Ethical Leadership Is Mostly About Leadership Integrity Essay Essay
A recent survey conducted in 2010 among UK and some European companies. revealed that the most outstanding ethical issues to administrations includes torment. graft. corruptness and facilitation payments. and whistle blowing ( Wesley et al. 2011 ) . Therefore. it is of import that moralss must so ship from the top. Leaderships can non get away from their duty to set up a moral illustration for their followings. The ethical actions and behavior of top direction have to be consistent with their instruction. otherwise formal ethical preparation and codifications are bound to hold a slender opportunity of success. The result of organizational ends is dependent on the leader’s capablenesss to put the way for employee behavior. which includes publicity. schemes and assessment ( Brown & A ; Mitchell 2010 ) . This essay will analyze how leading unity plays a portion in constructing an ethical leading. and besides see the other factors involved in constructing ethical leading.
Ethical leading is largely about leading unity
Ethical leading involve leaders to take in a manner that respects the self-respect and rights of followings. It is particularly of import in the society today. when the populace trust has been eroded by the actions of many. in both the net income and non-profit administrations. For case. top executives of corporate administrations contributed to the recent recognition crisis by describing higher net incomes than existent. in order to bask greater compensation themselves ( Berenbeim 2009 ) . Ethical behavior includes cardinal rules such as unity. honestness. and equity. This is a state of affairs where by leaders engage in behavior that benefits others and choruss from behavior that cause injury to others ( Toor & A ; Ofori 2009 ) . Ethical leaders embody the intent. vision and values of the direction. They link up the organizational ends to that of the employees and stakeholders. giving a sense of way to their employees’ work and guarantee that organisational determinations are based upon sound moral values ( Piccolo et al. 2010 ) .
Therefore. an ethical leader who demonstrates leading unity is one with ‘right values’ and ‘strong character’ . who set illustrations for others by invariably doing attempts to integrate moral rules in their beliefs. values and behavior ( Freeman & A ; Stewart 2006 ) . Hence. leading unity is one of the top property of an effectual and good leader. Leadership unity represents an honest. dependable and trusty individual. It symbolizes a true committedness to execute the right action. regardless of the state of affairs. One survey has shown that the unity of net income devising by directors and concern proprietors is a cardinal point which makes a Fortune 500 administration stands out from other rivals ( Blanchard et al. 1997 ) . Social larning theory ( Bandura 1977. 1986 ) besides aims to explicate why followers’ perceptual experiences of ethical leading behavior are influenced by the single features of the leader.
Social larning theory suggests that persons learn and follow the actions. attitudes. behavior and values of believable function theoretical accounts ( Bandura 1977. 1986 ) . Ethical leaders are perceived to be function theoretical accounts with high ethical values and traits. such as leading unity. and therefore. this encourage followers to set up their ain model of moral ideals and rules. which finally leads to moral action ( Avolio 2005 ) . Followings are besides able develop a higher degree of moral position and interpersonal ability through the proviso of positive and constructive moral feedback given by the ethical leaders ( Eisenberg 2000 ; Hoffman 1988 ) . In a survey developed by psychologist Dr. Robert Turknett. it was revealed that unity is the foundation of his leading character theoretical account. and therefore. suggested that no leader can be successful without unity ( Turknett et al. 2005 ) . He besides notes that persons with unity are willing to stand up and support for what is right. careful to maintain promises. will non writhe facts. and can be trusted to talk the truth.
Furthermore. James Quigley. the planetary CEO of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. emphasized the importance of unity and trust in the professional success of an person ( Quigley 2007 ) . He highlighted that persons who lacks unity are non considered trustworthy. and will badly weaken an individual’s value to the administration. Hence. the importance of unity and character is extremely valued in the workplace. Persons who lack unity. are non trusty. and will non be given duties or chances. and therefore. will be frowned upon by other employees in the administration ( Quigley 2007 ) . Corporations with unity leaders are frequently leaders in their ain industries. and likely to make better than other rival houses. accomplishing in their long-run fiscal ends.
Other cardinal elements that make up ethical leading
In contrast. other surveies have suggested that ethical leading is non merely about leading unity. but at the same clip. it consists of a multi dimensional construct. with many other cardinal elements ( Trevino & A ; Brown 2004 ) . Ethical leaders have to be seen as both a “moral person” and a “moral manager” ( Trevino et al. 2000 ) . The moral individual facet of ethical leading can be seen as the personal features and traits of the leader. such as personal unity. honestness and trustiness. including the moral nature of the leader’s behavior. such as showing a echt concern for others and handling people right. showing personal morality. and being unfastened and communicative. In the procedure of determination devising. ethical leaders consider the ethical impact of their determinations. and based them upon ethical values and determination regulations ( Trevino & A ; Brown 2004 ) . It is hence of import that leaders themselves are so moral individuals and explicitly show ethical behaviors to their followings.
Their followings learn what to make and what non to make by detecting their leaders behaviour. and are likely to copy their leaders ( Kaptein 2002 ) . However. being perceived as a moral individual is deficient. A moral individual merely portrays the actions of the leader. It does non advice the followings what is expected of them. A moral director creates ethical criterions and outlook throughout the administration by portraying ethical behavior. traits and determination devising. A moral director posses three distinguishable features. First. a moral director actively demonstrates ethical behaviors and lead through good illustrations. Second. honoring morally appropriate behavior and punish unethical behavior. beef up the organisations’ ethical stance. Third. a moral director communicates ethical values and issues throughout the administration openly ( Brown et al. 2005 ) . There are four types of leading manners. They include the ethical leader. the hypocritical leader. the ethically impersonal leader. and the unethical leader. An ethical leader is an person who is both a moral individual and a moral director.
This leader besides has a strong influence in the administration. with respects to the ethical civilization. implementing the ends of the administration. and act uponing the ethical values. norms and criterions ( Kalshoven et al. 2011 ) . Following. a hypocritical leader is one who is non a strong ethical individual but who attempts to put strong accent on moralss and values. These leaders frequently talk about moralss. but do non follow up with the action itself ( Trevino et al. 2000 ) . In such instances. the followings frequently perceive these Acts of the Apostless merely as a false forepart. Without any actions to fit what the leader communicates about moralss and values. it points out issues that has yet to surface. and therefore. is worse than non making anything at all. which tarnish the repute of the leader ( Trevino et al. 2000 ) . This consequence in the followings non swearing the leader. and going misanthropic in everything the leader says. Third. the ethically impersonal leader is seen as neither a strong ethical or unethical leader.
An ethically impersonal leader may be an ethical individual. but do non take up an active leading function is the of import countries of moralss. and followings are unsure of the leader’s base on the issue of moralss. Hence. the ethically impersonal leader is one who focuses on terminal consequences without puting any ethical ends. Last. a weak moral individual and moral director is an unethical leader. Furthermore. other surveies have suggested that in add-on to the first cardinal property of leading unity. there are five other properties that characterise ethical leaders. which includes. ethical consciousness. pull offing ethical answerability. people oriented. motivation and encouraging and empowering ( Resick et al. 2006 ) . First. ethical consciousness is the ability and willingness to place moral and ethical state of affairss and jobs. Hence. without being first able to place the ethical issue nowadays. even a leader with leading unity will non be able to move ethically. which will take to a detrimental consequence on sensed ethical leading ( Resick et al. 2006 ) . Second. ethical leaders have to larn to pull off ethical answerability. through set uping and transfusing a wages and penalty system.
This ensures proper ethical criterions and behavior are performed throughout the administration ( Resick et al. 2006 ) . Third. in order to be cognizant of how their actions will impact others. ethical leaders have to be people oriented. which highlights the selfless. external focal point and duties required of an ethical leader ( Resick et al. 2006 ) . Following. ethical leaders are besides required to be actuating. Thus. even if ethical leaders possess leading unity. they have to be able to actuate. exert influence. and guide followings towards the organizational ends. ethical criterions and norms ( Resick et al. 2006 ) . Last. ethical leaders must be encouraging and authorising. and therefore depute duties and undertakings to employees. and guarantee that they are ethically responsible.
This allows the employees to be independent and responsible. and therefore convey ethical criterions throughout the administration ( Resick et al. 2006 ) . Emotional intelligence is another strong property and influence of ethical leading. beside leading unity. Leaderships with high emotional intelligence are able to excite an ethical administration by openly pass oning about ethical issues. deriving motive. and increase ethical consciousness. Ethical leaders who have high emotional intelligence are besides really swearing. understanding. prosecuting and have the ability to animate others ( Gregory 2010 ) . Such leaders develop a strong set of empathy and interpersonal accomplishments. every bit good as people oriented accomplishments.
They are so able to understand the influence. and impact their behaviors and determinations on the stakeholders and employees in the administration ( Gregory 2011 ) . One survey highlighted that 89 % of the respondents identified emotional intelligence as extremely of import and indispensable to run intoing the organisations’ top challenges ( Freeman 2007 ) . Two other surveies were besides conducted with concern pupils. and nurses in the US infirmaries. The consequences of both surveies revealed that emotional intelligence has a direct relationship with ethical consciousness. and therefore. higher emotional intelligence tonss predict higher public presentation in moralss ( Joseph et al. 2009 ; Deshpande 2009 ) .
Penetrations and analysis
In contemplation. leading unity is an of import and indispensable property in constructing an ethical leading. As discussed earlier. leading unity is extremely valued in administrations. and the absence of it will probably ensue in followings losing trust and regard for the ethical leader. Hence. this means that followings will particularly look up to ethical leaders with strong leading unity as these leaders are associated with holding strong positive traits and features. whom will probably make the right thing. given any fortunes. and supports the statement that ethical leading is largely about leading unity.
In add-on. Bandura’s societal acquisition theory suggests that persons learn and follow the actions. attitudes. behavior and values of believable ethical leaders. Hence. this means that followers’ moral self-development is likely to be to a great extent influenced by the leader’s attempt to pattern moral behaviors. Therefore. this besides supports the statement that ethical leading is largely about leading unity. because the qualities of the leader. such as leading unity. will act upon the followings to pattern such behaviors and values.
On the other manus. merely the moral individual facet of ethical leading topographic point accent on the leader’s behavior. traits and personal determination devising towards ethical behavior. The behavior and actions of a moral director have an external focal point of how the leader is seen by employees and stakeholders. as they aim to increase the ethical consciousness and criterion in the administration. Therefore. under Trevino’s definition of an ethical leader. leading unity belongs to the class of a moral individual. However. the leader needs to be both a moral individual and a moral director. in order to be considered an ethical leader. Therefore. this denies the statement that ethical leading is largely about leading unity. and supports the thought that leading unity is merely one dimension of being an ethical leader.
Second. Resick’s definition of the six cardinal features of an ethical leader belongs to the class of either a moral individual or a moral director. where leading unity. ethical consciousness and people orientation falls into the class of moral individual. while pull offing answerability. encouraging and empowering. and actuating belongs to the class of moral director. Hence. this refute the statement that leading unity is largely about leading unity. as it can be clearly seen that leading unity is merely one facet of the features required of ethical leading. as there are other of import elements that consequence ethical leading as good. Third. surveies have besides revealed that other than leading unity. the emotional intelligence of the leader is besides another cardinal factor in constructing an ethical leading.
Therefore. this farther supports the claim that that ethical leading is non largely about leading unity. but is besides to a great extent influenced by the personal features of leaders’ emotional intelligence. My personal base is that though the behavior. values. traits and personal features such as leading unity. of an ethical leader is of import. but. the ability to influence and affect followings to pattern such moral behaviors places an even greater accent in constructing a repute of ethical leading. As discussed earlier. the traits and behaviors of the moral director addresses this facet. and therefore back up my base that ethical leading is a multi dimension construct. which consists of many other cardinal elements other than merely leading unity.
Ethical leaders bring about extremely coveted benefits to administrations. The personal feature of an ethical leader. such as leading unity is one key factor in constructing ethical leading. However. there are besides other elements involved which have a strong impact in constructing ethical leading. Hence. in order to be effectual ethical leaders. persons with leading unity have to show that they are capable of actuating employees by making and exciting an ethical administration. developing criterions of ethical behavior and behavior. and pass oning openly on ethical issues. transfusing a wagess and penalty systems. showing ethical behavior. and thereby increasing the ethical consciousness in the administration.
Avolio. B. J. 2005. Leadership development in balance: Made/Born. Mahwah. New jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Bandura. A. 1977. Social larning theory. Englewood Cliffs. New jersey: Prentice–Hall.
Bandura. A. 1986. Social foundations of idea and action. Englewood Cliffs. New jersey: Prentice–Hall.
Berenbeim R. E. 2009. Ethical Leadership. Maintain an Ethical Culture. A paper presented at the Global Leadership Development conference in Mumbai. India
Blanchard. K. H. . O’Connor. M. . O’Connor. M. J. . & A ; Ballard. J. ( 1997 ) . Pull offing by values: Berrett-Koehler Pub
Brown M. E. & A ; Mitchell. M. S. 2010. Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New Avenue for Future Research. Business Ethics.
Brown M. E. Trevino L. K. & A ; Harrison D. 2005. Ethical leading: A societal acquisition position for concept development and testing. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 97. pp. 117?134.
Deshpande. S. P. 2009. A survey of ethical determination devising by doctors and nursesin infirmaries. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 90. pp. 387-397
Eisenberg. E. M. 2000. The kindness of aliens: Cordial reception in organisational communicating scholarship. In S. Corman & A ; M. S. Poole ( Eds. ) . Foundations of organisational communicating: Finding common land. New york: Guilford
Freeman R. E. & A ; Stewart L. 2006. Developing Ethical Leadership. A Bridge Paper of Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethical motives.
Freedman J. 2007 Workplace Issues Report. Six Seconds 2008.
Gregory P. 2010. Ethical Leadership. Training diary. pp. 44-47
Hoffman. M. L. 1988. Moral development. In M. H. Bornstein & A ; M. L. Lamb ( Eds. ) . Developmental psychological science: An advanced text edition ( 2nd erectile dysfunction. . pp. 205-260 ) . Hillsdale. New jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Joseph J. Berry K. & A ; Deshpande S P 2009. Impact of emotional intelligence and other factors on perceptual experience of ethical behaviour of equals. Journal of Business Ethics.
Kalshoven K. Den Hartog D. De Hoogh A. 2011. ‘Ethical leading at work questionnaire: Development and proof of a multidimensional step. The Leadership Quarterly. vol. 22. pp. 51-69
Kaptein M. 2002. Guidelines for the development of an moralss safety cyberspace.
Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 41. pp. 217-234
Piccolo R. F. Greenbaum R. Den Hartog D. N. & A ; Folger R. 2010. The Relationship between Ethical Leadership and Core Job Characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 31. pp. 259–278.
Quigley. J H. 2007. Trust – An Essential Asset: Creating Individual and Corporate Value. The Raytheon Lectureship in Business Ethics. Waltham: Bentley College. pp. 1-24.
Resick. C. Hanges. P. Dickson. M. Mitchelson. J. 2006. ‘A Cross – Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership’ . Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 63. pp. 345-358
Toor S. & A ; Ofori G. 2009. Ethical Leadership: Analyzing the Relationships with Full Range Leadership Model. Employee Outcomes. and Organizational Culture. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 90. pp. 533–547.
Trevino L. K. & A ; Brown M 2004. Pull offing to Be Ethical: Debunking Five Business Ethics Myths. The Academy of Management Executive. Vol 18. No. 2. pp 69-83
Trevino L. K. Hartman. L. P. & A ; Brown. M. 2000. Moral individual and moral director: How executives develop a repute for ethical leading. California Management Review. Vol. 42 ( 4 ) . pp. 128-142
Turknett. Robert L. . & A ; Turknett. Carolyn N. 2005. Decent People Decent Company: How to Lead with Character at Work and in Life. Mountain View. Calcium: Davies-Black Publication.
Wesley S. Basran S. Hayward A. & A ; Harris D. 2011. Corporate Ethics Policies and Programmes: United kingdom and Continental Europe Survey 2010. A Publication of the Institute of Business Ethics. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ibe. org. uk. viewed 1st September 2012.