Since Black Monday of 1987, Enron in 2001 and the financial crisis of 2008; Business ethics have come to the fore in daily conversation. It is fair to say that our financial institutions and cooperatives are not the only segments of society experiencing scandals. However, due to the exploitation of natural resources, food shortages, poverty, pandemics, pollution and terrorism; These dilemmas are seen by various growth experts as contributing to the ethical decline of our business establishments. Past and current scandals in our business world legitimize this view. Many believe that our concern for success and wealth reinforces this argument. Our nation’s current financial situation raises serious questions about corporate morality, particularly ethical leadership. When it comes to ethical leadership thinking and development, relative theories or models should be placed in perspective. According to some researchers, the literature on ethical leadership focuses on the philosophies of virtue ethics and deontology on consequentialism (Knights and O’Leary, 2006). The consequentialist theories (that is, egotism, applying morality for personal gain; and utilitarianism, the happiness of the greatest number is the greater good) the fundamental aspects are the acts of “good and evil”; and pleasure is “good” and pain is “bad.” These cause and effect ideologies can appear “one-dimensional” and redundant to achieve their results. Unlike; Rights-based ethics, like deontology, promote justice, equality, truthfulness, and freedom.
However, deontology can be varied and cumbersome for most business models. Some may argue that a rights-based ethic in the workplace would produce constant deliberations about policies and regulations that could eventually impede the function and purpose of the organization (Knights and O’Leary). However, impulsive obedience to bureaucratic morality can desensitize our moral judgment. In other words, moral dilemmas are needed when faced with questionable workplace practices. One consideration for leadership is incorporating what is called ‘virtue-ethics that espouses compassion and honesty’. Unlike the law-based model, virtue ethics focuses on developing an individual’s character rather than focusing on the act. Subsequently, contingent and situational leaderships are considered more psychological and independent. In basic terms, situational leadership involves an individual’s personality or external factors where contingency leadership matches the appropriate trait for a specific condition. Yet more and more experts are seeking collective approaches to leading because there is no superior form of leadership. Collaborative and value-based models seem more complementary than control and results-based paradigms. Furthermore, by combining virtue, ethics, deontology and consequentialism; An effective system of communication and incentives must be established to further promote ethical behavior (Whetstone, 2001; Trevino et al., 2003; ctd in Knights & O’Leary, 2006). Philosophers like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas view the virtue of responsibility and proper conduct and obligations towards others in high regard.
However, we have to loosen our concern for ourselves and prioritize social affirmation and the endorsement of economic and symbolic images. Greed and boastfulness typically supplant ethical responsibility. More to do with judgment than character, ethics presents who we are in relation to others (Knights & O’Leary, 2006). To coexist, we have to be responsible for ourselves to others. The social order requires rules and restrictions. In context, the ethics of responsibility can certainly be applied to servant leadership theory, which can be equated with the philosophies of Jesus and Gandhi. The Servant Leadership Theory identifies 10 characteristics of servant leaders: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of others, and community building (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Leading by example, the servant attends to the needs of others. Later, introduced by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970, writers such as Ken Blanchard and Larry Spears adopted his philosophy and incorporated it into other leadership theories such as Situational Leadership (www.situational.com), 2010. Servant leaders see themselves themselves as compassionate communicators who are system thinkers who don’t believe in a chain of command. Instead, his emphasis is on personal commitment, ethics, trust, and collaboration for organizational growth through teamwork.
An extension of the collective or team principle of Servant Leaders is described in Méndez’s (2009) research that analyzed collective leadership. This author explained two facets of this leadership style; ‘Leadership sharing’ and ‘Leadership distribution’. Leadership The joint vision of the team is defined by all members. This approach allows members to challenge established questionable ideas and patterns and also come up with new solutions to old problems. In Leadership Distribution, Méndez states … “a team will exhibit high distribution when the team relies on one member to establish the team’s vision, another to develop specific objectives and establish procedures and routines, and a third to solve conflicts between team members and make sure that the ideas of all team members are heard. ” Others agree with Méndez’s model of collective leadership. To create an atmosphere of collaboration, leaders must determine what the group needs in relation to work-related tasks, building mutual relationships, and building common purpose (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Both the Servant Leader and the Collective / Team approaches incorporate fundamental ethical characteristics and methods in a manner similar to transformational leadership. In essence, Kouzes and Posner define transformational leadership as the infusion of people’s energies into strategies. According to these authors, the main distinctions between transformational and transactional leadership is that goals and purposes are related, but separate. Transactional leadership has been called “managerial leadership” that incorporates motivation and appeal to the self-interest of followers. The transactional approach focuses on the supervisory role, organization and performance of the group. Finally, future leadership models should be universally flexible; or a compilation of theories that allow flexibility and compatibility. This allows satisfying new niches of organizational designs and consumer needs.
References
Knights, D. and O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, Ethics and Responsibility with the Other. Journal of Business Ethics. 67 (2), p. 125-137.
Kouzes, JM and Posner, BZ (2007). The leadership challenge. 4th ed. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco, CA
Méndez, MJ (2009). A Closer Look at Collective Leadership: Is Leadership Shared or Distributed? Dissertation, New Mexico State University; 131 pp.
Parris, DL and Peachey, JW (2013). A systematic review of the literature of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 113, no. 3 (March 2013), pp. 377-393
