Leadership and Ethics

15 LEADERSHIP ETHICS

DESCRIPTION This chapter is different from many of the other chapters in this book. Most of the other chapters focus on one unified leadership theory or approach (e.g., trait approach, path–goal theory, or transformational leadership), whereas this chapter is multifaceted and presents a broad set of ethical viewpoints. The chapter is intended not as an “ethical leadership theory,” but rather as a guide to some of the ethical issues that arise in leadership situations.

Probably since our cave-dwelling days, human beings have been concerned with the ethics of our leaders. Our history books are replete with descriptions of good kings and bad kings, great empires and evil empires, and strong presidents and weak presidents. But despite a wealth of biographical accounts of great leaders and their morals, very little research has been published on the theoretical foundations of leadership ethics. There have been many studies on business ethics in general since the early 1970s, but these studies have been only tangentially related to leadership ethics. Even in the literature of management, written primarily for practitioners, there are very few books on leadership ethics. This suggests that theoretical formulations in this area are still in their infancy.

One of the earliest writings that specifically focused on leadership ethics appeared as recently as 1996. It was a set of working papers generated from a small group of leadership scholars, brought together by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. These scholars examined how leadership theory and practice could be used to build a more caring and just society. The ideas of the Kellogg group are now published in a volume titled Ethics, the Heart of Leadership (Ciulla, 1998).

Interest in the nature of ethical leadership has continued to grow, particularly because of the many recent scandals in corporate America and the political realm. On the academic front, there has also been a strong interest in exploring the nature of ethical leadership (see Aronson, 2001; Brown & Treviño, 2006; Ciulla, 2001, 2003, 2014; Johnson, 2011, 2018; Kanungo, 2001; Lawton & Páez, 2015; McManus, Ward, & Perry, 2018; Price, 2008; Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2003).

Ethics Defined

From the perspective of Western tradition, the development of ethical theory dates back to Plato (427–347 B.C.E.) and Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.). The word ethics has its roots in the Greek word ethos, which translates to “customs,” “conduct,” or “character.” Ethics is concerned with the kinds of values and morals an individual or a society finds desirable or appropriate. Furthermore, ethics is concerned with the virtuousness of individuals and their motives. Ethical theory provides a system of rules or principles that guide us in making decisions about what is right or wrong and good or bad in a particular situation. It provides a basis for understanding what it means to be a morally decent human being.

In regard to leadership, ethics is concerned with what leaders do and who leaders are. It has to do with the nature of leaders’ behavior, and with their virtuousness. In any decision-making situation, ethical issues are either implicitly or explicitly involved. The choices leaders make and how they respond in a given circumstance are informed and directed by their ethics.

A leader’s choices are also influenced by their moral development. For example, in a study of 24 exemplary leaders in journalism, Plaisance (2014) found “an overarching emphasis on notions of care and respect for others, professional duty, concern for harm, and proactive social engagement—all of which characterize higher stages of moral development” (p. 308). The most widely recognized theory advanced to explain how people think about moral issues is Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Kohlberg (1984) presented a series of dilemmas (the most famous of which is “the Heinz dilemma”) to groups of young children whom he then interviewed about the reasoning behind their choices regarding the dilemmas. From these data he created a classification system of moral reasoning that was divided into six stages: Stage 1—Obedience and Punishment, Stage 2—Individualism and Exchange, Stage 3—Interpersonal Accord and Conformity, Stage 4—Maintaining the Social Order, Stage 5—Social Contract and Individual Rights, and Stage 6—Universal Principles (Table 15.1). Kohlberg further classified the first two stages as preconventional morality, the second two as conventional morality, and the last two as postconventional morality.

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

When an individual is at the preconventional morality level, they tend to judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. There are two stages that fall within preconventional morality:

Table 15.1 Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

LEVEL 1: PRECONVENTIONAL MORALITY

Reasoning based on self-interest, avoiding punishment, and rewards

STAGE 1

Obedience and Punishment

“I follow the rules so I don’t get hurt”

STAGE 2

Individualism and Exchange

“I will do a favor for you, if you do one for me”

LEVEL 2: CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

Reasoning based on society’s views and expectations

STAGE 3

Interpersonal Accord and Conformity

“I try to be good and do what others expect of me”

STAGE 4

Maintaining the Social Order

“I follow the rules and support the laws of society”

LEVEL 3: POSTCONVENTIONAL MORALITY

Reasoning based on conscience and creating a just society

STAGE 5

Social Contract and Individual Rights

“I work with others to do what is best for all of us”

STAGE 6

Universal Principles

“I act out of my internalized and universal principle of justice”

Stage 1—Obedience and Punishment. At this stage, the individual is egocentric and sees morality as external to self. Rules are fixed and handed down by authority. Obeying rules is important because it means avoiding punishment. For example, a child reasons it is bad to steal because the consequence will be to go to jail.

Stage 2—Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, the individual makes moral decisions based on self-interest. An action is right if it serves the individual. Everything is relative, so each person is free to do their own thing. People do not identify with the values of the community (Crain, 1985) but are willing to exchange favors. For example, an individual might say, “I’ll do a favor for you, if you do a favor for me.”

Level 2. Conventional Morality

Those who are at this level judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society’s views and expectations. Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs. Kohlberg identified two stages at the conventional morality level:

Stage 3—Interpersonal Accord and Conformity. At this stage, the individual makes moral choices based on conforming to the expectations of others and trying to behave like a “good” person. It is important to be “nice” and live up to the community standard of niceness. For example, a student says, “I am not going to cheat because that is not what a good student does.”

Stage 4—Maintaining the Social Order. At this stage, the individual makes moral decisions in ways that show concern for society as a whole. In order for society to function, it is important that people obey the laws, respect authority, and support the rules of the community. For example, a person does not run a red light in the middle of the night when no other cars are around because it is important to maintain and support the traffic laws of the community.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

At this level of morality, also known as the principled level, individuals have developed their own personal set of ethics and morals that guide their behavior. Postconventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. There are two stages that Kohlberg identified as part of the postconventional morality level:

Stage 5—Social Contract and Individual Rights. At this stage, the individual makes moral decisions based on a social contract and their views on what a good society should be like. A good society supports values such as liberty and life, and fair procedures for changing laws (Crain, 1985), but recognizes that groups have different opinions and values. Societal laws are important, but people need to agree on them. For example, if a boy is dying of cancer and his parents do not have money to pay for his treatment, the state should step in and pay for it.

Stage 6—Universal Principles. At this stage, the individual’s moral reasoning is based on internalized universal principles of justice that apply to everyone. Decisions that are made need to respect the viewpoints of all parties involved. People follow their internal rules of fairness, even if they conflict with laws. An example of this stage would be a civil rights activist who believes a commitment to justice requires a willingness to disobey unjust laws.

Kohlberg’s model of moral development has been criticized for focusing exclusively on justice values, for being sex-biased since it is derived from an all-male sample, for being culturally biased since it is based on a sample from an individualist culture, and for advocating a postconventional morality where people place their own principles above those of the law or society (Crain, 1985). Regardless of these criticisms, this model is seminal to developing an understanding of what forms the basis for individuals’ ethical leadership.

Ethical Theories

For the purposes of studying ethics and leadership, ethical theories can be thought of as falling within two broad domains: theories about leaders’ conduct and theories about leaders’ character (Table 15.2). Stated another way, ethical theories when applied to leadership are about both the actions of leaders and who they are as people. Throughout the chapter, our discussions about ethics and leadership will always fall within one of these two domains: conduct or character. Ethical theories that deal with the conduct of leaders are in turn divided into two kinds: theories that stress the consequences of leaders’ actions and those that emphasize the duty or rules governing leaders’ actions (see Table 15.2). Teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, meaning “ends” or “purposes,” try to answer questions about right and wrong by focusing on whether a person’s conduct will produce desirable consequences. From the teleological perspective, the question “What is right?” is answered by looking at results or outcomes. In effect, the consequences of an individual’s actions determine the goodness or badness of a particular behavior.

Table 15.2 Domains of Ethical Theories

Conduct Character

Consequences (teleological theories)

• Ethical egoism

• Utilitarianism

Virtue-based theories

Duty (deontological theories)

In assessing consequences, there are three different approaches to making decisions regarding moral conduct (Figure 15.1): ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism. Ethical egoism states that a person should act so as to create the greatest good for themselves. A leader with this orientation would take a job or career that they selfishly enjoy (Avolio & Locke, 2002). Self- interest is an ethical stance closely related to transactional leadership theories (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Ethical egoism is common in some business contexts in which a company and its employees make decisions to achieve its goal of maximizing profits. For example, a midlevel, upward-aspiring manager who wants their team to be the best in the company could be described as acting out of ethical egoism.

Description

Figure 15.1 Ethical Theories Based on Self-Interest Versus Interest for Others

A second teleological approach, utilitarianism, states that we should behave so as to create the greatest good for the greatest number. From this viewpoint, the morally correct action is the action that maximizes social benefits while minimizing social costs (Schumann, 2001). When the U.S. government allocates a large part of the federal budget for preventive health care rather than for catastrophic illnesses, it is acting from a utilitarian perspective, putting money where it will have the best result for the largest number of citizens.

Closely related to utilitarianism, and opposite of ethical egoism, is a third teleological approach, altruism. Altruism is an approach that suggests that actions are moral if their primary purpose is to promote the best interests of others. From this perspective, a leader may be called on to act in the interests of others, even when it runs contrary to their own self-interests (Bowie, 1991). Authentic transformational leadership (Chapter 8) is based on altruistic principles (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996), and altruism is pivotal to exhibiting servant leadership (Chapter 10). The strongest example of altruistic ethics can be found in the work of Mother Teresa, who devoted her life to helping those living in poverty. Quite different from looking at which actions will produce which outcomes, deontological theory is derived from the Greek word deos, which means “duty.” Whether a given action is ethical rests not only with its consequences (teleological), but also with whether the action itself is good. Telling the truth, keeping promises, being fair, and respecting others are all examples of actions that are inherently good, independent of the consequences. The deontological perspective focuses on the actions of the leader and their moral obligations and responsibilities to do the right thing. A leader’s actions are moral if the leader has a moral right to do them, if the actions do not infringe on others’ rights, and if the actions further the moral rights of others (Schumann, 2001).

In the late 1990s, the president of the United States, Bill Clinton, was brought before Congress for misrepresenting under oath an affair he had maintained with a White House intern. For his actions, he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but then was acquitted by the U.S. Senate. At one point during the long ordeal, the president appeared on national television and, in what is now a famous speech, declared his innocence. Because subsequent hearings provided information that suggested that he may have lied during this television speech, many Americans felt President Clinton had violated his duty and responsibility (as a person, leader, and president) to tell the truth. From a deontological perspective, it could be said that he failed his ethical responsibility to do the right thing—to tell the truth.

Whereas teleological and deontological theories approach ethics by looking at the behavior or conduct of a leader, a second set of theories approaches ethics from the viewpoint of a leader’s character (Table 15.2). These theories are called virtue- based theories; they focus on who leaders are as people. In this perspective, virtues are rooted in the heart of the individual and in the individual’s disposition (Pojman, 1995). Furthermore, it is believed that virtues and moral abilities are not innate but can be acquired and learned through practice. People can be taught by their families and communities to be morally appropriate human beings.

With their origin traced back in the Western tradition to the ancient Greeks and the works of Plato and Aristotle, virtue theories are experiencing a resurgence in popularity. The Greek term associated with these theories is aretaic, which means “excellence” or “virtue.” Consistent with Aristotle, current advocates of virtue-based theory stress that more attention should be given to the development and training of moral values (Velasquez, 1992). Rather than telling people what to do, attention should be directed toward telling people what to be, or helping them to become more virtuous.

What, then, are the virtues of an ethical person? There are many, all of which seem to be important. Based on the writings of Aristotle, a moral person demonstrates the virtues of courage, temperance, generosity, self-control, honesty, sociability, modesty, fairness, and justice (Velasquez, 1992). For Aristotle, virtues allowed people to live well in communities. Applying ethics to leadership and management, Velasquez has suggested that managers should develop virtues such as perseverance, public-spiritedness, integrity, truthfulness, fidelity, benevolence, and humility.

In essence, virtue-based ethics is about being and becoming a good, worthy human being. Although people can learn and develop good values, this theory maintains that virtues are present in one’s disposition. When practiced over time, from youth to adulthood, good values become habitual, and part of the people themselves. By telling the truth, people become truthful; by giving to those living in poverty, people become benevolent; by being fair to others, people become just. Our virtues are derived from our actions, and our actions manifest our virtues (Frankena, 1973; Pojman, 1995).

Centrality of Ethics to Leadership

As discussed in Chapter 1, leadership is a process whereby the leader influences others to reach a common goal. The influence dimension of leadership requires the leader to have an impact on the lives of those being led. To make a change in other people carries with it an enormous ethical burden and responsibility. Because leaders usually have more power and control than followers, they also have more responsibility to be sensitive to how their leadership affects followers’ lives.

Whether in group work, organizational pursuits, or community projects, leaders engage followers and utilize them in their efforts to reach common goals. In all these situations, leaders have the ethical responsibility to treat followers with dignity and respect—as human beings with unique identities. This “respect for people” demands that leaders be sensitive to followers’ own interests, needs, and conscientious concerns (Beauchamp & Bowie, 1988). In a qualitative study of 17, mostly Swiss, executive ethical leaders, Frisch and Huppenbauer (2014) reported that these ethical leaders cared about other stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, owners of companies, the natural environment, and society. Although all of us have an ethical responsibility to treat other people as unique human beings, leaders have a special responsibility, because the nature of their leadership puts them in a special position in which they have a greater opportunity to influence others in significant ways.

Ethics is central to leadership, and leaders help to establish and reinforce organizational values. Every leader has a distinct philosophy and point of view. “All leaders have an agenda, a series of beliefs, proposals, values, ideas, and issues that they wish to ‘put on the table’” (Gini, 1998, p. 36). The values promoted by the leader have a significant impact on the values exhibited by the organization (see Carlson & Perrewe, 1995; Demirtas, 2015; Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Fahrbach,

2015; Schminke, Ambrose, & Noel, 1997; Treviño, 1986; Xu, Loi, & Ngo, 2016; Yang, 2014). Because of their influence, leaders play a major role in establishing the ethical climate of their organizations. For example, in a meta-analytic review of 147 articles on ethical leadership, Bedi, Alpaslan, and Green (2016) found that ethical leadership was positively related to followers’ perceptions of the leader’s fairness and the followers’ ethical behavior.

In short, ethics is central to leadership because of the nature of the process of influence, the need to engage followers in accomplishing mutual goals, and the impact leaders have on the organization’s values.

The following section provides a discussion of some of the work of prominent leadership scholars who have addressed issues related to ethics and leadership. Although many additional viewpoints exist, those presented are representative of the predominant thinking in the area of ethics and leadership today.

Heifetz’s Perspective on Ethical Leadership

Based on his work as a psychiatrist and his observations and analysis of many world leaders (e.g., President Lyndon Johnson, Mohandas Gandhi, and Margaret Sanger), Ronald Heifetz (1994) has formulated a unique approach to ethical leadership. His approach emphasizes how leaders help followers to confront conflict and to address conflict by effecting changes. Heifetz’s perspective is related to ethical leadership because it deals with values: the values of workers and the values of the organizations and communities in which they work. According to Heifetz, leadership involves the use of authority to help followers deal with the conflicting values that emerge in rapidly changing work environments and social cultures. It is an ethical perspective because it addresses the values of workers.

For Heifetz (1994), leaders must use authority to mobilize people to face tough issues. As discussed in the chapter on adaptive leadership (Chapter 11), it is up to the leader to provide a “holding environment” in which there is trust, nurturance, and empathy. In a supportive context, followers can feel safe to confront hard problems. Specifically, leaders use authority to get people to pay attention to the issues, to act as a reality test regarding information, to manage and frame issues, to orchestrate conflicting perspectives, and to facilitate decision making (Heifetz, 1994, p. 113). The leader’s duties are to assist the follower in struggling with change and personal growth.

Burns’s Perspective on Ethical Leadership

As discussed in Chapter 8, Burns’s theory of transformational leadership places a strong emphasis on followers’ needs, values, and morals. Transformational leadership involves attempts by leaders to move followers to higher standards of moral responsibility. This emphasis sets transformational leadership apart from most other approaches to leadership because it clearly states that leadership has a moral dimension (see Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).

Similar to that of Heifetz, Burns’s (1978) perspective argues that it is important for leaders to engage themselves with followers and help them in their personal struggles regarding conflicting values. The resulting connection raises the level of morality in both the leader and the follower.

The origins of Burns’s position on leadership ethics are rooted in the works of such writers as Abraham Maslow, Milton Rokeach, and Lawrence Kohlberg (Ciulla, 1998). The influence of these writers can be seen in how Burns emphasizes the leader’s role in attending to the personal motivations and moral development of the follower. For Burns, it is the responsibility of the leader to help followers assess their own values and needs in order to raise them to a higher level of functioning, to a level that will stress values such as liberty, justice, and equality (Ciulla, 1998).

Burns’s position on leadership as a morally uplifting process has not been without its critics. It has raised many questions: How do you choose what a better set of moral values is? Who is to say that some decisions represent higher moral ground than others? If leadership, by definition, entails raising individual moral functioning, does this mean that the leadership of corrupt leaders is not actually leadership? Notwithstanding these very legitimate questions, Burns’s perspective is unique in that it makes ethics the central characteristic of the leadership process. His writing has placed ethics at the forefront of scholarly discussions of what leadership means and how leadership should be carried out.

The Dark Side of Leadership

Although Burns (1978) placed ethics at the core of leadership, there still exists a dark side of leadership that exemplifies leadership that is unethical and destructive. It is what we defined in Chapter 8 (“Transformational Leadership”) as pseudotransformational leadership and discussed in Chapter 13 (“Followership”) in regard to destructive leadership. The dark side of leadership is the destructive and toxic side of leadership in that a leader uses leadership for personal ends. Lipman- Blumen (2005) suggests that toxic leaders are characterized by destructive behaviors such as leaving their followers worse off than they found them, violating the basic human rights of others, and playing to followers’ basest fears. Furthermore, Lipman-Blumen identifies many dysfunctional personal characteristics destructive leaders demonstrate including lack of integrity, insatiable ambition, arrogance, and reckless disregard for their actions. In addition, using two different toxic leadership questionnaires, Singh, Sengupta, and Dev (2017) identified eight factors of perceived toxicity in leaders in Indian organizations. The toxicity factors included managerial incompetency, dark traits, derisive supervision, impervious despotic leadership, dearth of ethics, erratic behavior, narcissism, and self-promoting. The same characteristics and behaviors that distinguish leaders as special can also be used by leaders to produce disastrous outcomes (Conger, 1990). Because researchers have been focused on the positive attributes and outcomes of effective leadership, until recently, there has been little attention paid to the dark side of leadership. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that it exists.

In a meta-analysis of 57 studies of destructive leadership and its outcomes, Schyns and Schilling (2013) found a strong relationship between destructive leadership and negative attitudes in followers toward the leader. Destructive leadership is also negatively related to followers’ attitudes toward their jobs and toward their organization as a whole. Furthermore, Schyns and Schilling found it closely related to negative affectivity and to the experience of occupational stress.

In an attempt to more clearly define destructive leadership, Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) developed the concept of a toxic triangle that focuses on the influences of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments (Figure 15.2). As shown in the model, destructive leaders are characterized by having charisma and a need to use power and coercion for personal gains. They are also narcissistic and often attention-getting and self-absorbed. Destructive leaders often have negative life stories that can be traced to traumatic childhood events. Perhaps from self-hatred, they often express an ideology of hate in their rhetoric and worldview.

Description

Figure 15.2 The Toxic Triangle

Source: Reprinted from The Leadership Quarterly, 18, A. Padilla, R. Hogan & R. B. Kaiser, “The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders,

Susceptible Followers, and Conducive Environments,” pp. 180, Copyright (2007).

As illustrated in Figure 15.2, destructive leadership also incorporates susceptible followers who have been characterized as conformers and colluders. Conformers go along with destructive leaders to satisfy unmet needs such as emptiness, alienation, or need for community. These followers have low self-esteem and identify with charismatic leaders in an attempt to become more desirable. Because they are psychologically immature, conformers more easily go along with authority and engage in destructive activity. On the other hand, colluders may respond to destructive leaders because they are ambitious, desire status, or see an opportunity to profit. Colluders may also go along because they identify with the leader’s beliefs and values, which may be unsocialized such as greed and selfishness.

Finally, the toxic triangle illustrates that destructive leadership includes a conducive environment. When the environment is unstable, the leader is often granted more authority to assert radical change. When there is a perceived threat, followers often accept assertive leadership. People are attracted to leaders who will stand up to the threats they feel in the environment. Destructive leaders who express compatible cultural values with followers are more likely to succeed. For example, cultures high on collectiveness would prefer a leader who promotes community and group identity. Destructive leadership will also thrive when the checks and balances of the organization are weak and the rules of the institution are ineffective.

Although research on the dark side of leadership has been limited, it is an area critical to our understanding of leadership that is unethical. Clearly, there is a need for the development of models, theories, and assessment instruments about the process of destructive leadership.

Principles of Ethical Leadership

In this section, we turn to a discussion of five principles of ethical leadership, the origins of which can be traced back to Aristotle. The importance of these principles has been discussed in a variety of disciplines, including biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994), business ethics (Beauchamp & Bowie, 1988), counseling psychology (Kitchener, 1984), and leadership education (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998), to name a few. Although not inclusive, these principles provide a foundation for the development of sound ethical leadership: respect, service, justice, honesty, and community (Figure 15.3).

Figure 15.3 Principles of Ethical Leadership

Ethical Leaders Respect Others

Philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that it is our duty to treat others with respect. To do so means always to treat others as ends in themselves and never as means to ends. As Beauchamp and Bowie (1988, p. 37) pointed out, “Persons must be treated as having their own autonomously established goals and must never be treated purely as the means to another’s personal goals.” These writers then suggested that treating others as ends rather than as means requires that we treat other people’s decisions and values with respect: Failing to do so would signify that we were treating them as a means to our own ends.

Leaders who respect others also allow them to be themselves, with creative wants and desires. They approach other people with a sense of their unconditional worth and valuable individual differences (Kitchener, 1984). Respect includes giving credence to others’ ideas and confirming them as human beings. At times, it may require that leaders defer to others. As Burns (1978) suggested, leaders should nurture followers in becoming aware of their own needs, values, and purposes, and assist followers in integrating these with the leader’s needs, values, and purposes.

Respect for others is a complex ethic that is similar to but goes deeper than the kind of respect that parents teach little children. Respect means that a leader listens closely to followers, is empathic, and is tolerant of opposing points of view. It means treating followers in ways that confirm their beliefs, attitudes, and values. When a leader exhibits respect to followers, followers can feel competent about their work. In short, leaders who show respect treat others as worthy human beings.

Ethical Leaders Serve Others

Earlier in this chapter, we contrasted two ethical theories, one based on a concern for self (ethical egoism) and another based on the interests of others (ethical altruism). The service principle clearly is an example of altruism. Leaders who serve are altruistic: They place their followers’ welfare foremost in their plans. In the workplace, altruistic service behavior can be observed in activities such as mentoring, empowerment behaviors, team building, and citizenship behaviors, to name a few (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996).

The leader’s ethical responsibility to serve others is very similar to the ethical principle in health care of beneficence. Beneficence is derived from the Hippocratic tradition, which holds that health professionals ought to make choices that benefit patients. In a general way, beneficence asserts that providers have a duty to help others pursue their own legitimate interests and goals (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994). Like health professionals, ethical leaders have a responsibility to attend to others, be of service to them, and make decisions pertaining to them that are beneficial and not harmful to their welfare.

In the past, the service principle has received a great deal of emphasis in the leadership literature. It is clearly evident in the writings of Block (1993), Covey (1990), De Pree (1989), Gilligan (1982), and Kouzes and Posner (1995), all of whom maintained that attending to others is the primary building block of moral leadership. Further emphasis on service can be observed in the work of Senge (1990) in his well-recognized writing on learning organizations. Senge contended that one of the important tasks of leaders in learning organizations is to be the steward (servant) of the vision within the organization. Being a steward means clarifying and nurturing a vision that is greater than oneself. This means not being self-centered, but rather integrating one’s self or vision with that of others in the organization. Effective leaders see their own personal vision as an important part of something larger than themselves—a part of the organization and the community at large.

The idea of leaders serving others was more deeply explored by Robert Greenleaf (1970, 1977), who developed the servant leadership approach. Servant leadership, which is explored in depth in Chapter 10, has strong altruistic ethical overtones in how it emphasizes that leaders should be attentive to the concerns of their followers and should take care of them and nurture them. In addition, Greenleaf argues that the servant leader has a social responsibility to be concerned with the “have-nots” and should strive to remove inequalities and social injustices. Greenleaf places a great deal of emphasis on listening, empathy, and unconditional acceptance of others.

In short, whether it is Greenleaf’s notion of waiting on the “have-nots” or Senge’s notion of giving oneself to a larger purpose, the idea behind service is contributing to the greater good of others. Recently, the idea of serving the “greater good” has found an unusual following in the business world. In 2009, 20% of the graduating class of the Harvard Business School, considered to be one of the premier schools producing today’s business leaders, took an oath pledging that they will act responsibly and ethically, and refrain from advancing their own ambitions at the expense of others. Similarly, Columbia Business School requires all students to pledge to an honor code requiring they adhere to truth, integrity, and respect (Wayne, 2009). In practicing the principle of service, these and other ethical leaders must be willing to be follower centered, must place others’ interests foremost in their work, and must act in ways that will benefit others.

Ethical Leaders Are Just

Ethical leaders are concerned about issues of fairness and justice. They make it a top priority to treat all of their followers in an equal manner. Justice demands that leaders place issues of fairness at the center of their decision making. As a rule, no one should receive special treatment or special consideration except when their particular situation demands it. When individuals are treated differently, the grounds for different treatment must be clear and reasonable, and must be based on moral values. For example, many of us can remember being involved with some type of athletic team when we were growing up. The coaches we liked were those we thought were fair with us. No matter what, we did not want the coach to treat anyone differently from the rest. When someone came late to practice with a poor excuse, we wanted that person disciplined just as we would have been disciplined. If a player had a personal problem and needed a break, we wanted the coach to give it, just as we would have been given a break. Without question, the good coaches were those who never had favorites and who made a point of playing everyone on the team. In essence, what we wanted was that our coach be fair and just.

When resources and rewards or punishments are distributed to employees, the leader plays a major role. The rules that are used and how they are applied say a great deal about whether the leader is concerned about justice and how they approach issues of fairness. Rawls (1971) stated that a concern with issues of fairness is necessary for all people who are cooperating

together to promote their common interests. It is similar to the ethic of reciprocity, otherwise known as the Golden Rule—“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—variations of which have appeared in many different cultures throughout the ages. If we expect fairness from others in how they treat us, then we should treat others fairly in our dealings with them. Issues of fairness become problematic because there is always a limit on goods and resources, and there is often competition for the limited things available. Because of the real or perceived scarcity of resources, conflicts often occur between individuals about fair methods of distribution. It is important for leaders to clearly establish the rules for distributing rewards. The nature of these rules says a lot about the ethical underpinnings of the leader and the organization.

Beauchamp and Bowie (1988) outlined several of the common principles that serve as guides for leaders in distributing the benefits and burdens fairly in an organization (Table 15.3). Although not inclusive, these principles point to the reasoning behind why leaders choose to distribute things as they do in organizations. In a given situation, a leader may use a single principle or a combination of several principles in treating followers.

To illustrate the principles described in Table 15.3, consider the following hypothetical example: You are the owner of a small trucking company that employs 50 drivers. You have just opened a new route, and it promises to be one that pays well and has an ideal schedule. Only one driver can be assigned to the route, but seven drivers have applied for it. Each driver wants an equal opportunity to get the route. One of the drivers recently lost his wife to breast cancer and is struggling to care for three young children (individual need). Two of the drivers are people of color, and one of them feels strongly that he has a right to the job. One of the drivers has logged more driving hours for three consecutive years, and she feels her effort makes her the logical candidate for the new route. One of the drivers serves on the National Transportation Safety Board and has a 20- year accident-free driving record (societal contribution). Two drivers have been with the company since its inception, and their performance has been meritorious year after year.

Table 15.3 Principles of Distributive Justice

These principles are applied in different situations.

To each person

• An equal share or opportunity

• According to individual need

• According to that person’s rights

• According to individual effort

• According to societal contribution

• According to merit or performance

As the owner of the company, your challenge is to assign the new route in a fair way. Although many other factors could influence your decision (e.g., seniority, wage rate, or employee health), the principles described in Table 15.3 provide guidelines for deciding who is to get the new route.

Ethical Leaders Are Honest

When we were children, grown-ups often told us we must “never tell a lie.” To be good meant we must be truthful. For leaders the lesson is the same: To be a good leader, one must be honest.

The importance of being honest can be understood more clearly when we consider the opposite of honesty: dishonesty (see Jaksa & Pritchard, 1988). Dishonesty is a form of lying, a way of misrepresenting reality. Dishonesty may bring with it many objectionable outcomes; foremost among those outcomes is the distrust it creates. When leaders are not honest, others come to see them as undependable and unreliable. People lose faith in what leaders say and stand for, and their respect for leaders is diminished. As a result, the leader’s impact is compromised because others no longer trust and believe in the leader.

When we relate to others, dishonesty also has a negative impact. It puts a strain on how people are connected to each other. When we lie to others, we are in essence saying that we are willing to manipulate the relationship on our own terms. We are saying that we do not trust the other person in the relationship to be able to deal with information we have. In reality, we are putting ourselves ahead of the relationship by saying that we know what is best for the relationship. The long-term effect of this type of behavior is that it weakens relationships. Even when used with good intentions, dishonesty contributes to the breakdown of relationships.

But being honest is not just about telling the truth. It has to do with being open with others and representing reality as fully and completely as possible. This is not an easy task, however, because there are times when telling the complete truth can be destructive or counterproductive. The challenge for leaders is to strike a balance between being open and candid while monitoring what is appropriate to disclose in a particular situation. Many times, there are organizational constraints that prevent leaders from disclosing information to followers. It is important for leaders to be authentic, but it is also essential that they be sensitive to the attitudes and feelings of others. Honest leadership involves a wide set of behaviors.

Dalla Costa (1998) made the point clearly in his book, The Ethical Imperative, that being honest means more than not deceiving. For leaders in organizations, being honest means, “Do not promise what you can’t deliver, do not misrepresent, do

not hide behind spin-doctored evasions, do not suppress obligations, do not evade accountability, do not accept that the ‘survival of the fittest’ pressures of business release any of us from the responsibility to respect another’s dignity and humanity” (p. 164). In addition, Dalla Costa suggested that it is imperative that organizations recognize and acknowledge the necessity of honesty and reward honest behavior within the organization.

Ethical Leaders Build Community

In Chapter 1, we defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. This definition has a clear ethical dimension because it refers to a common goal. A common goal requires that the leader and followers agree on the direction to be taken by the group. Leaders need to take into account their own and followers’ purposes while working toward goals that are suitable for both of them. This factor, concern for others, is the distinctive feature that delineates authentic transformational leaders from pseudotransformational leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) (for more on pseudotransformational leadership see page 187 in Chapter 8). Concern for the common good means that leaders cannot impose their will on others. They need to search for goals that are compatible with everyone.

Burns (1978) placed this idea at the center of his theory on transformational leadership. A transformational leader tries to move the group toward a common good that is beneficial for both the leaders and the followers. In moving toward mutual goals, both the leader and the followers are changed. It is this feature that makes Burns’s theory unique. For Burns, leadership has to be grounded in the leader–follower relationship. It cannot be controlled by the leader, such as Hitler’s influence in Germany. Hitler coerced people to meet his own agenda and followed goals that did not advance the goodness of humankind.

An ethical leader takes into account the purposes of everyone involved in the group and is attentive to the interests of the community and the culture. Such a leader demonstrates an ethic of caring toward others (Gilligan, 1982) and does not force others or ignore the intentions of others (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).

Rost (1991) went a step further and suggested that ethical leadership demands attention to a civic virtue. By this, he meant that leaders and followers need to attend to more than their own mutually determined goals. They need to attend to the community’s goals and purpose. As Burns (1978, p. 429) wrote, transformational leaders and followers begin to reach out to wider social collectivities and seek to establish higher and broader moral purposes. Similarly, Greenleaf (1970) argued that building community was a main characteristic of servant leadership. All of our individual and group goals are bound up in the common good and public interest. We need to pay attention to how the changes proposed by a leader and followers will affect the larger organization, the community, and society. An ethical leader is concerned with the common good, in the broadest sense. This is underscored by Wilson and McCalman (2017), who argued that leadership for the greater good is the ultimate end toward which ethical leadership ought to be directed.

It is important to note that building community, as well as the other principles of ethical leadership discussed previously (Figure 15.3), vary across cultures. Cultures vary widely in what they view as positive leadership attributes and in what they define as ethical behavior of leaders. As the world becomes more connected and cross-cultural, an understanding of these different cultural perspectives on ethical leadership will be important.

Resick Hanges, Dickson, and Mitchelson, (2006) found that ethical leadership dimensions of character/integrity, altruism, collective motivation, and encouragement were endorsed across all cultures but that the importance of each dimension varied by culture. They also examined the meaning of ethical leadership in six countries and results indicated that cultures agree on the importance of character and integrity. Respondents from the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Germany regarded consideration, respect for others, and collective orientation as crucial to ethical leadership; Ireland, the United States, and Taiwan rated these attributes as less important. The authors concluded that while some country differences exist, there is a general consensus regarding the meaning of ethical leadership (Resick et al., 2011).

STRENGTHS This chapter discusses a broad set of ideas regarding ethics and leadership. This general field of study has several strengths. First, it provides a body of timely research on ethical issues. There is a high demand for moral leadership in our society today. Beginning with the Richard Nixon administration in the 1970s and continuing through Donald Trump’s administration, people have been insisting on higher levels of moral responsibility from their leaders. At a time when there seems to be a vacuum in ethical leadership, this research offers us some direction on how to think about and practice ethical leadership.

Second, this body of research suggests that ethics ought to be considered as an integral part of the broader domain of leadership. Except for servant, transformational, inclusive, and authentic leadership, none of the other leadership theories discussed in this book focuses on the role of ethics in the leadership process. This chapter suggests that leadership is not an amoral phenomenon. Leadership is a process of influencing others; it has a moral dimension that distinguishes it from other types of influence, such as coercion or despotic control. Leadership involves values, including showing respect for followers, being fair to others, and building community. It is not a process that we can demonstrate without showing our values. When we influence, we have an effect on others, which means we need to pay attention to our values and our ethics.

Third, research on ethical leadership clearly demonstrates benefits to the organization. When employees perceive that their leaders are ethical role models, there is less deviance and more cooperation, resulting in higher performance and organizational citizenship (Den Hartog, 2015). Kuenzi, Mayer, and Greenbaum (2019) found that ethical leadership predicts the ethical climate of the organization. The study also found that the ethical climate of an organization explains the relationship between ethical leadership and unethical behavior within work groups. When ethical leaders create ethical climates in organizations, it reinforces the role modeling of ethical behaviors for followers.

In addition, research has demonstrated that followers exhibit ethical norms, positive job attitudes, and constructive ethical behaviors because their leaders serve as role models when they behave ethically (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, &

Salvador, 2009). There appears to be a cascading effect. When leaders are ethical at higher organizational levels, followers emulate their behavior. The cascading effect has been explained by middle-level supervisors’ ethical efficacy expectations (the belief in their ability to be ethical) and their expectations of punishments for being unethical (Wang, Xu, & Liu, 2018). However, Thiel, Hardy, Peterson, Welsh, and Bonner (2018) found that the efficacy of ethical leadership is related to the leader’s number of followers; leaders with a wider span of control had fewer high-quality relationships and therefore had less influence on the ethical behavior of followers.

Fourth, ethical leadership has been linked to attitudinal, motivational, well-being, and performance-related outcomes; ethical norms and decisions; and ethical behaviors by followers. Ng and Feldman (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of 101 samples published over 15 years (29,620 respondents) and found that ethical leadership showed positive relationships to followers’ job attitudes, job performance, and evaluations of their leaders. Further, followers’ trust in the leader explained the relationships of ethical leadership with job attitudes and performance. A review of ethical leadership research concluded that it relates positively to satisfaction with the leader, perceived leader effectiveness, followers’ job dedication, willingness to report problems to management, well-being, LMX, organizational commitment, and trust and it is negatively related to cynicism (Den Hartog, 2015).

Finally, the measurement of ethical leadership has improved. For example, Brown, Treviño, and Harrison (2005) developed and validated a 10-item measure of ethical leadership (the Ethical Leadership Scale, ELS) that has been employed in subsequent research, and is the most widely used measure (Ng & Feldman, 2015) of ethical leadership.

CRITICISMS Although the area of ethics and leadership has many strengths, it also has some weaknesses. First, it remains an area of research in an early stage of development, and therefore lacks a strong body of traditional research findings to substantiate it. There is conceptual confusion regarding the nature and definition of ethical leadership (Yukl, Mahsud, Hassan, & Prussia, 2013). Den Hartog (2015) points out that some definitions are based on leader intentions (e.g., “do no harm”), while others describe leader behaviors based on follower perceptions (e.g., “asking what’s the right thing to do”). In addition, followers’ perceptions of their leaders may be biased. Although many studies have been published on business ethics, these studies have not been directly related to ethical leadership. One exception is the work of Yukl and colleagues (2013), who identified key components of ethical leadership as a result of their efforts to validate an ethical leadership questionnaire, which they developed based on existing measurement instruments that all had limitations. In this work, they suggest the construct domain of ethical leadership includes integrity, honesty, fairness, communication of ethical values, consistency of behavior with espoused values, ethical guidance, and altruism. In general, the dearth of research on leadership ethics makes speculation about the nature of ethical leadership difficult. Until more research studies have been conducted that deal directly with the ethical dimensions of leadership, theoretical formulations about the process will remain tentative.

Another criticism is that, in the past, leadership ethics relied on the writings of just a few people who have penned essays and texts that were strongly influenced by their personal opinions about the nature of leadership ethics and their view of the world. Although these writings, such as Heifetz’s and Burns’s, have stood the test of time, they have not been tested using traditional quantitative or qualitative research methods. They are primarily descriptive and anecdotal. In recent years, leadership ethics researchers have begun to develop the traditional kind of empirical support that usually accompanies accepted theories of human behavior.

Third, most of the research on ethical leadership has focused primarily on the Western world and Anglo-American countries (Eisenbeiss, 2012; Wilson & McCalman, 2017). There is a need to widen the scope of research on ethical leadership to include European and Asian perspectives because cultures vary widely in how they approach ethical leadership. As the world becomes more connected and cross-cultural, an understanding of these different cultural perspectives on ethical leadership will be important.

Fourth, there are also generational differences in ethical perspectives. From an analysis of the literature, Anderson, Baur, Griffith, and Buckley (2017) suggest that today’s generation of workers, millennials, presents unique challenges regarding ethical leadership. First, because millennials are more individualistic than older employees, they are less likely to view the intensity of moral decisions in the same way and less likely to look to their leaders for guidance on making ethical decisions. Second, because millennials see their work as less central to their lives, they are less likely to view ethical dilemmas at work as particularly problematic. Third, because millennials value highly extrinsic rewards, they are less likely to respond to ethical appeals to do the right thing for the organization. In fact, research suggests that these employees may be even more likely to succumb to temptations to be unethical if such behavior is likely to lead to pay-offs (Ethics Resource Center, 2011).

Because ethical perspectives can change quickly, empirical ethical leadership research will struggle to be up-to-date and relevant.

APPLICATION Although issues of morality and leadership are discussed more often in society today, these discussions have not resulted in a large number of programs in training and development designed to teach ethical leadership. Many new programs are oriented toward helping managers become more effective at work and in life in general, but these programs do not directly target the area of ethics and leadership.

Yet the ethics and leadership research in this chapter can be applied to people at all levels of organizations and in all walks of life. At a very minimum, it is crucial to state that leadership involves values, and one cannot be a leader without being aware of and concerned about one’s own values. Because leadership has a moral dimension, being a leader demands awareness on our part of the way our ethics defines our leadership.

For example, Moore et al. (2018) combined experiments and field research to demonstrate that ethical leadership reduces followers’ tendencies to morally disengage and then engage in deviant behavior. Moral disengagement is thinking that it is acceptable to take credit for someone else’s work. The authors cite Pope Francis as an example of how ethical leadership may reduce followers’ moral disengagement. During his first year as Pope, instead of kneeling for a symbolic touch of the feet of 12 priests on Holy Thursday, he washed and kissed the feet of 12 imprisoned juveniles. By treating marginalized people in this way, the Pope created a disconnect for followers who talk badly about those who are disenfranchised. He also became a role model for humility for his followers by moving from the Apostolic Palace to a small apartment and replacing the papal Mercedes with a Ford Focus.

Managers and leaders can use the information in research on ethical leadership to better understand themselves and strengthen their own leadership. Ethical theories can remind leaders to ask themselves, “What is the right and fair thing to do?” or “What would a good person do?” Leaders can use the ethical principles described in this research as benchmarks for their own behavior. Do I show respect to others? Do I act with a generous spirit? Do I show honesty and faithfulness to others? Do I serve the community? Finally, we can learn from the overriding theme in this research that the leader–follower relationship is central to ethical leadership. To be an ethical leader, we must be sensitive to the needs of others, treat others in ways that are just, and care for others.

CASE STUDIES The following section contains three case studies (Cases 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3) in which ethical leadership is needed. Case 15.1 describes a department chair who must choose which student will get a special assignment. Case 15.2 deals with the ethical issues surrounding how a human resource service company established the pricing for its services. Case 15.3 explores the events surrounding U.S. Navy Captain Brett Crozier’s firing for sounding the alarm about COVID-19 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. At the end of each case, there are questions that point to the intricacies and complexities of practicing ethical leadership.

Case 15.1

Choosing a Research Assistant

Dr. Angi Dirks is the chair of the state university’s organizational psychology department, which has four teaching assistants (TAs). Angi has just found out that she has received a grant for research work over the summer and that it includes money to fund one of the TAs as her research assistant. In Angi’s mind, the top two candidates are Roberto and Michelle, who are both available to work over the summer. Roberto, a foreign student from Venezuela, has gotten very high teaching evaluations and is well liked by the faculty. Roberto needs a summer job to help pay for school since it is too expensive for him to return home for the summer to work. Michelle is also an exceptional graduate student; she is married and doesn’t necessarily need the extra income, but she is going to pursue a PhD, so the extra experience would be beneficial to her future endeavors.

A third teaching assistant, Carson, commutes to school from a town an hour away, where he is helping to take care of his grandparents. Carson manages to juggle school, teaching, and his home responsibilities well, carrying a 4.0 GPA in his classwork. Angi knows Carson could use the money, but she is afraid that he has too many other responsibilities to take on the research project over the summer.

As Angi weighs which TA to offer the position, a faculty member approaches her about considering the fourth TA, Analisa. It’s been a tough year with Analisa as a TA. She has complained numerous times to her faculty mentor and to Angi that the other TAs treat her differently, and she thinks it’s racial discrimination. The student newspaper printed a column she wrote about “being a speck of brown in a campus of white,” in which she expressed her frustration with the predominantly white faculty’s inability to understand the unique perspectives and experiences of minority students. After the column came out, the faculty in the department became wary of working with Analisa, fearing becoming part of the controversy. Their lack of interaction with her made Analisa feel further alienated.

Angi knows that Analisa is a very good researcher and writer, and her skills would be an asset to the project. Analisa’s faculty mentor says that giving the position to her would go a long way to “smooth things over” between faculty and Analisa and make Analisa feel included in the department. Analisa knows about the open position and has expressed interest in it to her faculty mentor, but hasn’t directly talked to Angi. Angi is afraid that by not giving it to Analisa, she may stir up more accusations of ill treatment while at the same time facing accusations from others that she is giving Analisa preferential treatment.

Questions

1. Of the four options available to Angi, which is the most ethical? 2. Using the principles of distributive justice, who would Angi choose to become the research assistant? 3. From Heifetz’s perspective, can Angi use this decision to help her department and faculty face a difficult

situation? Should she? 4. Do you agree with Burns’s perspective that it is Angi’s responsibility to help followers assess their own values

and needs in order to raise them to a higher level that will stress values such as liberty, justice, and equality? If so, how can Angi do that through this situation?

Case 15.2

Reexamining a Proposal

After working 10 years as the only manager of color in a large printing company, David Jones decided he wanted to set out on his own. Because of his experience and prior connections, David was confident he could survive in the printing business, but he wondered whether he should buy an existing business or start a new one. As part of his planning, David contacted a professional employer organization (PEO), which had a sterling reputation, to obtain an estimate for human resource services for a startup company. The estimate was to include costs for payroll, benefits, worker’s compensation, and other traditional human resource services. Because David had not yet started his business, the PEO generated a generic quote applicable to a small company in the printing industry. In addition, because the PEO had nothing tangible to quote, it gave David a quote for human resource services that was unusually high.

In the meantime, David found an existing small company that he liked, and he bought it. Then he contacted the PEO to sign a contract for human resource services at the previously quoted price. David was ready to take ownership and begin his new venture. He signed the original contract as presented.

After David signed the contract, the PEO reviewed the earlier proposal in light of the actual figures of the company he had purchased. This review raised many concerns for management. Although the goals of the PEO were to provide high-quality service, be competitive in the marketplace, and make a reasonable profit, the quote it had provided David appeared to be much too high. It was not comparable in any way with the other service contracts the PEO had with other companies of similar size and function.

During the review, it became apparent that several concerns had to be addressed. First, the original estimate made the PEO appear as if it was gouging the client. Although the client had signed the original contract, was it fair to charge such a high price for the proposed services? Would charging such high fees mean that the PEO would lose this client or similar clients in the future? Another concern was related to the PEO’s support of businesses owned by people of color. For years, the PEO had prided itself on having strong values about affirmative action and fairness in the workplace, but this contract appeared to actually hurt and to be somewhat unfair to a Black client. Finally, the PEO was concerned with the implications of the contract for the salesperson who drew up the proposal for David. Changing the estimated costs in the proposal would have a significant impact on the salesperson’s commission, which would negatively affect the morale of others in the PEO’s sales area.

After a reexamination of the original proposal, a new contract was drawn up for David’s company with lower estimated costs. Though lower than the original proposal, the new contract remained much higher than the average contract in the printing industry. David willingly signed the new contract.

Questions

1. What role should ethics play in the writing of a proposal such as this? Did the PEO do the ethical thing for David? How much money should the PEO have tried to make? What would you have done if you were part of management at the PEO?

2. From a deontological (duty) perspective and a teleological (consequences) perspective, how would you describe the ethics of the PEO?

3. Based on what the PEO did for David, how would you evaluate the PEO on the ethical principles of respect, service, justice, honesty, and community?

4. How would you assess the ethics of the PEO if you were David? If you were among the PEO management? If you were the salesperson? If you were a member of the printing community?

Case 15.3

Ship Shape

The Cast

Commanding Officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt Captain Brett Crozier

Commander of Carrier Strike Group (oversees 7 ships including the USS Theodore Roosevelt)

Rear Admiral Stuart Baker

Acting U.S. Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly

U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper

The Crew Sailors and airmen aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt

Act 1—The Virus

It was believed to have begun on March 5, 2020, with the Vietnamese port call of the U.S. naval aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. The port call in Da Nang, only the second visit by an American aircraft carrier to the country since the Vietnam War, was ordered partly as a show of military strength in a region threatened by perceived growing territorialism by China in the South China Sea.

At the time the Roosevelt arrived there, Vietnam had 16 reported cases of the highly contagious coronavirus (COVID- 19), but they were all in the country’s northern region, far from the ship’s port of call. Because the Roosevelt, commanded by Captain Brett Crozier, a Naval Academy graduate with more than 30 years of service, was too large for the city’s docks, the ship anchored offshore and relied on small boats to ferry its sailors to Da Nang, where they spent several days within the city, frequenting its restaurants, shops, and hotels and engaging in community service projects. On the fourth day, several crew members were ordered back to the ship when it was feared they may have been exposed to COVID-19 at a hotel where two British nationals who had tested positive for the virus had also been staying.

The Roosevelt then left port and headed out to sea, returning to normal operations with aircraft flying to and from the ship bringing supplies from Japan and the Philippines. Meanwhile, the ship’s medical team watched the crew closely for signs of the virus, knowing that symptoms generally appear within the first 14 days after exposure.

On March 24, an announcement came over the ship’s loudspeakers: “Set River City 1.” This alerted the sailors that the ship had entered into a period of restricted communications, meaning no internet or phone calls for most everyone onboard. The reason why, the crew soon discovered, was that three sailors aboard the Roosevelt had tested positive for COVID-19. Within 24 hours, the number of cases on the ship doubled and each subsequent day rendered new cases (Simkins, 2020).

The Roosevelt, a massive 1,000-foot nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, is essentially a small city. It housed almost 5,000 crew members, all living and working in extremely tight quarters. Crew members shared common cafeterias, bathroom facilities, other social areas, and narrow hallways. They worked in close proximity to one another day and night. Even their sleeping quarters were close with bunks often stacked three high.

The sailors who tested positive were all members of the reactor crew, the group responsible for running the core of the ship. They were flown to a Navy hospital in Guam, with the ship following a few days later, docking there to begin testing of the entire crew and engage in professional cleaning of the ship.

Just a few months earlier, the Diamond Princess, a cruise ship of 2,600 passengers housed in individual cabins, had eight of its passengers die of the virus while aboard with more than 700 others infected. Captain Crozier knew the Roosevelt, with its tight quarters and significantly larger crew, had the potential to be much worse than the Diamond Princess; the Roosevelt’s doctors were estimating that more than 50 crew members could potentially die from the virus (Gibbons-Neff, Schmitt, Cooper, & Ismay, 2020).

Act 2—The Letter

As the cases aboard the Roosevelt rapidly increased, several options were considered with Captain Crozier arguing strongly for evacuating nearly all the sailors from the ship, leaving a skeleton crew of around 500 to perform essential duties and protect the vessel’s reactors, bombs, missiles, and war planes. The rest of the crew would be quarantined and tested while the ship was cleaned.

Captain Crozier’s commanding officer, Rear Admiral Stuart Baker, disagreed, feeling that less drastic action would still protect the crew and leave the ship in operation. Ultimately, 1,000 of the ship’s crew were evacuated to a gymnasium on base where they slept on cots, which quickly resulted in several more confirmed cases.

After continued denials from his superiors and watching the situation escalate each day, on March 30, Captain Crozier laid out his concerns and arguments in a four-page letter titled, Request for Assistance in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic. The letter was sent via unclassified email and addressed to Crozier’s commanding officer, Rear Admiral Stuart Baker, U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral John Aquilino, and Naval Air Forces Commander Vice Admiral DeWolfe Miller as well as copied to seven other Navy captains (Simpkins, 2020).

According to the New York Times, prior to sending the letter, Captain Crozier shared the email with several of the Roosevelt’s most senior officers. When they expressed their desire to add their signatures to the letter, Captain Crozier refused, fearing for their careers, knowing the letter might well end his (Cooper, Gibbons-Neff, Schmitt, & Cochrane, 2020).

Pleading for assistance and consideration, Captain Crozier wrote, “This will require a political solution, but it is the right thing to do . . . We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our sailors” (Gafni & Garofoli, 2020). Noting that only a small group of infected crewmen had been removed from the ship and quarantined, and that “the spread of the disease is ongoing and accelerating,” Crozier requested “compliant quarantine rooms” be provided on shore in Guam for his entire crew “as soon as possible” (Gafni & Garofoli, 2020).

The letter was leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle and the plight of the crewmen on the USS Theodore Roosevelt soon became public knowledge in the midst of a worldwide pandemic.

Act 3—Retribution

Infuriated that the letter had been sent to what he considered a wide distribution (though the recipients were all Navy personnel) and consequently became public due to being leaked to the press, acting U.S. secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly fired Captain Crozier on April 2.

Modly, himself a Naval Academy graduate and former Navy helicopter pilot, was the acting secretary positioned to become the permanent Secretary of the Navy. He had replaced Richard Spencer, who had been fired by U.S. president Donald Trump for opposing Trump’s support of a Navy Seal who had been charged with war crimes. According to the New York Times, Modly, concerned that Captain Crozier’s letter would anger Trump, sought the advice of colleagues, including the chief of naval operations and the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, who counseled Modly to first order an investigation (Gibbons-Neff, Schmitt, Cooper, & Ismay, 2020). He did not.

Although Modly acknowledged that there was “no evidence that Captain Crozier leaked the message” to the media (Cooper, Gibbons-Neff, Schmitt, & Cochrane, 2020) he quickly relieved the captain of his duties without a formal investigation and, according to Modly’s aides, without pressure from his superiors, U.S. defense secretary Mark Esper or U.S. president Donald Trump. NavyTimes would later report that Modly ignored the counsel of his colleagues, “due to the belief that President Donald Trump wanted Crozier fired” (Simkins, 2020).

Modly’s immediate superior, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, had previously cautioned his commanders not to make decisions that might contradict Trump’s intended messaging on the growing COVID-19 pandemic. Modly tried to frame the firing of Captain Crozier as a “loss of confidence” rather than retribution by claiming the letter had “raised alarm bells unnecessarily” and that “in sending it out broadly, he [Crozier] did not take care to assure it couldn’t be leaked” (Cooper, Gibbons-Neff, Schmitt, & Cochrane, 2020).

As Captain Crozier left his ship, hundreds of sailors and airmen gathered to form a “corridor” for him to openly express their support for the popular and highly respected commander. Videos of this went viral. In response, Modly chartered a Gulf Stream business jet and flew immediately to Guam at a cost of $243,000 where he delivered a scathing, profanity-laced 15-minute reprimand to the Roosevelt’s crew over the ship’s public address system (Gibbons-Neff, Schmitt, & Ismay, 2020). Modly berated the crew for cheering the captain, calling Crozier “too stupid” and “too naïve” to command a ship and adding that blame for the virus belonged to China. Thirty minutes later, he abruptly left, fielding no questions.

Within 30 minutes of his departure from the Roosevelt, social media was widely broadcasting audio recordings of his tirade.

Act 4—R&R: Resignation and Reinstatement?

When Acting Secretary Modly landed back in Washington, D.C., he was immediately directed by Defense Secretary Esper to apologize. Lawmakers and former military officials were calling for Modly’s resignation.

The next day, Modly, in quarantine because of his potential exposure to the virus while onboard the Roosevelt, tendered his resignation.

Captain Crozier subsequently ended up in quarantine at the naval base in Guam, battling the virus. More than 4,000 of the ship’s crew members were also quarantined with more than 800 testing positive for the virus and one crew member dying from it.

But Captain Crozier’s plight and that of the USS Theodore Roosevelt’s crew had caught the attention of senior military officials and raised awareness and concern for other warships and missions. General John Hyten, chair of the joint chiefs of staff shared, “From my perspective, it’s not a good idea to think that the Teddy Roosevelt is a one-of-a-kind issue. To think that it will never happen again is not a good way to plan” (Gibbons-Neff, Schmitt, & Ismay, 2020).

The Navy subsequently instituted new health and safety procedures for ships at sea and for those preparing to head out on deployment to prevent future outbreaks, including requiring crew members to wear masks and observe social distancing guidelines. In addition, in preparation for deployment, a ship’s crew must be quarantined for 14 days before boarding the ship.

More than 345,000 people signed an online petition to reinstate Captain Crozier. Legislators urged the Pentagon to reconsider. The chair of the House Armed Services Committee and other top subcommittee leaders condemned Crozier’s dismissal, stating that “Dismissing a commanding officer for speaking out on issues critical to the safety of those under their command discourages others from raising similar concerns” (Cooper, Gibbons-Neff, Schmitt, & Cochrane, 2020).

Amidst pressure from the public and lawmakers, and after a preliminary inquiry, the Navy’s top leadership took the unprecedented step to recommend reinstatement of Captain Crozier as commander of the USS Theodore Roosevelt. The final decision on whether Captain Crozier would be reinstated as captain of the USS Roosevelt was delayed by acting Navy secretary James E. McPherson (who replaced Thomas Modly) who has called for a broader investigation into the matter (Martinez, 2020). At the time this was written, Crozier remained in the Navy, maintaining his rank, but had been given a temporary duty assignment in San Diego (Ziesulewicz, 2020).

Questions

1. The chapter states that “a leader’s choices are also influenced by their moral development.” Applying Kohlberg’s stages of moral development to this case:

a. At what stage would you classify Captain Crozier’s level of moral reasoning? Why? b. At what stage would you classify Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly’s level of moral reasoning? Why? c. What about Rear Admiral Stuart Baker? Why? d. What level would you classify Defense Secretary Mark Esper? Why?

2. The chapter outlines three different approaches to assessing consequences—ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism.

a. Which of these approaches do you feel most accurately summarizes Captain Brett Crozier’s approach? Why?

b. Which of these do you feel most accurately summarizes Acting Secretary Thomas Modly’s approach? Why?

c. Which approach applies to Rear Admiral Stuart Baker? 3. What elements described in the Toxic Leadership Triangle, were evident in this case? Do you think there are

examples of destructive leadership in this case? Explain your answer. 4. The chapter outlines five Principles of Ethical Leadership. Which of these principles applied to Captain Brett

Crozier’s leadership? Which principles applied to Thomas Modly’s leadership?

—Barbara Russell, MBA, BSCS, BBA, Chemeketa Community College

Leadership Instrument

It is human to want others to see you as an ethical leader, because being viewed as an unethical leader can carry with it very strong negative connotations. But the social desirability of being judged by others as an ethical leader makes measuring ethical leadership challenging. Self-reported scores of ethical leadership are often biased and skewed in a positive direction.

The Ethical Leadership Style Questionnaire (ELSQ) presented in this chapter is a self-reporting measure of ethical leadership that does not measure whether one is or is not ethical, but rather assesses the leader’s style of ethical leadership. The ELSQ is a 45-question instrument that measures how a leader approaches ethical dilemmas. The six ethical styles assessed by the dilemmas are (a) duty ethics (I would do what is right), (b) utilitarianism ethics (I would do what benefits the most people), (c) virtue ethics (I would do what a good person would do), (d) caring ethics (I would do what shows that I care about my close personal relationships), (e) egoism ethics (I would do what benefits me the most), and (f) justice ethics (I would do what is fair). Based on the individual’s responses, the ELSQ identifies a leader’s primary and secondary ethical leadership styles.

Although the ELSQ is in its initial stages of development, data from two studies (Baehrend, 2016; Chikeleze, 2014) confirmed that when leaders face ethical dilemmas, they have a preference for a particular style of ethical leadership. The ELSQ can be used by leaders as a self-assessment tool to understand their decision-making preferences when confronting ethical dilemmas. Organizations will find it a useful training tool to educate leaders on decision making (Chikeleze & Baehrend, 2017).

Ethical Leadership Style Questionnaire (Short Form)

Purpose: To develop an understanding of your ethical leadership style and understand how your preferred ethical leadership style relates to other ethical leadership styles.

Instructions: Please read the following 10 hypothetical situations in which a leader is confronted with an ethical dilemma. Place yourself in the role of the leader or manager in the situation and indicate with an “X” your most preferred response. Your most preferred response is the response that best describes why you would do what you would do in that particular situation. Choose only one response. There are no right or wrong answers.

Response alternatives explained:

I would do what is right: This option includes following the rules, meeting my responsibilities, fulfilling my obligations, and adhering to organization policy. Rules in this context may be explicit or implicit.

I would do what benefits the most people: This option includes doing what helps the most people overall and what creates the greatest total happiness. It also includes doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

I would do what a good person would do: This option includes exhibiting excellence of character, acting with integrity, and being faithful to one’s principles. This option includes employing virtues such as courage, honesty, and loyalty.

I would do what shows that I care about my close relationships: This option includes building and maintaining caring relationships, nurturing relationships, and being responsive to the needs of others. It gives special consideration to those with whom I share a personal bond or commitment.

I would do what benefits me the most: This option includes achieving my goals, being successful in my assigned task, and advancing my career. It also includes doing things that are in my self-interest.

I would do what is fair: This option includes acting with justice, being equitable to others, and treating others fairly. It also includes distributing benefits and burdens to everyone equally.

Situations

1. You are the leader of a manufacturing team and learn that your employees are falsifying product quality results to sell more products. If you report the matter, most of them will lose their jobs, you may lose yours, and your company will take a significant hit to its reputation. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair.

2. You have an employee who has been having performance problems, which is making it hard for your group to meet its work quota. This person was recommended to you as a solid performer. You now believe the person’s former manager had problems with the employee and just wanted to get rid of the person. If you give the underperforming employee a good recommendation, leaving out the performance problems, you will have an opportunity to pass the employee off to another group. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair.

3. Your team is hard-pressed to complete a critical project. You hear about a job opening that would be much better for one of your key employees’ career. If this individual leaves the team, it would put the project in danger. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair.

4. An employee of yours has a child with a serious illness and is having trouble fulfilling obligations at work. You learn from your administrative assistant that this employee claimed 40 hours on a time sheet for a week when the employee actually only worked 30 hours. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair.

5. You are a manager, and some of your employees can finish their quotas in much less than the allotted time to do so. If upper management becomes aware of this, they will want you to increase the quotas. Some of your employees are unable to meet their current quotas. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair. 6. You are an organization’s chief financial officer, and you are aware that the chief executive officer and other

members of the senior leadership team want to provide exaggerated financial information to keep the company’s stock price high. The entire senior management team holds significant stock positions. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair.

7. Two new employees have joined your accounting team right out of school. They are regularly found surfing the Internet or texting on their phones. Your accounting work regularly requires overtime at the end of the month to get the financial reports completed. These employees refuse to do any overtime, which shifts work to other team members. The other team members are getting resentful and upset. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair.

8. You are the director of a neighborhood food cooperative. A member—a single parent with four children—is caught shoplifting $30 in groceries from the co-op. You suspect this person has been stealing for years. You consider pressing charges. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair.

9. You have been accused of discriminating against a particular gender in your hiring practices. A new position opens up, and you could hire a candidate of the gender you’ve been accused of discriminating against over a candidate of another gender, even though the latter candidate has slightly better qualifications. Hiring the former candidate would let you address this accusation and improve your reputation in the company. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair. 10. You are a professor. One of your best students buys an essay online and turns it in for a grade. Later in the

term, the student begins to feel guilty and confesses to you that the paper was purchased. It is the norm at the university to fail a student guilty of plagiarism. You must decide if you will flunk the student. What would you do in this situation?

□ A. I would do what is right.

□ B. I would do what benefits the most people.

□ C. I would do what a good person would do.

□ D. I would do what shows that I care about my relationships.

□ E. I would do what benefits me the most.

□ F. I would do what is fair.

Scoring

To score the questionnaire, sum the number of times you selected item A, B, C, D, E, or F. The sum of A responses represents your preference for Duty Ethics, the sum of B responses represents your preference for Utilitarian Ethics, the sum of C responses represents your preference for Virtue Ethics, the sum of D responses represents your preference for Caring Ethics, the sum of E responses represents your preference for Egoism Ethics, and the sum of F responses represents your preference for Justice Ethics. Place these sums in the Total Scores section that follows.

A. Duty Ethics: __________ B. Utilitarian Ethics: __________ C. Virtue Ethics: __________ D. Caring Ethics: __________ E. Egoism Ethics: __________ F. Justice Ethics: __________

Scoring Interpretation

The scores you received on this questionnaire provide information about your ethical leadership style; they represent your preferred way of addressing ethical dilemmas. Given a situation with an ethical dilemma, this questionnaire points to what ethical perspective is behind the choices you would make to resolve the dilemma. As you look at your total scores, your highest score represents your primary or dominant ethical leadership style, your second-highest score is the next most important, and so on. If you scored 0 for a category, it means that you put lower priority on that particular ethical approach to guide your decision making when facing ethical dilemmas.

If you scored higher on Duty Ethics, it means you follow the rules and do what you think you are supposed to do when facing ethical dilemmas. You focus on fulfilling your responsibilities and doing what you think is the right thing to do.

If you scored higher on Utilitarian Ethics, it means you try to do what is best for the most people overall when facing ethical dilemmas. You focus on what will create happiness for the largest number of individuals.

If you scored higher on Virtue Ethics, it means that you pull from who you are (your character) when facing ethical dilemmas. You act out of integrity, and you are faithful to your own principles of goodness.

If you scored higher on Caring Ethics, it means that you give attention to your relationships when facing ethical dilemmas. You may give special consideration to those with whom you share a personal bond or commitment.

If you scored higher on Egoism Ethics, it means that you do what is best for yourself when facing ethical dilemmas. You are not afraid to assert your own interests and goals when resolving problems.

If you scored higher on Justice Ethics, it means that you focus on treating others fairly when facing ethical dilemmas. You try to make sure the benefits and burdens of decisions are shared equitably between everyone concerned.

Comparing your scores regarding each of these ethical perspectives can give you a sense of what is important to you when addressing an ethical concern. A low score in any of the categories suggests that you give less priority to that ethical perspective. All of the ethical perspectives have merit, so there is no “best” perspective to maintain.

This questionnaire is intended as a self-assessment exercise. Although each ethical approach is presented as a discrete category, it is possible that one category may overlap with another category. It is also possible that you may have an ethical leadership style that is not fully captured in this questionnaire. Since this questionnaire is an abridged version of an expanded questionnaire, you may wish to take the full questionnaire to gain a more accurate reflection of your ethical approach. It can be taken at www.leaderdecisionmakingsurvey.com.

—Abridged and adapted from the Ethical Leadership Style Questionnaire, www.leaderdecisionmakingsurvey.com