1
Ethics in Public Leadership
Sam Sparks
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
PADM 712
Dr. Michael Collins
September 4, 2025
.
Introduction
Ethics serve as both a guide for and the foundation of the interactions that take place
between leaders and stakeholders. As such, public organizations assume those whom they place
in such positions are inherently ethical (Van Wart, 2015, p. 143). Most are, but the extent to
which that is true varies considerably. Most act with integrity. Others take ethics a step further
and seek to reflect attributes like morality and authenticity in their interactions and
2
decisionmaking. A few operate from a biblical perspective by envisioning themselves as servants
or agents of change. The purpose of this essay is to analyze and discuss the characteristics of
ethical leaders and to discern which of these types embrace and fulfill the principles of biblical
leadership.
The Basic Integrity Model of the Virtuous Leader
In his discussion of leadership theories, Van Wart (2015, p. 144) argued that fundamental
integrity is not just a desirable trait but an inherent attribute of leadership. As such, those serving
in positions of leadership should consistently and wholeheartedly reflect this virtue in their
actions and decision-making. Van Wart further contended that integrity is a multifaceted concept
comprising three components: honesty, trustworthiness, and fairness. He defined honesty as a
deliberate and continuous effort to tell the truth all the time and in every circumstance, whether
in writing or speech. He defined trustworthiness as knowing one’s values and convictions,
reflecting those values and convictions in one’s thoughts and actions, and possessing the ability
to share them with others. Lastly, he defined fairness as an awareness of and determination to
follow the law, combined with a willingness to ensure that others do the same.
It is rare to witness integrity and virtue being lived out in an administrator’s daily life, but
it is not impossible. Virtuous individuals model honesty by refraining from telling lies of
omission, such as white lies and polite lies, and by being forthcoming in all personal and public
matters (Van Wart, 2015, p. 144). They demonstrate trustworthiness through their dedication to
public service, by acknowledging a desire to work for the betterment of all, and by adhering to
the principles of the rule of law. Lastly, they demonstrate fairness by exhibiting impartiality in
both their personal and professional interactions.
3
Caldwell et al. (2015, p. 1181) argued that a correlation exists between the electorate’s
growing discontent with and distrust of their public administrators and the decline of ethics in
public sector organizations. They further suggested that the prevailing sentiment is that morality
no longer exists in these agencies, primarily in response to perceived failures of leadership and a
belief that employees are free to do what they must to get the job done. The attributes they
associated with inherent virtue and integrity were similar to those mentioned by Van Wart (2015,
p. 144), but they included competence, courage, clarity, and compassion. Van Wart did not
discuss the lack of virtue in public organizations. Still, he did contend that citizens value honesty,
trustworthiness, and fairness higher than competence in their administrators.
The Ethical Leader as a Moral Manager
Compliance is not just important. It is essential in public sector organizations, as they
strive to fulfill their purpose (Van Wart, 2015, p. 145). As such, their leaders bear the significant
burden of not only managing their own actions and behaviors but also those of their subordinates
to ensure that they comply with the pertinent and applicable moral expectations of the position.
Leaders must establish clear guidelines and regulations that outline all of the expectations, rules,
and policies related to employee conduct and behavior. They must facilitate their employees’
understanding through clear explanations and practical instruction. These guidelines must be
revised often, and all employees must be notified of the revisions. Finally, the policies must be
fairly and consistently enforced.
Prayote (2016, pp. 578-580) defined public sector ethics and morality as the process by
which administrators identify applicable ethical standards, analyze those standards, and hold
themselves accountable for moral decision-making. He contended that the process involves two
4
steps. The first consists of developing the standards. The last is associated with enforcement and
compliance. Prayote argued that numerous public sector agencies have neglected to address
ethics appropriately because these agencies have continued to operate on the assumption that
their administrators are inherently moral. Instead, they choose to focus on other issues such as
creating public value, maximizing efficiency, and improving effectiveness.
Caiden (1981, p. 146) contended that the rise in public sector corruption is primarily
attributable to administrators' failure to meet the ethical expectations associated with public
sector employment. Ethical failures are further exacerbated by the amount of publicity they
generate. The result is a substantial loss of trust. Representatives lose trust in their associates, and
citizens lose confidence in the system. As such, public leaders must remain cognizant of the
potential for these lapses to occur and continually work to prevent them from happening.
Caiden (1981, p. 146) discussed a meeting of the International Conference on the
Improvement of Public Management. Agenda items included public responsibility, ethical
dilemmas, education and training, public value, and effective training methods. Four issues
merited further consideration:
1. The development of organization-specific ethics training and education programs.
2. The limitation of discretion in issues with ethical implications.
3. The adoption and implementation of a code of ethics in each organization.
4. The frequent review of relevant literature.
The Ethical Leader as Authentic
Van Wart (2015, p. 146) contended that authentic leaders are fully aware of their values,
emotions, and levels of understanding. Authentic leaders are credible, principled, and impartial.
5
Additionally, they convey respect and are willing to be held accountable for their thoughts and
actions. Van Wart noted that their subordinates appreciate their ability to keep their egos in check
in times of criticism. Subordinates are more willing to relay honest opinions and feedback to
authentic leaders because they do not fear repercussions. Authentic leaders exude transparency,
which enables them to add value to their relationships with fellow stakeholders.
Numerous strengths and weaknesses are associated with authentic leadership (Van Wart,
2015, p. 146). Concerning strengths, authentic leaders remain aware of the ever-evolving
expectations associated with holding public positions and adjust their actions accordingly. Their
heightened sense of awareness enables them to recognize and address not only their own
emotional struggles but also those of their coworkers. Concerning weaknesses, many scholars
argue that authentic leaders often fail to exceed the routine expectations of their positions.
In their discussion of authentic leadership, Vogel et al. (2023, p. 1505) argued that
authentic leaders are fully aware of themselves, their beliefs, and the values they hold, and that
they intend to act in accordance with those values. They also contended that authentic leaders
have a positive impact on organizational stakeholders. Internal stakeholders believe them to be
honest and trustworthy communicators because they mean what they say and say what they
mean, and their actions and behavior help compel external stakeholders to support and embrace
the organization's mission.
Vogel et al. (2023, p. 1506) praised the authentic leader’s transparency. The authors
correlated it with their ability to improve mission valence, which is defined as the views
stakeholders hold regarding an organization's performance, its appeal or prominence, and the
contributions it makes to society. This is especially impactful when dealing with internal
6
stakeholders, as they are the individuals ultimately responsible for fulfilling the mission. In
summation, authentic leaders motivate and inspire.
The Ethical Leader as Spiritual Mentor to Followers, Clients, and Constituents
Van Wart (2015, p. 147) contended that the normative concept of the ethical leader as
spiritual mentor is one of the more recent developments in the study of leadership. He attributed
the idea to a few of the world’s most renowned humanitarians and argued that it is based on the
belief that the leader’s purpose is to serve the people. This idea directly contradicts other schools
of thought on this matter. Those who subscribe to this perspective view leadership as a privilege
and feel that a leader’s worth will ultimately be determined by the following:
1. Did the well-being of their followers, clients, and constituents improve under their
tutelage?
2. Were their followers, clients, and constituents more empowered as a result of their
leadership?
3. Were they humble in their success?
Spiritual leaders differentiate from others in numerous ways (Van Wart, 2015, p. 147).
They believe that the power (authority) lies with the powerless. They hold a broader and more
diverse view of stakeholdership. As such, they work for the benefit of others, not themselves.
They view leadership as a calling, consistently prioritizing the needs of others. Lastly, spiritual
mentors have compassion for others, and their end goal is the betterment of society.
Lahmar et al. (2025) contended that spiritual leadership is a three-dimensional concept,
with the organization's vision being the first dimension. Spiritual leaders strive to craft a clear
and compelling vision that motivates and encourages others. The second dimension is hope.
7
Hope is a necessary attribute of the vision. The vision must not only be principled and appealing
but also simple enough for others to believe that they can make it happen. The last dimension is a
concern for others. Spiritual leaders place their love for others above their love of self. This is an
essential aspect of spiritual leadership, primarily because spiritual leaders believe they are
fulfilling their purpose when they respond to a call to serve. They are not doing so solely for their
own personal gain.
The Ethical Leader as a Transforming Agent of Change for the Common Good
In his discussion of transformational and transforming leaders, Van Wart (2015, p. 150)
elaborated on their differences. He contended that transformational leaders evoke change,
whether for the better or for the worse. Some do so for the good of the people. Others do so to
satisfy their own selfish ambitions. As such, they may or may not be ethical leaders.
Transforming leaders, on the other hand, respond when the people call for change. They evoke
beneficial, permanent change, and their stakeholders are better off because they answered the
call. As agents and facilitators of positive change, transforming leaders are ethical.
As with the other types of leaders Van Wart discussed, numerous benefits are associated
with transforming leadership (Van Wart, 2015, p. 150). Transforming leaders enact wholesale
change. It is complete and long-lasting. They know how they fit in the organizational landscape,
and willingly check their egos at the door. Moreover, they separate ambition from purpose.
Lastly, their leadership style is well-suited for public organizations. Both work for the benefit of
the people.
In their discussion of transformational leadership, Denhardt & Campbell (2006) used the
terms transforming leaders and transformational leaders interchangeably. The authors noted
8
several differences between transforming leaders and the other leadership types. Transforming
leaders have a deeper understanding of stakeholders and their needs, and the relationships they
establish with them are more intimate and rewarding than those of other leaders with their
constituents. For example, both parties are better off as a result of their collaboration.
Transforming leaders are uniquely charismatic, and their charisma likely is what compels others
to commit to and sacrifice for the causes they champion. Transforming leaders are agents for
good because the changes they evoke are values-based and morally appropriate.
Spiritual-Servant Leadership in Public Sector Organizations
The reality is that spiritual-servant leadership in public sector organizations varies
considerably from other leadership models in many respects (Van Wart, 2015, p. 149). Authority
is the first. Van Wart argued that spiritual-servant leaders believe that they receive their authority
from those they are assisting. As such, they feel privileged to have been given the opportunity.
Perception is the second. Van Wart contrasted their humility with the high levels of
selfconfidence exhibited by other leaders. Orientation is the third. Spiritual-servant leaders are
externally oriented. They focus on others and their needs, not on themselves. Mission is the
fourth. Spiritual-servant leaders believe their mission is to repair and restore. They possess keen
senses of awareness and are willing and able to show empathy and compassion to those around
them. The last variation involves purpose. Spiritual-servant leaders covet the overall betterment
of their communities and the individuals living in them.
King (2007) discussed the unique challenges that spiritual-servant leaders face in public
sector organizations, which include establishing relationships and navigating legal issues.
Overall, the American electorate is more secular than it has ever been, and secular individuals
9
have little regard for religion and religious people. They question their integrity and sincerity to
the extent that they have little trust in them. Others may trust them but feel that they are too
divisive to hold positions of authority. It is challenging for servant leaders to meet and interact
with stakeholders who distrust them and believe they have no role in public sector organizations.
While the Constitution protects religious expression, the extent to which these protections
apply to public sector employees is substantially diminished (King, 2007). Servant leaders must
tailor their speech and actions to accommodate the following scenarios:
1. They lose their free speech protection when the employee’s interest is outweighed by the
government’s interest in the provision of goods and services.
2. They lose their free speech protection when the rights of fellow stakeholders are
infringed upon.
3. They lose their free speech protection when it gives the appearance that the government
is endorsing a particular religion.
Are Ethical Codes Enough for the Christian Leader?
This author contends that the adoption and implementation of ethics codes is insufficient
if the goal is to ensure ethical behavior in public organizations and institutions (Manning, 2017).
He will reference a tactic commonly used in Congress to support his contention (Schmidt et al.,
2019). Incoming senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives are expected to
read, review, and sign ethics codes that are specifically applicable to their positions. The codes
establish behavioral expectations, give guidelines and suggestions for avoiding conflicts of
interest, and detail the financial expectations for members. The codes intend to curb certain types
of undesirable behavior. However, they are only moderately effective.
10
Members frequently engage in a tactic known as logrolling, in which they agree to
support legislation proposed by a fellow member, provided that the member will do the same for
the legislation they propose (Schmidt et al., 2019). Typically, this type of agreement is only
necessary when the legislation in question provides funding for a specific district or project. This
type of funding is called an earmark. Earmarks bypass the traditional evaluation process. As
such, members engage in logrolling as a means of ensuring the passage of legislation. Logrolling
is not illegal, but it is unethical.
Do Christian Leaders Have a Higher Biblical Moral Obligation?
Christian leaders have a greater biblical moral obligation than others. This thought is
evident in James’ warning that few should become teachers because they will be judged more
strictly (King James Bible, 1769/2017, James 3:1-2). Admittedly, notable differences exist between
teachers and leaders, but both hold positions of authority. The God who establishes kingdoms
and their leaders is the same God who deposes them once his purpose for doing so is fulfilled
(Daniel 2:21). As such, Christian leaders must earnestly seek to discern and fulfill the purposes
that God established for them. Biblical Leadership Passage
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other
better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things
of others (King James Bible, 1769/2017, Philippians 2:3-4).
The aforementioned passage from the Book of Philippians serves as an excellent guide
regarding the expectations, purposes, and responsibilities of servant leadership. The guidelines
established in the passage mirror those that Van Wart (2015) contended were present in the
spiritual-servant leadership model. Van Wart argued that humility was a core value of servant
11
leadership. The passage alludes to humility in its reference to the lowliness of mind. Van Wart
praised servant leaders for their willingness to disrupt their workloads to assist troubled
coworkers. The passage calls Christians to be mindful of others and their struggles. Lastly, Van
Wart suggested that the primary purpose of servant leadership was to live one’s life for others.
The passage instructs Christians to value others more than themselves. Servant leadership is
embodied in this passage.
Conclusion
Leadership bears a significant resemblance to life in that everyone has the freedom to plot
their course. One may lead or live as ethically or unethically as one desires. Still, it is God who
establishes one’s purpose in both. It is up to the individual to discern and accomplish His
purpose. Servant and transformational leaders know their hierarchical roles and responsibilities
and earnestly seek to accomplish the purposes that God established for them. They are the
epitome of integrity, morality, and authenticity, and their thoughts and actions reflect positively
upon the organizations they work for and the God they serve.
References
Caldwell, C., Hasan, Z., & Smith, S. (2015). Virtuous leadership - Insights for the 21st
century. The Journal of Management Development, 34(9), 1181-1200.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD - 11 - 2014 - 0148
Caiden, G. E. (1981). Ethics in the public service: Codification misses the real target. Public
Personnel Management, 10(1), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260810100012 1
12
Denhardt, J. V., & Campbell, K. B. (2006). The role of democratic values in transformational
leadership. Administration & Society, 38(5), 556-572.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399706289714
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/
(Original work published 1769)
King, S. M. (2007). Religion, spirituality, and the workplace: Challenges for public
administration, Public Administration Review, 67(1), 103-114.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540 - 6210.2006.00700.x
Lahmar, H., Chaouki, F., & Rodhain, F. (2025). Spiritual leadership in public management:
Insights from Moroccan public sector leaders. Journal of Human Values.
https://doi.org/10.1177/097168582513584 55
Manning, P. (2017). Faith, Leadership, and Public Life: Leadership Lessons from Moses to
Jesus. Castle Quay Books.
Prayote, S. (2016). Managing ethics in public sector: Integrity approaches. Jurnal Studi
Pemerintahan, 7(4), 578-593.
Schmidt, S. W., Shelley, M. C., & Bardes, B. A. (2019). American Government and Politics Today, 2018-
2019 (Brief Edition). Cengage.
Van Wart, M. (2015). Leadership in Public Service Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Vogel, R., Vogel, D., & Reuber, A. (2023). Finding a mission in bureaucracies: How authentic
leadership and red tape interact. Public Administration, 101(4), 1503–1525.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12895
