What is the relationship between ethics and leadership?

What is the relationship between Ethics and Leadership? Abstract I. Introduction II. What is Ethics? 1. Definition of Ethics 2. Ethical Theories (Types) a. Utilitarianism b. Deontology c. Virtue d. Relativism 3. Ethical Theories in Organizations a. The Stockholder Theory b. The Stakeholder Theory c. The Social Contract Theory III. What is Leadership? 1. Definition of Leadership 2. Leadership Theories (Types) a. Great Man Theory (1840’s) b. Trait Theory (1930’s – 1940’s) c. Behavioral Theory (1940’s – 1950’s) d. Contingency Theory (1960’s) e. Transactional Leadership Theory (1970’s) f. Transformational Leadership Theory (1970’s) IV. Ethical Leadership 1. Definition of Ethical Leadership a. Transmitting Ethical Leadership b. Affecting People with Ethical Leadership V. The Relationship between Ethics and Leadership VI. Conclusion Literature Review: What is the relationship between Ethics and Leadership? Advance Leadership MSM-6655-XTIA 16/15 Abstract Ethics plays an important role when it comes to ethical and effective leadership. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between ethics and leadership. More specifically concentrating on the subject of ethical leadership and leadership effectiveness while visiting previous researches, theories, and beliefs. This paper will probe ethical leadership, leadership effectiveness, and organizational performance; while exhibiting how all components are imperative for the existence of the other. Key Words: Ethics, Leadership, Ethical Leadership, Leadership Effectiveness, Organizational Performance Introduction In an article by (Levine & Boaks, 2014), they believed that the question of the definition of leadership – just what is leadership – is both central to the question of its relationship to ethics and problematic. They suggested that before the true relationship between ethics and leadership can be discovered, a definite definition of leadership must be given. A particular section in this article debates how individuals are quick to establish an attachment between ethics and leadership. In similar research, (Ciulla, 2004) suggested that in leadership we see morality magnified, and that is why the study of ethics is fundamental to our understanding of leadership. Researchers suggests that it’s very imperative that ethics is present in reverence to leadership, in which may be described as Ethical Leadership to many. Fundamentally, ethical leadership involves leading in a manner that respects the rights and dignity of others (Ciulla, 2004). By respecting the right and dignity of others, it is suggested that there are ethical values amongst leaders. As leaders are by nature in a position of social power, ethical leadership focuses on how leaders use their social power in the decisions they make, actions they engage in, and ways they influence others (Gini, 1997). In their study of executive ethical leadership, (Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2003) found that ethical leadership entails a transactional component that involves setting standards and expectations of ethical conduct for followers. Subsequently after their findings, (Resick, Hanges, Dickson, & J.K., 2006) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature, and identified six key attributes that appear to characterize ethical leadership, including character and integrity, ethical awareness, community/people-orientation, motivating, encouraging and empowering, and managing ethical accountability. The Review of Literature Ethical Leadership (Ehrich, Harris, Klenowski, Smeed, & Spina, 2015) defined ethical leadership as a social, relational practice concerned with the moral purpose of education (Angus, 2006) since ethics is about relationships with others (Preston, 2007) and leadership is a human-centered relational activity (Ehrich & Knight, 1998). In this particular context, it’s suggested by these authors that ethical leaders are those individuals who exploit honesty and fairness. There have many attempts by researchers to define or analyze the definition of both ethics and leadership. For example, (Whetstone, 2001) offered a different perspective suggesting that virtue ethics can act as a complement to deontology and consequentialism in a tripartite ethic. He argues that one can have more than one reason for doing something: “moral reasons can include both the duty to act and the consequences expected from the act as well as the belief that so acting is characteristic of the kind of person one wants to be” (Whetstone, 2001). With there being many opinions out there about leadership, and personal opinions on how leadership should look, there have also been many critics about this particular topic. (Takala, 1998) argues that the wider community influences our virtues and (Arjoon, 2000) stresses individual and collective responsibilities and character development. Unlike (Whetstone, 2001), (Arjoon, 2000) rejects deontology because it emphasizes the negative side of ethics and believes that ethics is more essential than ethical viewpoints. According to (Drucker, 1981), well-known management thinker, any major conception of ethics in present times must be entrenched in ancient doctrines relating to personal leadership, such as Aristotle’s ethics or prudence and self-development, and interpersonal leadership, for instance, the Confucian ethics of interdependence. His beliefs are based on previous theories and beliefs made by other individuals and suggest that modern day definitions and theories of ethics are rooted from these findings. Leadership Effectiveness (Cooper & Nirenberg, 2004) viewed leadership effectiveness as coping with changing demands so as to establish successful relationships at the level of customer, employee and organizational purpose and building strong positive relationships. It is not surprising that employees rely on their leaders for guidance when faced with ethical questions or problems (Treviño L. , 1986). Research supports this contention, and show that employees conform to the ethical values of their leaders (Schminke, Wells, Peyrefitte, & Sebora, 2002). With taking these research findings into consideration, it reflects that leadership effectiveness has a great influence on employee’s productivity. Although there have been several research studies conducted on leadership effectiveness, the results have not all been in agreement with each other. Some suggest that previous research fails to explore the direct problem that might exist in leadership effectiveness. The Ohio studies and the Michigan studies both measured leadership effectiveness in terms of how leaders treated subordinates and how they got the job done (Ciulla J. , 1995). The Ohio studies measured leadership effectiveness in terms of consideration, the degree to which leaders act in a friendly and supportive manner, and initiating structure, or the way that leaders structure their own role and the role of subordinates in order to obtain group goals (Fleishman, 1953). The Michigan studies measured leaders on the basis of task orientation and relationship orientation (Leikert, 1961). These two studies spawned a number of other research programs and theories, including the situational leadership theory of Hersey and Blanchard, which looks at effectiveness in terms of how leaders adapt their leadership style to the requirements of a situation (Ciulla J. , 1995). This suggests that the results of precious research may not be conclusive and the true meaning of leadership effectiveness may still be in the discovery phases. Organizational Performance Researchers have attempted to develop a model to explain public organizational performance and generally agree that any measure of organizational performance must be multidimensional (Boyne & Dahya, 2002; Boyne G. G.-W., 2002; Brewer & Selden, 2000; Chun & Rainey, 2005; Ingraham, Joyce, & Donahue, 2003; Pandey & Rainey, 2006; Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999; Wolf, 1993). In order for organizational performance to exist, goal alignment must be present. Goal setting theory suggests that individuals are more likely to be motivated and achieve goals if they understand what is being expected of them (Locke & Latham, 2002). With that being noted, goal alignment warrants individuals the necessary efforts to accomplish their goals. Goal alignment can occur through organziational processes, communication, structure, leadership and management (Ayers, 2015). (Svensson & Wood, 2011) proposed a conceptual framework of business ethics throughout all sectors of the organization in terms of ethical structures, ethical processes and ethical performance. In this particualar research, they suggested that this structure provided a origin for the expansion and fine-tuning of ethical dealings within the organization and can be exploited for overseeing and assessing ethical functions within the organization. This alone has the potential to promote and endorse organizational implementations. (Rezaiian & Ghazinouri, 2010) in their research entitled “Modeling the role of ethics in success of knowledge management systems” investigated the role of ethics in duties of the knowledge management process; of course, the general pattern of knowledge management was used for knowledge management process. The findings of their research indicated that there is a connection in reference to ethics and knowledge management that’s held within the individual, while also showing the relationship between ethics and organizational performance. The correlation holds between criteria such as individual and collective trust, honesty, intellectual property right, help and empathy, commitment, accountability, working conscience and carefulness in authenticity from one aspect and the indices of a general pattern of knowledge management including creation, organizing, sharing and applicationof knowledge from the other aspect (Akhavan, Ramezan, Jafar, & Mehralian, 2014). Works Cited Akhavan, P., Ramezan, M., Jafar, Y., & Mehralian, G. (2014). Exploring the relationship between ethics, knowledge creation and organizational performance. VINE, 44(1), 42-58. Angus, L. (2006). Educational leadership and the imperative of including student voices, student interest, and students’ lives in the mainstream. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 369-379. Arjoon, S. (2000). Virtue Theory as a Dynamic Theory of Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 65-76. Ayers, R. (2015). Aligning Individual and Organizational Performance: Goal Alignment in Federal Government Agency Performance Appraisal Programs. Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 169-191. Boyne, G. G.-W. (2002). Best value-total quality management for local government? Public Money & Management, 22(3), 9-16. Boyne, G., & Dahya, J. (2002). Executive succession and the performance of public organizations. Public Administration , 80, 179-200. Brewer, G., & Selden, S. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 685-711. Chun, Y., & Rainey, H. (2005). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 529-557. Ciulla, J. (1995). Leadership Ethics: Mapping The Territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 5-28. Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics and Leadership Effectiveness. The Nature of leadership, 302-327. Cooper, J., & Nirenberg, J. (2004). Leadership effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Drucker, P. (1981). What is “business ethics”? The Public Interest, 63, 18-36. Ehrich, L., & Knight, J. (1998). Prefatory notes on a principled human-centred practice. Flaxton: Post Press. Ehrich, L., Harris, J., Klenowski, V., Smeed, J., & Spina, N. (2015). The centrality of ethical leadership. Journal of Educational Administration , 53(2), 197. Fleishman, E. (1953). The Description of Supervisory Behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1-6. Gini, A. (1997). Moral Leadership: An Overview. Journal of Business Ethics, 323-330. Ingraham, P., Joyce, P., & Donahue, A. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Leikert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Levine, M. P., & Boaks, J. (2014). What does ethics have to do with leadership? Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 225-242. Locke, A., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. Pandey, S., & Rainey, G. (2006). Public managers perceptions of goal ambiguity: Analyzing alternative models. International Public Management Journal, 9, 85-112. Preston, N. (2007). Understanding Ethics (3rd Edition ed.). Leichhardt: The Federation Press. Rainey, H., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 1-32. Resick, C., Hanges, P., Dickson, M., & J.K., M. (2006). A cross-culture examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345. Rezaiian, S., & Ghazinouri, S. (2010). “Finding a model for the role of ethics in the success of knowledge management systems”. Science and Technology Policy Quarterly, 3(2), 1-9. Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyrefitte, J., & Sebora, T. (2002). Leadership and ethics in work groups: A longitudinal assessment. Group and Organization Management , 27, 272-293. Svensson, G., & Wood, G. (2011). “A conceptual framework of corporate and business ethics across organizations”,. The Learning Organization, 18(1), 21-35. Takala, T. (1998). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business, 17, 785-798. Treviño, L. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A preson-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617. Treviño, L., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. (2003). A Qualitative Investigation of Perceived Executive Ethical Leadership: Perceptions from Inside and Outside the Executive. Human Relations, 56(1), 5-37. Whetstone, J. (2001). How Virtue Ethics Fits Within Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 101-114. Wolf, P. (1993). A case survey of bureaucratic effectiveness in U.S. cabinet agencies: Preliminary results. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 161-181. Note: Above is the outline and literature review of the research paper. The final paper should be in close proximity to the literature review. Also, the final paper should exactly follow the outline given. Please ensure spelling and grammar is correct.