible leadership behavior in an organizational setting. These contingencies comprise
antecedents or moderating influences of responsible leadership (Voegtlin et al., 2010).
In terms of antecedents it can be distinguished between the structural conditions of
hierarchical organizations that constrain or enable leadership and the personal predispositions
of the individual. The structural characteristics of organizations can impose constraints on the
alternatives for action (i.e., the way how people in organizations conduct and experience their
work and act in their respective work environment). For example, a centralized and
bureaucratic organization and highly specialized tasks with low autonomy and decision
responsibility do not offer many possibilities for responsible decisions and active
involvement
of internal and external stakeholders. On the other hand, job characteristics can offer
possibilities for high involvement and active engagement (with one’s work). A broader scope
of job responsibility, challenging tasks, and participation in important decisions may also
encourage leaders further down the hierarchical line to engage in responsible leadership and
may support the realization of the positive outcomes mentioned in our model. To examine
this
more closely could be a fruitful future research direction.
Individual characteristics that may be relevant in fostering responsible leadership
behavior are e.g., moral predispositions. Herein we would subsume personal characteristics
and cognitive abilities that encourage moral decision-making. There is a great deal of
research
- 32 -
that has dealt with morality or ethical questions in the business sphere, addressing the
numerous steps in coming to an ethical or moral decision from a psychological or cognitive
perspective (see e.g., Kohlberg, 1984; Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007; Trevino et al., 2006). If
leaders are cognizant of these steps of moral decision-making, if they can reason on a high
moral development level (Kohlberg, 1984; Rest, 1986), and have a strong moral identity
(Aquino and Reed, 2002; Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007), they will be more capable of acting
responsibly as understood in our conception of responsible leadership.
Finally, moderating influences on responsible leadership we would suggest to
investigate are, e.g., the hierarchical position of the leader and the department he or she is
working in. Both should make a difference in terms of the scope and possibilities of
responsible leadership conduct. The hierarchical position of leaders has an impact in terms of
the range of the leaders’ authority and their access to resources, the frequency of their
interactions with stakeholders, the kind of stakeholder engagement, or the scope of their
decisions. The department that leaders are working in can restrict or enable responsible
leadership conduct by the mere fact that leaders in some departments will have less frequent
stakeholder interaction than others. An example would be a supervisor working in a highly
specialized and formalized production facility department compared to a leader working in a
CSR department.
Taken together, there should be many possibilities to advance the research agenda of
responsible leadership theoretically and empirically, possibilities that could offer relevant
insights for researchers and practitioners.
References
Adler, P. S. and S. W. Kwon: 2002, 'Social Capital: Prospect for a New Concept', Academy of
Management Review 27(1), 17-40.
Avolio, B. J. and W. L. Gardner: 2005, 'Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the
Root of Positive Forms of Leadership', Leadership Quarterly 16(3), 315-338.
- 33 -
Avolio, B. J., W. L. Gardner, F. O. Walumbwa, F. Luthans and D. R. May: 2004a, 'Unlocking
the Mask: A Look at the Process by Which Authentic Leaders Impact Follower
Attitudes and Behaviors', Leadership Quarterly 15(6), 801-823.
Avolio, B. J., F. Luthans, and F. O. Walumbwa: 2004b, 'Authentic Leadership: Theory
Building for Veritable Sustained Performance', Working Paper, Gallup Leadership
Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Bandura, A.: 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and Action (Prentice-Hall, Engelwood
Cliffs).
Barnard, C. I.: 1960, The Functions of the Executive (Havard University Press, Camebridge).
Bass, B. M.: 1990, Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications 3 edn. (Free Press, New York).
Bass, B. M. and P. Steidlmeier: 1999, 'Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational
Leadership Behavior', Leadership Quarterly 10(2), 181-217.
Basu, K. and G. Palazzo: 2008, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of
Sensemaking', Academy of Management Review 33(1), 122-136.
Beck, U.: 2000, What Is Globalization? (Polity Press, Cambridge).
Bennis, W.: 2007, 'The Challenges of Leadership in the Modern World', American
Psychologist 62, 2-5.
Bies, R. J., J. M. Bartunek, T. L. Fort and M. N. Zald: 2007, 'Corporations as Social Change
Agents: Individual, Interpersonal, Institutional, and Environmental Dynamics',
Academy of Management Review 32(3), 788-793.
Bloom, P. N.: 2009, 'Overcoming Consumption Constraints Through Social
Entrepreneurship', Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 28(1), 128-134.
Bohmann, J. and W. Rehg: 1997, Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics
(MIT Press, Cambridge).
Brown, M. E.: 2007, 'Misconceptions of Ethical Leadership: How to Avoid Potential Pitfalls',
Organizational Dynamics 36(2), 140-155.
Brown, M. E. and L. K. Trevino: 2006, 'Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions',
Leadership Quarterly 17(6), 595-616.
Brown, M. E., L. K. Trevino and D. A. Harrison: 2005, 'Ethical Leadership: A Social
Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing', Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes 97(2), 117-134.
Burke, C. S., D. E. Sims, E. H. Lazzara and E. Salas: 2007, 'Trust in Leadership: A Multi-
Level Review and Integration', Leadership Quarterly 18(6), 606-632.
Burns, J. M.: 1978, Leadership (Harper Torchbooks, New York).
- 34 -
Chandler, A. D. and B. Mazlish: 2005, Leviathans: Multinational Corporations and the New
Global History (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Chong, L. and P. Gibbons: 1997, 'Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Roles of Ideology and
Social Capital', Group & Organization Management 22, 10-30.
Ciulla, J. B.: 1995, 'Leadership Ethics: Mapping the Territory', Business Ethics Quarterly
5(1), 5-28.
Ciulla, J. B.: 1998, Ethics, the Heart of Leadership (Quorum, Westport).
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.
Crane, A., A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon and D. S. Siegel: 2008, The Oxford Handbook
of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York).
Damanpour, F.: 1991, 'Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analyisis of Effects of
Determenants and Moderators', Academy of Management Journal 34(3), 555-590.
De Hoogh, A. H. B. and D. N. Den Hartog: 2008, 'Ethical and Despotic Leadership,
Relationships With Leader's Social Responsibility, Top Management Team
Effectiveness and Subordinates' Optimism: A Multi-Method Study', The Leadership
Quarterly 19(3), 297-311.
Dirks, K. T. and D. L. Ferrin: 2002, 'Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and
Implications for Research and Practice', Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4), 611-
628.
Doh, J. P. and S. A. Stumpf: 2005a, Handbook on Responsible Leadership and Governance in
Global Business (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham).
Doh, J. P. and S. A. Stumpf: 2005b, 'Towards a Framework of Responsible Leadership and
Governance', in J. P. Doh and S. A. Stumpf (eds.), Handbook on Responsible
Leadership and Governance in Global Business (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham), pp. 3-
18.
Drath, W. H., C. D. McCauley, C. J. Palus, E. Van Velsor, P. M. G. O'Connor and J. B.
McGuire: 2008, 'Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Toward a More Integrative
Ontology of Leadership', The Leadership Quarterly 19(6), 635-653.
Fairhurst, G. T.: 2009, 'Considering Context in Discursive Leadership Research', Human
Relations 62(11), 1607-1633.
Fry, L.W. 2005. 'Introduction to The Leadership Quarterly Special Issue: Toward a Paradigm
of Spiritual Leadership', Leadership Quarterly 16(5), 619-622.
Fulkerson, G. M. and G. H. Thompson: 2008, 'The Evolution of a Contested Concept: A
Meta-Analysis of Social Capital Definitions and Trends (1988−2006)', Sociological
Inquiry 78(4), 536-557.
- 35 -
Gardner, W. L., B. J. Avolio, F. Luthans, D. R. May and F. Walumbwa: 2005, '"Can You See
the Real Me?" A Self-Based Model of Authentic Leader and Follower Development',
Leadership Quarterly 16(3), 343-372.
Garriga, E. and D. Melé: 2004, 'Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the
Territory', Journal of Business Ethics 53, 51-71.
Giddens, A.: 1984, The Constitution of Society (Polity Press, Oxford).
Greenleaf, R. K.: 1977, Servant Leadership (Paulist Press, New York).
Gumusluoglu, L. and A. Ilsev: 2009, 'Transformational Leadership and Organizational
Innovation: The Roles of Internal and External Support for Innovation', Journal of
Product Innovation Management 26(3), 264-277.
Habermas, J.: 1993, 'Remarks on Discourse Ethics', in J. Habermas (ed.), Justification and
Application (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp. 19-111.
Habermas, J.: 1996, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press,
Cambridge).
Habermas, J.: 1998, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law
and Democracy (Polity Press, Cambridge, UK).
Habermas, J.: 1999, 'Popular Sovereignty as Procedure', in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.),
Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA), pp. 35-66.
Habermas, J.: 2001a, 'A Genealogical Analysis of the Cognitive Content of Morality', in J.
Habermas (ed.), The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA), pp. 3-46.
Habermas, J.: 2001b, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA).
Habermas, J.: 2001c, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays (Polity Press,
Cambridge, UK).
Heugens, P. and A. G. Scherer: 2010, ‘When Organization Theory Met Business Ethics.
Towards Further Symbiosis’, Business Ethics Quarterly 20(4), 643-672.
House, R. J. and R. N. Aditya: 1997, 'The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?',
Journal of Management 23(3), 409-473.
Ilies, R., F. P. Morgeson and J. D. Nahrgang: 2005, 'Authentic Leadership and Eudaemonic
Well-Being: Understanding Leader-Follower Outcomes', Leadership Quarterly 16(3),
373-394.
Johnson, C. E.: 2009, Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or
Shadow 3 edn. (Sage, Thousand Oaks).
- 36 -
Kaptein, M.: 2008, 'Developing and Testing a Measure for the Ethical Culture of
Organizations: The Corporate Ethical Virtues Model', Journal of Organizational
Behavior 29, 923-947.
Kaul, I., P. Conceicao, K. Le Goulven and R. U. Mendoza: 2003, Providing Global Public
Goods - Managing Globalization (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
Kellerman, B.: 2004, Bad Leadership (Harvard Business School, Harvard).
Kobrin, S. J.: 2008, 'Globalization, Transnational Corporations and the Future of Global
Governance', in A. G. Scherer and G. Palazzo (eds.), Handbook of Research on Global
Corporate Citizenship (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham), pp. 249-272.
Kohlberg, L.: 1984, The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of
Moral Stages (Harper & Row, New York).
Konovsky, M. A. and S. D. Pugh: 1994, 'Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange',
Academy of Management Journal 37(3), 656-669.
Liden, R. C., S. J. Wayne, H. Zhao and D. Henderson: 2008, 'Servant Leadership:
Development of a Multidimensional Measure and Multi-Level Assessment',
Leadership Quarterly 19(2), 161-177.
Ling, Y., Z. Simsek, M. H. Lubatkin and J. F. Veiga: 2008, 'Transformational Leadership's
Role in Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT Interface',
Academy of Management Journal 51(3), 557-576.
Lipman-Blumen, J.: 2005, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses
and Corrupt Politicians - and How We Can Survive Them (Oxford University Press,
Oxford).
Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham: 2004, 'What Should We Do About Motivation Theory? Six
Recommendations for the Twenty-First Century', Academy of Management Review
29(3), 388-403.
Maak, T.: 2007, 'Responsible Leadership, Stakeholder Engagement, and the Emergence of
Social Capital', Journal of Business Ethics 74(4), 329-343.
Maak, T. and N. Pless: 2006a, Responsible Leadership (Routledge, New York).
Maak, T. and N. Pless: 2006b, 'Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society: A Relational
Perspective', Journal of Business Ethics 66(1), 99-115.
Maak, T. and N. Pless: 2006c, 'Responsible Leadership: A Relational Approach', in T. Maak
and N. Pless (eds.), Responsible leadership (Routledge, New York), pp. 33-53.
Maak, T. and N. Pless: 2008, 'Responsible Leadership in a Globalized World: A
Cosmopolitan Perspective', in A. G. Scherer and G. Palazzo (eds.), Handbook of
Research on Global Corporate Citizenship (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham), pp. 669-705.
Mathieu, J. E. and D. M. Zajac: 1990, 'A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents,
Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment', Psychological Bulletin
108(2), 171-194.
- 37 -
Matten, D. and A. Crane: 2005, 'Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical
Conceptualization', Academy of Management Review 30(1), 166-179.
McAllister, D. J.: 1995, 'Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal
Cooperation in Organizations', Academy of Management Journal 38(1), 24-59.
Nicholls, A. and A. H. Cho: 2006, 'Social Entrepreneurship: The Structuration of a Field', in
A. Nicholls (ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change
(Oxford University Press, Oxford), pp. 99-118.
Oil Spill Commission 2011. Final Report, https://s3.amazonaws.com/pdf_final/
DEEPWATER_ReporttothePresident_FINAL.pdf, accessed 15 January 2011
Osborn, R. N., J. G. Hunt and L. R. Jauch: 2002, 'Toward a Contextual Theory of Leadership',
Leadership Quarterly 13(6), 797-837.
Palazzo, G. and A. G. Scherer: 2006, 'Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A
Communicative Framework', Journal of Business Ethics 66(1), 71-88.
Palazzo, G. and A. G. Scherer: 2008, 'The Future of Global Corporate Citizenship: Toward a
New Theory of the Firm as a Political Actor', in A. G. Scherer and G. Palazzo (eds.),
Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham),
pp. 577-590.
Patzer, M.: 2009, Leadership and Its Responsibility Under the Condition of Globalization
[Führung und ihre Verantwortung unter den Bedingungen der Globalisierung. Ein
Beitrag zu einer Neufassung vor dem Hintergrund einer republikanischen Theorie der
Multinationalen Unternehmung] (Patzer Verlag, Berlin/Hannover).
Patzer, M. and A. G. Scherer: 2010, 'Global Responsible Leadership: Towards a Political
Conception', 26th EGOS Colloquium, Lisbon.
Phillips, N., T. B. Lawrence and C. Hardy: 2004, 'Discourse and Institutions', Academy of
Management Review 29(4), 635-652.
Pierce, J. L. and A. L. Delbecq: 1977, 'Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and
Innovation', Academy of Management Review 2(1), 27-37.
Pless, N.: 2007, 'Understanding Responsible Leadership: Role Identity and Motivational
Drivers', Journal of Business Ethics 74(4), 437-456.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. B. Paine and D. G. Bachrach: 2000, 'Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature
and Suggestions for Future Research', Journal of Management 26(3), 513-563.
Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory (Preager, New
York).
Reynolds, S. J. and T. L. Ceranic: 2007, 'The Effects of Moral Judgment and Moral Identity
on Moral Behavior: An Empirical Examination of the Moral Individual', Journal of
Applied Psychology 92(6), 1610-1624.
Rost, J.: 1991, Leadership for the Twenty-First Century (Praeger, New York).

- 38 -
Rousseau, D. M., S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt and C. Camerer: 1998, 'Not So Different After All:
A Cross-Discipline View of Trust', Academy of Management Review 23(3), 393-404.
Schein, E. H.: 1996, 'Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies', Administrative
Science Quarterly 41(2), 229-240.
Scherer, A. G.: 2003, The Multinational Corporation and Globalization [Multinationale
Unternehmen und Globalisierung: Zur Neuorientierung der Theorie der
Multinationalen Unternehmung] (Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg).
Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2007, 'Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Business and Society Seen From a Habermasian Perspective',
Academy of Management Review 32(4), 1096-1120.
Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2008a, Handbook of Research on Global Corporate
Citizenship (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham).
Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2008b, 'Globalization and Corporate Social Responsibility', in
A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon and D. S. Siegel (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press, Oxford), pp.
413-431.
Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2011, 'The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized
World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and Its Implications for the Firm,
Governance, and Democracy', Journal of Management Studies 48(4), 899-931.
Scherer, A. G., G. Palazzo and D. Baumann: 2006, 'Global Rules and Private Actors: Toward
a New Role of the Transnational Corporation in Global Governance', Business Ethics
Quarterly 16(4), 505-532.
Scherer, A. G., G. Palazzo and D. Matten: 2009, 'Globalization as a Challenge for Business
Responsibilities', Business Ethics Quarterly 19(3), 327-347.
Schneider, B.: 1975, 'Organizational Climates: An Essay', Personnel Psychology 28(4), 447-
479.
Schneider, M.: 2002, 'A Stakeholder Model of Oganizational Leadership', Organization
Science 13(2), 209-220.
Spector, P. E.: 1997, Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences
(Sage, Thousand Oaks).
Spreitzer, G. M.: 1996, 'Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment',
Academy of Management Journal 39(2), 483-504.
Stansbury, J.: 2009, 'Reasoned Moral Agreement: Applying Discourse Ethics Within
Organizations', Business Ethics Quarterly 19(1), 33-56.
Stansbury, J. and B. Barry: 2007, 'Ethics Programs and the Paradox of Control', Business
Ethics Quarterly 17(2), 239-261.
- 39 -
Steinmann, H. and A. G. Scherer: 1998, 'Corporate Ethics and Global Business: Philosophical
Considerations on Intercultural Management', in B. N. Kumar and H. Steinmann
(eds.), Ethics in International Business (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin), pp. 13-46.
Suchman, M. C.: 1995, 'Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches',
Academy of Management Review 20(3), 571-610.
The New York Times 2010a. BP used riskier method to seal well before blast,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/us/27rig.html?_r=1, accessed 15 July 2010.
The New York Times 2010b. Documents show early worries about safety rig,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html?hp, accessed 15 July 2010.
Trevino, L. K.: 1986, 'Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation
Interactionist Model', Academy of Management Review 11(3), 601-617.
Trevino, L. K., M. Brown and L. P. Hartman: 2003, 'A Qualitative Investigation of Perceived
Executive Ethical Leadership: Perceptions From Inside and Outside the Executive
Suite', Human Relations 56(1), 5-37.
Trevino, L. K., K. D. Butterfield and D. L. McCabe: 1998, 'The Ethical Context in
Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors', Business Ethics
Quarterly 8(3), 447-476.
Trevino, L. K., L. P. Hartman and M. Brown: 2000, 'Moral Person and Moral Manager: How
Executives Develop a Reputation for Ethical Leadership', California Management
Review 42(4), 128-142.
Trevino, L. K., G. R. Weaver and S. J. Reynolds: 2006, 'Behavioral Ethics in Organizations:
A Review', Journal of Management 32(6), 951-990.
Voegtlin, C.: 2011, 'Development of a Scale Measuring Discursive Responsible Leadership',
Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming.
Voegtlin, C., M. Patzer and A. G. Scherer: 2010, 'Responsible Leadership in Global Business:
A Contingency Approach', University of Zurich, Institute of Organization and
Administrative Science (IOU), IOU Working Paper Series No. 106.
von Weltzien Hoivik, H.: 2002, Moral Leadership in Action: Building and Sustaining Moral
Competence in European Organizations (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham).
Waddock, S.: 2008, 'Corporate Responsibility/Corporate Citizenship: The Development of a
Construct', in A. G. Scherer and G. Palazzo (eds.), Handbook of Research on Global
Corporate Citizenship (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham), pp. 50-73.
Waldman, D. A. and B. M. Galvin: 2008, 'Alternative Perspectives of Responsible
Leadership', Organizational Dynamics 37(4), 327-341.
Waldman, D. A. and D. Siegel: 2008, 'Defining the Socially Responsible Leader', The
Leadership Quarterly 19(1), 117-131.
- 40 -
Waldman, D. A., D. S. Siegel and M. Javidan: 2006, 'Components of CEO Transformational
Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility', Journal of Management Studies
43(8), 1703-1725.
Walumbwa, F. O., B. J. Avolio, W. L. Gardner, T. S. Wernsing and S. J. Peterson: 2008,
'Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure',
Journal of Management 34(1), 89-126.
Weaver, G. R. and L. K. Trevino: 1999, 'Compliance and Values Oriented Ethics Programs:
Influences on Employees' Attitudes and Behavior', Business Ethics Quarterly 9(2),
315-335.
Whittington, R.: 2010, 'Giddens, Structuration Theory and Strategy-as-Practice', in D.
Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl and E. Vaara (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy
as Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), pp. 109-126.
Windsor, D.: 2006, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches', Journal of
Management Studies 43, 93-114.
Wohlrapp, H.: 1998, 'Constructivist Antrophology and Cultural Pluralism: Methodological
Reflections on Cultural Integration', in B. N. Kumar and H. Steinmann (eds.), Ethics
in International Management (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin), pp. 47-63.
Young, I. M.: 2006, 'Responsibility and Global Justice: a Social Connection Model', Social
Philosophy and Policy 23(1), 102-130.
Yukl, G.: 2006, Leadership in Organizations 6 edn. (Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey).
Notes:
1
A more thorough discussion on the differences between the approach of Maak and Pless and
the conception
forwarded by Patzer and colleagues is presented elsewhere (Patzer and Scherer, 2010).
2
Trust in leadership studies is conceptualized and measured in the form of a perception of
followers, attributing
trust to the respective leader, and is not based e.g. on measuring the quality of the relationship
directly (Dirks
and Ferrin, 2002, p. 612).
3
The informal and formal (social) control systems encompass to a certain extent what is
debated in the CSR
literature as compliance and integrity approaches, referring to formal rules and laws as well
as to informal values
(see critically, Stansbury and Barry, 2007; Weaver and Trevino, 1999).
4
For further literature on the determinants of innovation see the meta-analysis of Damanpour
(1991). The
relationships between the determinants and innovation were based on theoretical reasoning
and empirical
findings (Damanpour, 1991, p. 557).

(PDF) Responsible Leadership in Global Business: A New Approach to Leadership and Its
Multi-Level Outcomes. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226478670_Responsible_Leadership_in_Global_B
usiness_A_New_Approach_to_Leadership_and_Its_Multi-Level_Outcomes [accessed Dec
08 2018].