ATTN: Pro. Dan.

Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future

Nicola M. Pless • Thomas Maak

Published online: 29 November 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract This article maps current thinking in the

emerging field of responsible leadership. Various envi-

ronmental and social forces have triggered interest in both

research and practices of responsible leadership. This

article outlines the main features of the relevant research,

specifies a definition of the concept, and compares this

emergent understanding of responsible leadership with

related leadership theories. Finally, an overview of differ-

ent articles in this special issue sketches some pathways for

ongoing research.

Keywords Responsible leadership � Leadership theories and responsibility � Research perspectives

Why Responsible Leadership?

The answer to this question is multifold. In the introduc-

tion to their article on an ‘‘alternative perspective of

responsible leadership,’’ Waldman and Galvin (2008)

suggest a response related to the deficiencies of existing

theory and its influence on leadership practice. Specifically,

they propose that responsibility is missing from estab-

lished leadership descriptors, such as transformational,

charismatic, authentic, participative, servant, shared, or

even spiritual and ethical leadership, ‘‘and that it is actually

this element that is at the heart of what effective leadership

is all about. In a nutshell, to not be responsible is not to be

effective as a leader’’ (Waldman and Galvin 2008, p. 327).

Accordingly, we witness a growing discussion about the

appropriateness of current leadership theories to address

pertinent leadership challenges. This discussion often cites

the role and responsibilities of business leaders in society,

frequently in light of social and environmental crises such

as the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, the Bhopal disaster for

Union Carbide, Shell’s Brent Spar and Nigerian failures,

and Nike’s sweatshops, to name but a few. These incidents

triggered ongoing debate about corporate-level responsi-

bility; more recent discussions of responsible leadership

have been inflamed by business scandals and individual

leadership failures at the start of the millennium—most

prominently the demise of Enron and Arthur Andersen.

Following the fall from grace of the ‘‘smartest guys in the

room’’ (…), new laws and regulation arose, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, followed by a critical academic

debate about the impact of greed and reckless self-interest

in managerial decision-making. The discussion recognized

‘‘bad management theories [were] destroying good man-

agement practice’’ (Ghoshal 2005) and cited the need for

‘‘managers, not MBAs’’ (Mintzberg 2004), that is, profes-

sionals with higher aims and not just ‘‘hired hands’’

(Khurana 2007). Moreover, a call went out for ‘‘Respon-

sible Global Leadership’’ from the European Foundation of

Management Development, leading to the emergence of

PRME, an educational offshoot of the UN Global Compact

that seeks to incorporate the Compact’s ten principles into

the curricula of business schools worldwide.

Despite the strong push for reforms, irresponsible

leadership was a primary cause of the global economic

N. M. Pless

Department of Social Science, ESADE Business School,

Ramon Llull University, Av. Torreblanca, 59,

08172 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain

e-mail: [email protected]

T. Maak (&) Department of People Management & Organization, ESADE

Business School, Ramon Llull University, Av. Torreblanca, 59,

08172 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2011) 98:3–13

DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1114-4

crisis of 2008; thus, it became clear that solving leadership

issues was a long-term endeavor and that responsible

(global) leadership needed to be approached on both indi-

vidual and systemic levels to be effective. As Jeffrey Sachs

(2011, p. 3) argues in a recent book, ‘‘A society of markets,

laws, and elections is not enough if the rich and powerful

fail to behave with respect, honesty, and compassion

toward the rest of society and toward the world…. Without restoring an ethos of social responsibility, there can be no

meaningful and sustained economic recovery.’’

The quest for responsible leadership is not limited to

scandals and subsequent calls for responsible and ethical

conduct though (Brown and Treviño 2006). It also stems

from the changes in and new demands of business contexts

(e.g., Maak and Pless 2006a; Waldman and Galvin 2008).

One such demand is stakeholders’ expectation that busi-

nesses and their leaders take active roles in fostering

responsible behavior, within and outside the organization,

such as by creating responsible organizational cultures,

pursuing a triple bottom-line (social, environmental, and

economic value) approach, and acting as good citizens

(Maak 2007; Pless 2007).

As a widening array of stakeholders pay increasing

attention to the political role and responsibility of business

leaders in the pursuit of a global common good, they ask

probing questions about business’ role in the fight against

poverty and the pursuit of human rights, whether in con-

nection to human rights abuses or as potential enablers of

human rights, namely, as secondary agents of justice

(Young 2006; Maak 2009). What about business leaders’

role in the establishment of intergenerational justice

(Wade-Benzoni et al. 2010), such that they serve as stew-

ards of trust that has been embedded in them (Maak and

Pless 2006a)? For all parties involved, these are difficult

questions to answer. Yet a common understanding in both

academic and practitioner discourses indicates that busi-

ness leaders must be able to answer them if they are to

contribute to a sustainable future.

All things considered then, responsible leadership is a

multilevel response to deficiencies in existing leadership

frameworks and theories; to high-profile scandals on indi-

vidual, organizational, and systemic levels; and to new and

emerging social, ethical, and environmental challenges in

an increasingly connected world. The scope and com-

plexity of these challenges calls for responsible leadership

and responsible leaders who acknowledge their shared,

significant responsibility (May 1996) in tackling problems

and challenges. That is, they must walk their talk ulti-

mately to rebuild the public trust vested in them.

It should come as no surprise then that business practice

has a notable interest in developing responsible leadership

in organizations and in encouraging new generations of

responsible leaders and academics to understand the

origins and outcomes of responsible leadership as a mul-

tilevel theory and construct. In what follows, this opening

article of the Special Issue seeks to sharpen understanding

of responsible leadership by distinguishing this concept

from other leadership theories. We specify our under-

standing of responsible leadership at the individual level,

provide an overview of the various articles in this special

issue, and offer some tentative pathways for further

research.

What is Responsible Leadership?

A common understanding among researchers in the field

indicates that responsible leadership responds to both

existing gaps in leadership theory and the practical chal-

lenges facing leadership. First, it centers attention firmly on

matters of responsibility, including accountability, appro-

priate moral decision-making, and trust. In other words,

responsible leadership seeks to define what ‘‘responsible’’

means in the context of leadership. Second, being

accountable for actions, answerable for decisions, and

reliable and trusted are not just semantic variations on the

term ‘‘responsibility’’ but rather constitute inherently rela-

tional concepts. By definition then, responsible leadership

is geared toward the concerns of others and asks for what

and to whom leaders are responsible. This comment may

seem to be stating the obvious, but it is arguably one of the

most under researched concepts in this field, as well as one

of the most relevant. At its core, this discussion seeks to

clarify who the ‘‘others’’ are and what responding to their

concerns entails.

Maak and Pless (2006a, p. 103), in one of the first

journal publications on this topic, define responsible lead-

ership as ‘‘a relational and ethical phenomenon, which

occurs in social processes of interaction with those who

affect or are affected by leadership and have a stake in the

purpose and vision of the leadership relationship,’’ thereby

broadening the view from a traditional leader–subordinate

relationship to leader–stakeholder relationships. They shift

the focus to the responsibilities that leaders have in relation

to various stakeholder groups and accordingly contend that

relationships ‘‘are the centre of leadership’’ (Maak and

Pless 2006b, p. 39), such that ‘‘building and cultivating … ethically sound relations toward different stakeholders is an

important responsibility of leaders in an interconnected

stakeholder society’’ (Maak and Pless 2006a, p. 101). In

this case, ‘‘others’’ are all those with a stake in the lead-

ership project.

The level of regard for others and thus stakeholder

inclusion varies with the nature of the leadership project. In

contrast, the scope of responsibility depends most signifi-

cantly on how leaders think about their responsibilities

4 N. M. Pless, T. Maak

123

toward others, because ‘‘responsible leadership is not the

same concept in the minds of all’’ (Waldman and Galvin

2008, p. 328). Accordingly we identify two important

avenues for research that connect to the very meaning of

responsible leadership: one that seeks to investigate con-

ceptually and empirically what might be described as

responsible leader mindsets, and another that attempts to

clarify who should be included as a relevant other in net-

works of leader–stakeholder relationships. Research in the

former stream can reveal the complexity of responsible

leadership, its quality, and underlying sense-making pro-

cesses; the latter can connect stakeholder theory in general

(Freeman et al. 2010) and stakeholder legitimacy in par-

ticular (e.g., Mitchell et al. 1997) to leadership theory.

Waldman and Galvin’s (2008) differentiation of economic

versus stakeholder perspectives of responsible leadership

suggests a spectrum of mindsets, ranging from low to high

levels of regard for others, depending on how individual-

ized or socialized the concept of leadership is. It is worth

noting that this spectrum may not range from ‘‘lesser’’ to

‘‘more’’ responsibility; rather, the quality of responsibility

and thus responses to stakeholder concerns likely depends

as much on contextual and institutional factors as on

individual and organizational aspects and thus ultimately

determines the appropriate response to any particular

situation.

Responsible leadership is not a preconceived construct

or predefined remedy to leadership failure and corporate

ills. What we see emerging instead is a multilevel theory

that connects individual, organizational, and institutional

factors (Quigley et al. 2005). In this sense, researchers

under the responsible leadership umbrella may deal with

individual factors, such as values, virtues, and ethical

decision-making; just as they can address organizational-

level leadership, including the links among corporate social

responsibility, stakeholder theory, and leadership; and still

consider institutional factors and their influence on

responsible leadership, such as the societal or cultural

context, as defined by factors such as power distance,

collectivism, and humane orientation that indicate the

extent to which social concerns are part of cultural prac-

tices. In both single- and multi-level research, the tentative

answer to the question ‘‘What is responsible leadership?’’

must be ‘‘It depends.’’ Thus, the field is fluid. It also is

reflective of the multiplicity of challenges, questions, and

issues at stake in the domain of responsible leadership as

illustrated by two extant texts. Doh and Stumpf’s (2005)

book focuses predominantly on the link between respon-

sible leadership and governance and thus the steering

function of responsible leadership with respect to certain

issues, industries, and the global common good. The

authors in Maak and Pless’s (2006b) text are mainly con-

cerned with the conceptual foundations of responsible

leadership and seek to contribute to a better understanding

of the foundations of responsible leadership. ‘‘What is

responsible leadership?’’ ‘‘What makes a responsible lea-

der?,’’ and ‘‘How can responsible leadership be devel-

oped?’’ are the guiding questions in the latter.

Whereas the previous volumes broke new ground at the

conceptual forefront of responsible leadership, we now find

a growing number of empirical and descriptive contribu-

tions that investigate phenomena at both individual and

organizational levels, identifying antecedents and out-

comes, examining relationships, and making predictions.

This mix of perspectives is accordingly represented in this

Special Issue. It zooms in on the current state of research

and sets the stage for further research. In particular, five

contributions in this issue (by Cameron Freeman, Auster,

Voegtlin, Waldman, and Groves) place a specific focus on

the individual level of the leader, while three articles (by

Gond et al., Pretorius et al., Doh et al.) examine the key

phenomena at the organizational level. All these authors

emphasize responsible leadership as a relational, values-

centered concept that aims to generate positive outcomes

for followers as stakeholders, as specified further next.

How Does Responsible Leadership Differ from Related

Theories?

We understand responsible leadership as a

values-based and thorough ethical principles-driven

relationship between leaders and stakeholders who

are connected through a sheared sense of meaning

and purpose through which they raise one another to

higher levels of motivation and commitment for

achieving sustainable values creation and social

change (Pless 2007, p. 438).

Concomitantly, we define a responsible leader as a

person who reconciles ‘‘the idea of effectiveness with the

idea of corporate responsibility by being an active citizen

and promoting active citizenship inside and outside the

organization’’ (Pless 2007, p. 450). Responsible leaders

thus build and cultivate ‘‘sustainable relationships with

stakeholders … to achieve mutually shared objectives based on a vision of business as a force of good for the

many, and not just a few (shareholders, managers)’’ (Maak

2007, p. 331). As such, responsible leadership is an

inherently normative approach to leadership.

To explore this concept, we turn to the broader domain

of other leadership theories and constructs that are relevant

to responsible leadership, and specifically those that are

values-centered, such as ethical, authentic, servant, and

transformational theories of leadership. Through such

a comparison, we can provide snapshots, insights, and

Responsible Leadership 5

123

orientations that help us navigate an increasingly diverse

field, rather than providing a single-focused, in-depth dis-

cussion that would be beyond the scope of this article.

Stakeholder Theory and Responsible Leadership

With the exception of Schneider (2002), to the best of our

knowledge, no one has tried to develop a theory of stake-

holder leadership, notwithstanding Bass and Steidlmeier’s

(1999, p. 200) suggestion to discuss ‘‘leadership in the

context of contemporary stakeholder theory.’’ We assert

that responsible and stakeholder leadership is not just

inextricably linked but that responsible leadership provides

a convincing perspective on how to connect leadership to

stakeholder theory. By making leader–stakeholder rela-

tionships the center of attention, responsible leadership

focuses on the responsibilities that leaders have in relation

to different stakeholder groups. As we have argued else-

where, ‘‘building and cultivating ethically sound relations

toward different stakeholders is an important responsibility

of leaders in an interconnected stakeholder society’’ (Maak

and Pless 2006a, p. 101). In this view, followers become

stakeholders of the leadership project, so responsible

leadership must ask a core question: ‘‘What is the role of

leadership—and of leaders—in a network of stakeholders,

and how can a leader lead responsibly across various,

potentially conflicting needs and interests?’’

Schneider (2002), without explicit reference to matters of

responsibility, makes an important contribution by stressing

that both the context of organizations and the profound

changes in these organizations, as they become flatter, less

bureaucratic, and more dispersed, increase the complexity of

the leadership project and create new implications for what

effective leadership means. Schneider highlights the ‘‘radix

organization,’’ which has a core but otherwise is flexible (and

flat) enough ‘‘to meet the challenges of fluctuating vertical,

lateral, and external demands’’ (Schneider 2002, p. 209). She

also proposes a stakeholder model of organizational lead-

ership and stresses the importance of context, relationships,

leader role-sets, and, to a lesser extent, leader attributes.

These components have significant roles with regard to

conceptualizations of responsible leadership. Yet, while

Schneider’s interest refers to the connection of stakeholder

leadership and effectiveness, responsible leadership broad-

ens the scope of performance to include responsibility,

accountability, legitimacy, and trust.

Ethical Leadership

Ethical leadership represents an individual-level phenom-

enon (Brown and Treviño 2006; Treviño et al. 2003, 2000),

defined as ‘‘the demonstration of normatively appropri-

ate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal

relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to fol-

lowers through two-way communication, reinforcement,

and decision-making’’ (Brown et al. 2005, p. 120). The

purpose of ethical leadership is to influence followers,

generally understood as subordinates in the organization,

by demonstrating ethical conduct, often through transac-

tional mechanisms.

With this theory, responsible leadership shares the idea

of the leader as a positive role model who behaves virtu-

ously, acts according to ethical standards, insures ethical

and pro-social conduct in the workplace, and uses princi-

ples of moral reasoning to make decisions (Treviño et al.

2000, 2003). Yet even as achieving, managing, and safe-

guarding high ethical standards in the workforce are cited

as important aspects, they are not sufficient conditions for

responsible leadership. Responsible leadership goes

beyond ethical perspectives, primarily from a relational

point of view. That is, the former stresses the importance of

a full-range view of leader–stakeholder relationships,

whereas ethical leadership restricts its view to a classical

leadership dyad of leader–subordinate. Furthermore, ethi-

cal leadership seeks to predict outcomes, such as leader

effectiveness, employee job satisfaction, and dedication;

responsible leadership transcends this micro-level per-

spective to focus on multilevel outcomes. In its aspiration

to mobilize followers inside and outside the organization to

engage in responsible leadership practices, such as con-

tributing to social change and sustainable futures, respon-

sible leadership also encompasses a strong transformational

dimension, together with ‘‘vision’’ as an important lead-

ership element. Neither of these elements is part of the

ethical leadership construct (Brown and Treviño 2006).

Finally, whereas ethical leadership theory considers intra-

organizational contextual factors, such as an ethical culture

(Treviño 1990), responsible leadership goes further and

addresses factors from the cultural context, such as power

distance and humane orientation (Pless and Maak 2008).

In summary, the main conceptual differences between

ethical and responsible leadership stem from their different

paradigmatic outlooks: Ethical leadership is concerned with

guidance by leaders in organizations and how leaders can

exploit such guidance to improve their effectiveness;

responsible leadership recognizes effectiveness as an out-

come but mainly seeks to capture the relational nature of the

leader–stakeholder project and its implications for matters of

responsibility. In turn, it acknowledges the latent tension

between ethics and effectiveness and is cautious about

exploiting ethics as a tool to enhance leader effectiveness.

Servant Leadership

The idea of servant leadership, in its current form, was

largely developed by Robert K. Greenleaf (1977), a former

6 N. M. Pless, T. Maak

123

AT&T executive, after he read Hermann Hesse’s novel The

Journey to the East, a story of a group of travelers in search

of enlightenment that discovers, only after breaking apart,

that a servant Leo led the group and held it together. Ser-

vant leadership, another individual-level phenomenon,

centers primarily on those whom the leader serves, or the

followers. Do those served grow as persons? If the answer

is yes, the leader was successful and effective. Accord-

ingly, servant leadership is other-directed, rather than ori-

ented toward the leader’s self (Stone et al. 2004). It stands

in stark contrast with many recent self-serving, real-life

leadership episodes, in which leaders first and foremost

thought about themselves and their interests rather than

about their constituencies. Servant leadership is contra-

dictory with this traditional top-down, individualized, self-

centered form of leadership.

Responsible leadership and servant leadership share the

idea that leadership must be mainly about the leader’s

constituencies (followers or stakeholders), such that the

leader’s task is to serve the needs and legitimate interests of

others (Greenleaf 2002). A leader should anticipate a

desirable future, demonstrate genuine care and concern for

others, and bring together service and meaning (Sendjaya

et al. 2008). Moreover, leaders and followers should ‘‘raise

one another to higher levels of motivation and morality’’

(Burns 1978, p. 20) or commitment, in the pursuit of

mutually desirable goals. Both versions seek positive out-

comes and are normative in nature.

However, though responsible leadership shares with

servant leadership the idea of service beyond self-interest,

the responsible leader does not pursue ‘‘self-sacrificial

servanthood’’ (Sendjaya et al. 2008, p. 405), just for the

sake of serving followers and developing their own good.

Service is linked to the organizational purpose and directed

toward fulfilling the needs of stakeholders throughout

business and society. Therefore, the concern of the

responsible leader is to mobilize others to serve, engage in,

and support objectives tied to a mutually desirable social

purpose. That purpose is not limited to helping others grow

or become leaders in their own right; it also entails orga-

nizational and societal levels (including positive outcomes

such as sustainable value creation and social change). The

central motivation therefore is not serving others but rather

responding to others’ interests and needs, including those

of outside stakeholders and society at large.

Furthermore, responsible leadership theory understands

followers as stakeholders, both inside and outside the

organization, not just as followers in the workplace. The

development and mobilization of followers inside and

outside the organization (individual-level outcomes) is the

means by which leadership serves a higher purpose and

achieves social change. Although intrinsically motivated,

responsible leaders are not necessarily driven by

spirituality or an inner calling. Responsible leadership can

reflect spiritual, humanistic, moral, or any other values

rooted in religion, family, tradition, education, and so on.

Or it can stem simply from the recognition that acting with

responsibility is the right thing to do. The key difference

with servant leadership thus pertains to the level of moti-

vation and contextual factors, which generally get neglec-

ted in servant leadership literature.

Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership described by proponents in the field

as ‘‘perhaps the oldest, oldest, oldest wine in the traditional

leadership bottle’’ (Avolio et al. 2005, p. xxii), continues to

draw research interest. Early research focused more on

inauthentic leadership, that is, on the lack of authenticity.

But current research is more concerned with positive out-

comes and the role of authenticity—which in the most

generic terms refers to being one’s true self or being true to

who you are—in the spirit of positive organizational

scholarship (Cameron et al. 2003). Luthans and Avolio

(2003, p. 243) thereby define authentic leadership as ‘‘a

process that draws from both positive psychological

capacities and a highly developed organizational context.’’

Despite being a multilevel construct (including compo-

nents from organizational, group, and individual levels), it

centers mostly on processes at the individual level. Self-

awareness (i.e., a deep sense of self that provides knowl-

edge about one’s values, identity, emotions, and motives/

goals), self-regulatory processes that align values with

intentions and actions, and positive psychological states all

represent important mechanisms that enable authentic

leaders to influence, energize, and develop followers. In

this case, followers are subordinates, but a core assumption

of authentic leadership theory is that it will lead to trust,

engagement, and well-being and thus to leadership effec-

tiveness. Contextual factors such as uncertainty, culture/

climate, and inclusion are considered, to the extent that

they moderate the outcomes of authentic leadership.

Ethical qualities, such as moral capacity, courage, and

transparency are understood as positive psychological

resources. Although some authors (Avolio and Gardner

2005, Luthans and Avolio 2003, May et al. 2003) under-

stand ethics as an inherent component of authentic lead-

ership, others (Cooper et al. 2005, Shamir and Eilam 2005,

Sparrowe 2005) voice concerns about defining authentic

leadership as encompassing moral resources.

Responsible leadership appears to overlap with authen-

tic leadership with respect to its self-awareness and self-

regulation components (Pless and Maak 2005), but it also

goes further. Pless and Maak (2005) specify that respon-

sible leadership requires leaders to take another step to

develop a sense of others’ emotions and values/norms,

Responsible Leadership 7

123

reflect on the adequacy of their own emotions and values,

and assess them in comparison with general standards and

hypernorms (Donaldson and Dunfee 1999), as well as with

local needs. Moreover, ethical qualities constitute a struc-

tural element in responsible leadership research; in that

sense, they are more than positive psychological resources.

Moral awareness, ethical reflection, an ability to employ

moral imagination to reconcile dilemmas (Werhane 1999),

and moral deliberation and decision-making skills are all

important features of responsible leadership.

Both authentic and responsible leadership theories factor

in the organizational impact of leadership. Avolio and

Gardner (2005), Avolio et al. (2004), and Luthans and

Avolio (2003) assert that authentic leadership can have

positive organizational impacts by helping people find

meaning at work and contributes to sustained performance

and growth through long-term value creation for share-

holders (Avolio and Gardner 2005). Similar to authentic

leadership, responsible leadership aims for positive orga-

nizational outcomes, but extending beyond traditional

economic outcome variables, it also proposes that leader-

ship includes contributions to value and social capital by

stakeholders in business and society and thus ultimately

should result in positive social change (Maak 2007; Pless

2007).

Transformational Leadership

Leadership is always about change, whether on the indi-

vidual, team, organizational, or societal levels, or a com-

bination thereof. Leaders, whether by appointment,

dedication, or accident, influence followers (stakeholders),

and vice versa, which leads to the realization of certain

objectives. Reaching the objective implies a change pro-

cess—thus, transformation.

The notion of transformational leadership was intro-

duced by Burns (1978) in the context of political leader-

ship, then further developed and conceptualized by Bass

(1985) and his colleagues (e.g., Bass and Avolio 1995;

Avolio et al. 1991). As an individual-level phenomenon,

transformational leadership entails a process of building

commitment and empowerment among followers to

accomplish organizational goals (Stone et al. 2004; Yukl

2002) and thus enhance follower performance. Research on

transformational leadership considers some contextual

factors, such as country culture or organizational culture,

but it does not explicitly discuss ‘‘leadership in the context

of contemporary stakeholder theory’’ (Bass and Steidlmeier

1999, p. 200), which instead is the specific contribution of

responsible leadership theory.

Responsible leadership is close to the transformational

notions of vision, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration. But it also differs in several

aspects. First, in terms of the definition of followers,

responsible leadership considers them more broadly as

stakeholders inside and outside the organization.

Second, with regard to the emphasis of leadership,

transformational leaders influence followers for the

instrumental purpose of enhancing performance and

accomplishing organizational objectives (e.g., improving

the economic bottom-line, satisfying shareholders), at least

in the prevailing approach proposed by Bass and col-

leagues. Responsible leaders instead serve different stake-

holders and mobilize them to engage in and support

objectives tied to a higher social purpose at organizational

and societal levels. In this contrast, we find a shift from a

shareholder mindset to a stakeholder orientation (Maak and

Pless 2006a; Waldman and Galvin 2008).

Third, responsible leadership is less focused on indi-

vidual characteristics, such as defining the ‘‘great man’’ or

the charismatic and transformative leader. Instead, it is

geared toward a relational leadership approach (Uhl-Bien

2006) based on inclusion, collaboration, and cooperation

with different stakeholder groups. Maak and Pless (2006a)

point out that in the broader leadership context of stake-

holder interaction, leadership entails new responsibilities

and roles, and the leader becomes a coordinator and cul-

tivator of relationships with different constituencies—a

weaver in and among a network of relationships (Maak

2007).

Fourth, research on transformational leadership asserts

that the leader’s ethical or unethical behavior depends on

his or her motivation: Only authentic, transformational

leaders qualify as moral leaders with moral values, social

motivations, and a lack of coercion or manipulative influ-

ence (Bass 1985, Brown and Treviño 2006). In other

words, there appears to be a distinction between inau-

thentic and authentic transformational leaders. In contrast,

responsible leadership constitutes an inherently ethical

phenomenon: To qualify as responsible, leaders must be

considered responsible and thus accountable, trustworthy,

and ethical. A responsible leader is a person of character

with ethical literacy (moral reasoning, moral imagination),

who makes moral and principled decisions by considering

their impacts on others, while also using his or her influ-

ence and power to pursue moral and legitimate ends

through justifiable means.

Fifth, both transformational and responsible leadership

include notions of change and transformation. However,

responsible leaders employ change as a means to achieve a

higher social goal; transformational leaders do not neces-

sarily follow that path.

As this overview has demonstrated, previous leadership

approaches understand it as an individual-level phenome-

non and examine the characteristics, styles, and/or pro-

cesses that mark that individual, as the basic unit of

8 N. M. Pless, T. Maak

123

analysis. Researchers also assume some shared conceptual

leadership characteristics: Apart from a general values-

centered philosophy, they regard role modeling as an

important part of positive leadership, stress the intrinsic

motivation for leadership, and focus on caring concern for

others or a high level of other-regard (e.g., Brown and

Treviño 2006). To varying degrees, they also understand

ethics as an inherent component of leadership. However,

with the exception of responsible leadership, none of these

approaches includes the social and natural environment as

a pertinent level of analysis, links leadership to the out-

comes of sustainable value creation or social change (i.e.,

for the benefit of all legitimate stakeholders), or defines

followers in a broad sense as stakeholders within and

outside the organization. Maak and Pless (2006a, b) stress

that leadership in a network of stakeholder relationships

not only induces new roles and responsibilities but also

creates a new social perception of leadership, in which the

leader is a coordinator and a cultivator of relationships with

different constituencies, across and beyond the organiza-

tion. That is, we need to rethink leadership as leadership of

a network of stakeholder relationships.

Perspectives on Responsible Leadership: Special Issue

Overview

Of the eight contributions in this Special Issue, three arti-

cles are conceptual and five are empirical. More and more

researchers adopting an empirical–descriptive approach

investigate responsible leadership at both individual and

organizational levels, identify antecedents and outcomes,

examine relationships, and make predictions. All authors

emphasize responsible leadership as a relational and val-

ues-centered phenomenon that aims at generating positive

outcomes for followers as stakeholders.

Values, Authenticity, and Responsible Leadership

In ‘‘Values, Authenticity, and Responsible Leadership,’’ Ed

Freeman and Ellen Auster rethink the concept of authen-

ticity according to its application in modern organizational

life, such that they enrich extant theory on responsible

leadership. The authors reflect on some foundational

questions about the logic of values, arguing that the idea of

simply ‘‘acting on one’s values’’ or ‘‘being true to one-

self’’—what has been called the ‘‘essentialist self’’—at best

establishes a starting point for thinking about authenticity,

because of the difficulty of knowing one’s own values and

acting accordingly. They propose the idea of the ‘‘poetic

self,’’ a creative project by which the leader seeks to live

authentically. Trying to be authentic is an ongoing process

that starts with engaging perceived values while also

analyzing one’s own history (self-enlargement), relation-

ships with others (self-connection), and aspirations for the

future. This process of self-creation demands a mutual

connection with community and stakeholders. Even orga-

nizations can become poetic if they comprehend the pro-

cesses of self-understanding, connection, and aspiration

(i.e., perceived organizational values, analysis of historical

routines, awareness of the network of stakeholder rela-

tionships, and consciousness of a purpose or aspiration).

Because authenticity requires acting on perceived values, it

provides a starting point for ethics as well. The idea of

responsible leadership thus expands with this new con-

ceptualization of the self and authenticity, such that it may

help create more humane organizations.

Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership

Kim Cameron, in ‘‘Responsible Leadership as Virtuous

Leadership,’’ equates responsible leadership with account-

ability, dependability, authority, and empowerment—but

above all with virtuousness. Using this connotation entails

three assumptions about responsible leadership: (1) eudae-

monism, or the assumption that all people are inclined

toward moral goodness; (2) inherent value, such that vir-

tuousness represents a ‘‘good of first intent’’; and (3)

amplification, which is the assumption that observing vir-

tuousness creates a self-reinforcing cycle of more virtu-

ousness. In turn, it leads to two important outcomes. Virtue

establishes a fixed point for coping with change, because it

helps identify the universally accepted standard for what

leaders may consider best for other individuals and their

organizations. It also offers benefits for constituents who

otherwise would never have been affected. By focusing on

virtuous outcomes, the leader can achieve desirable ends,

such as organizational commitment or performance, that

insure advantages for all constituencies—rather than ben-

efiting some at the expense of others.

Responsible Leadership Outcomes Via Stakeholder

CSR Values

In his study ‘‘Responsible Leadership Outcomes Via

Stakeholder CSR Values: Testing a Values-Centered

Model of Transformational Leadership,’’ Kevin Groves

proposes a conceptual link between responsible and

transformational leadership theories and examines how

transformational leadership advances responsible leader-

ship outcomes through leader values, leadership behavior,

and follower perceptions of leader–follower values con-

gruence. The responsible leadership outcomes include

followers’ beliefs in a stakeholder CSR perspective and

willingness to engage in citizenship behaviors that benefit

both the organization and wider society. The author tests

Responsible Leadership 9

123

his values-centered leadership model, comprising leader

stakeholder and economic values, follower values con-

gruence, and responsible leadership outcomes, with data

from 122 organizational leaders and 458 direct reports. A

structural equation modeling analysis demonstrates that

leader stakeholder values predict transformational leader-

ship; leader economic values are more associated with

transactional leadership. Follower values congruence also

appears strongly associated with transformational leader-

ship but unrelated to transactional leadership; it partially

mediates the relationships of transformational leadership

with both follower organizational citizenship behaviors and

follower beliefs in the stakeholder view of CSR. By

adhering to stakeholder values and creating strong follower

perceptions of shared values, transformational leaders can

influence followers’ beliefs in the stakeholder CSR per-

spective and willingness to engage in extra-role, citizenship

behaviors that address organizational and community

problems.

Measuring Responsible Leadership

Christian Voegtlin’s article, ‘‘Development of a Scale

Measuring Responsible Leadership,’’ extends understand-

ing of responsible leadership with an ideal of discourse

ethics that enables leaders to act morally and engage in

dialogue with all affected constituents, which grants the

organization a license to operate. This understanding of

responsible leadership might address the challenges of

globalization better than existing leadership concepts. The

proposed empirical scale of responsible leadership enables

descriptive and prescriptive evaluations; it validates a

one-dimensional construct with high internal consistency,

as well as discriminant and predictive validity. Thus,

responsible leadership reflects the pertinent hierarchical

level; can reduce unethical behavior among a primary

stakeholder group, namely, employees; and has a direct

impact on the job satisfaction of direct report employees.

This effect of responsible leadership on job satisfaction

also is partly mediated by observed unethical behavior. In

this sense, responsible leaders have an indirect effect on

job satisfaction, because they help create a more ethical

work environment.

Moving Forward with the Concept of Responsible

Leadership

The aim of David Waldman’s article ‘‘Moving Forward with

the Concept of Responsible Leadership: Three Caveats to

Guide Theory and Research’’ is to point out three issues that

must be considered if we are to progress in the area of

responsible leadership. The first caveat pertains to defini-

tional issues: Multiple definitions and moral bases exist to

conceptualize responsible leadership, all of might be equally

legitimate and valid (e.g., shareholder view, normative

stakeholder theory). The second point to the importance of

recognizing the strong values and potential ideologies of the

researcher. To advance the concept of responsible leader-

ship, it is crucial that theory and research are not ideologi-

cally driven or biased. The third caveat is connected to the

positioning of responsible leadership within the body of

leadership theory and research according to its ‘‘other-

regarding focus’’ (i.e., leaders’ accountability to various

stakeholders). Thus, responsible leadership offers unique,

beneficial, new, or complementary insights. This author also

notes concerns about the measurement of responsible lead-

ership. Useful measures should integrate multiple perspec-

tives on leader’s values and behaviors, from different types

of stakeholders rather than just from immediate followers.

Finally, he notes the importance of further descriptive

research in the domain of responsible leadership.

Responsible Leadership Helps Retain Talent

In ‘‘Responsible Leadership Helps Retain Talent in India,’’

Jonathan Doh, Stephen Stumpf, and Walter Tymon

approach responsible leadership as an organizational-level

phenomenon. Drawing on stakeholder theory, they define

and operationalize it from the perspective of employees

and their views of leaders’ actions. With this ‘‘inclusive

concept … employees perceive their organization as hav- ing an ethical and proactive stakeholder perspective toward

constituents outside the organization and the employees

themselves.’’ Their empirical study is based on a survey

involving 28 organizations operating in India and 4,352

employees; it underscores the critical role of responsible

leadership for employee retention. These authors also

propose a tripartite employee view of responsible leader-

ship: (1) employees’ perception of a strong stakeholder

culture that supports acting in a socially responsible and

ethical manner, (2) fair and inclusive human resource

practices, and (3) positive managerial support for employee

development and success. The components of responsible

leadership also relate to employees’ pride in and satisfac-

tion with the organization, as well as their retention.

Exploring the Interface Between Strategy-Making

and Responsible Leadership

In ‘‘Exploring the Interface Between Strategy-Making and

Responsible Leadership.’’ Rachel Maritz, Marius Pretorius,

and Kato Plant report on the thinking of organizational

leaders, managers and non-managers regarding strategy-

making modes. Empirical findings, based on mixed

method research (analyses of in-depth interviews and 210

questionnaires) conducted in South Africa, reveal that

10 N. M. Pless, T. Maak

123

organizations combine deliberate strategy-making modes

(i.e., formal, rational, comprehensive approach with artic-

ulated vision, direction, and specific ends and means) with

emergent strategy-making efforts (i.e., quick response,

adaptive, trial-and-error with vague ends and means, flex-

ible planning structures, and tolerance for change). These

strategy-making modes have key implications for the

responsible leader, as an architect or change agent. For

example, the high performance consensus (neutral part of

strategy-making) in these organizations leads to greater

tolerance for risk-taking. Organizational leaders must

remain cognizant of the growing use and characteristics of

emergent strategy-making, if they hope to facilitate effec-

tive governance. Further understanding of these charac-

teristics could provide guidance for leaders who want to be

both responsive and responsible in all their actions areas.

The Human Resources Contribution to Responsible

Leadership

The article by Jean-Pascal Gond and colleagues, ‘‘The

Human Resources Contribution to Responsible Leadership:

An Exploration of the CSR-HR Interface,’’ aims to inves-

tigate how human resources (HR) contribute to socially

responsible leadership at functional, practical, and rela-

tional levels of analysis. Although CSR practices have been

embraced by many corporations, the authors argue that the

specific contributions of HR professionals, HR manage-

ment practices, and employees to responsible leadership

have been overlooked. Relying on analyses of interviews

with 30 CSR and HR corporate executives from 22 cor-

porations operating in France, these authors determine

whether and how HR can support employees’ involvement

in CSR, while also highlighting areas of collaboration and

tension between HR and CSR functions around emerging

practices of responsible leadership. The findings uncover

the multiple, often implicit roles of HR in responsible

leadership, as well as the interrelation of functional, prac-

tical, and relational dimensions. In its organizational and

functional contribution, the optimal configuration of the

HR–CSR interface enables HR to provide functional sup-

port to the deployment of responsible leadership. With

regard to a practical contribution, HR professionals help

insure stabilized or encourage emerging practices and thus

build the environment to support responsible leadership.

For the relational contribution of HR, this article notes that

HR professionals manage relationships with employees,

facilitate employees’ involvement and representation in

CSR issues and topics, and monitor the CSR influence on

employees through HR processes. Finally, the organization

of the HR–CSR interface can enable or undermine HR

contributions to responsible leadership; several underlying

cognitive factors shape this interface.

Conclusion: Pathways for Further Research

The field of responsible leadership is still in its infancy.

Further guidance on the topic remains in high demand, yet

most responsible leadership dimensions remain under

researched. This situation is not necessarily surprising;

most leadership research still assumes that leadership takes

place in clearly structured, hierarchical relationships and

that researchers can uncover some ultimate truth about

what constitutes ‘‘effective’’ leadership. The world of

leadership is messier than that—more complex, diverse,

and ultimately contested, especially when it comes to

defining responsibility. Moreover, the objectivist stance of

traditional concepts and the ignorance of normative issues

makes it difficult to determine how such research could

inform those who look for guidance in matters of respon-

sible leadership.

We hope that this Special Issue not only helps consoli-

date responsible leadership as an important area of research

but also, and perhaps more importantly, inspires additional

research that generates orienting knowledge in this domain.

The field is far from complete, and the contributions in this

issue provide only a snapshot of the challenges and con-

cerns that remain to be studied.

In particular, further research should address definitional

issues, as David Waldman notes in his contribution: Mul-

tiple definitions and moral bases attempt to conceptualize

responsible leadership, all of which might be equally

legitimate and valid. Additional explorations of these bases

would generate more clarity, which not least might prevent

the domain from becoming ideologically driven or biased.

Waldman also suggests that responsible leadership should

be better positioned within the wider stream of leadership

theory and research. Our brief overview might offer a

starting point for cross-comparisons of responsible lead-

ership with other leadership concepts. In addition, research

could explore team and shared leadership further (Pearce

and Conger 2003), link emerging literature on followership

or follower-centric approaches to responsible leadership

(Shamir and Eilam 2005), and so on.

As research seeks to refine responsible leadership, it

would be helpful to have scales and constructs for testing.

Christian Voegtlin has provided some indications of how to

pursue this avenue. Measures of responsible leadership,

though not a primary interest of researchers at this stage,

might provide more substantial evidence regarding its rel-

evance and effectiveness. Potential constructs to study

might include job satisfaction, implicit leadership theory,

and ethical leadership as perceived by immediate follow-

ers. By obtaining multiple perspectives on leaders’ values

and behaviors from different types of stakeholders, rather

than just immediate followers, as Waldman suggests,

we also could gain important insights into legitimacy,

Responsible Leadership 11

123

stakeholder satisfaction, and leader–stakeholder dynamics.

The time also seems ripe to study the role of leadership in

building stakeholder social capital (Maak 2007). Research

needs to provide more clarity regarding who should be

included as a relevant other in the network of leader–

stakeholder relationships, which would enable connections

from stakeholder theory in general (Freeman et al. 2010)

and from stakeholder legitimacy in particular (e.g.,

Mitchell et al. 1997) to leadership theory.

We also see great benefit in investigating, both con-

ceptually and empirically, responsible leader mindsets.

Research in this area could reveal the great complexity of

responsible leadership, its quality, and underlying sense-

making processes; it also might shed light on anecdotal

evidence that leaders think differently about doing the right

thing. Waldman and Galvin’s (2008) differentiation of

economic versus stakeholder perspectives even hints at the

possibility of a spectrum of mindsets. In this sense, we

hope that we continue to see more descriptive research

on responsible leadership that generates deeper, more

insightful understanding of the phenomenon.

References

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership

development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.

The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (Eds.). (2005).

Preface, in their Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development. Bingley: Emerald.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May,

D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by

which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.

The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823. Avolio, B., Waldman, D., & Yammarino, F. (1991). Leading in the

1990’s: The four l’s of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15, 9–16.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta- tions. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire for research. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic

transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review

and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical

leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-

ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive

organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Cooper, C., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking

forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to

developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders.

The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 475–493.

Doh, J., & Stumpf, S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of responsible leadership and governance in global business. London: Edward Elgar.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). The promise and peril of

global business ethics. California Management Review, 41, 45–63.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De

Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory, the state of the art. Cambridge: University Press.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good

management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 75–91.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness, 25th Anniversary ed. New York, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive

developmental approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.

E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241–261). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement

and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329–343.

Maak, T. (2009). The cosmopolitical corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 361–372.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006a). Responsible leadership in a

stakeholder society—A relational perspective. Journal of Busi- ness Ethics, 66, 99–115.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006b). Responsible leadership. London/ New York: Routledge.

May, L. (1996). Sharing responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003).

Developing the moral component of authentic leadership.

Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247–260. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft

practice of management and management development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory

of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle

of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

Pearce, C. L. & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks/ London/New Delhi: Sage.

Pless, N. M. (2007). Understanding responsible leadership: Roles

identity and motivational drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 437–456.

Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2005). Relational intelligence for leading

responsibly in a connected world. In K. M. Weaver (Ed.) Best Paper Proceedings of the Sixty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI.

Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2008). Business-in-society competence for leading responsibly in a global environment. INSEAD Faculty & Research Working Paper, 2008/22/OB. Fontainebleau &

Singapore.

Quigley, N. R., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2005).

Responsible leadership and governance in a global context.

Insights from the GLOBE study. In J. Doh & S. A. Stumpf

(Eds.), Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global business. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Sachs, J. (2011). The price of civilization: Economics and ethics after the fall. London: The Bodley Head.

12 N. M. Pless, T. Maak

123

Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational

leadership. Organization Science, 13(2), 209–220. Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and

measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Jour- nal of Management Studies, 45, 403–424.

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). ‘‘What’s your story?’’: A life-stories

approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395–417.

Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self.

The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 419–439. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational

versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leader- ship and Organization Development Journal, 25, 349–361.

Treviño, L. K. (1990). A cultural perspective on changing organiza-

tional ethics. In R. Woodman & W. Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 195–230). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative

investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership:

Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 55, 5–37.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person

and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for

ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the

social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.

Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Sondak, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Leaving

a legacy: Intergenerational allocations of benefits and burdens.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1), 7–34. Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of

responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 327–341. Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral imagination and management decision

making. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social

connection model. Social Philosophy & Policy, 23(1), 102–130. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

Creek, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Responsible Leadership 13

123

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.