ContentServer (1)-done.pdf

r The Academy of Management Perspectives2015, Vol. 3015, No. 1, 19–29.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0016.test

S Y M P O S I U M

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP: THEORETICAL ISSUES ANDRESEARCH DIRECTIONS

DAVID A. WALDMANRACHEL M. BALVEN

Arizona State University

This article serves as an overview of the articles included in this symposium as well asa consideration of how the topic of responsible leadership can be framed in terms ofresearch directions. Specifically, we focus on how the included articles bring attentionto the theoretical divergence within the literature. To help address the variations ofresponsible leadership theories, we identify five areas in need of further research: (1)responsible leadership processes and outcomes, (2) stakeholder priorities, (3) trainingand development, (4) globalization and macro-level forces, and (5) measurement andassessment. In our discussion of each area, we elaborate by referring to other articles inthe symposium, and we provide examples of specific issues that challenge responsibleleadership research and implementation. Additionally, because responsible leadershipconcerns both the micro and macro levels of analysis, our discussion considers indi-viduals, groups, and organizations.

As the concept of responsible leadership (RL)continues to develop, so do potential issues thatneed to be addressed and clarified through theoryand research. RL represents a concept that exists atthe intersection of two existing fields of study: socialresponsibility and leadership. While much has beenwritten about social responsibility, such as its re-lationship to firm financial performance (Orlitzky,Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003), much less is known abouthow actions and decisions on the part of individualsaffect, or are affected by, social responsibility. Atopic like RL inherently crosses levels of analysis byconsidering individuals, groups, and organizationsas a whole (Christensen, Mackey, & Whetten, 2014;Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman, & Siegel, 2013). Themultilevel nature of RL comes through in thissymposium, as the authors recognize several microand macro issues that are relevant to its studyand implementation. Indeed, this multilevel flavorwould suggest that as compared to related formsof leadership (e.g., ethical or moral leadership), RLhas a unique applicability to the upper echelons oforganizations.

Along with this multilevel emphasis, it is notsurprising that multiple theoretical frameworks arerelevant to RL, and indeed these frameworks can be

seen in the articles of this symposium. Examplesinclude agency (Aguilera, Filatotchev, Jackson, &Gospel, 2008; Jensen, 1986), stakeholder (Clarkson,1995; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984;Margolis & Walsh, 2003), institutional (Campbell,2007; Zucker, 1987), stewardship (Davis, 2005;Donaldson &Davis, 1991), and ethics-based (Brown &Trevirlo, 2006; Jones, Felps, & Bigley, 2007) theories.It is not surprising that such a range of theoreticalbases would suggest different potential interpreta-tions of what constitutes responsibility and, thus,how leaders might best approach RL.

Despite the broad domain of RL, processes asso-ciated with individuals exerting leadership influ-ence are at its core. This makes it impossible toframe RL without considering individuals in termsof their behaviors and decisions. Although the CEOwould seem to be most applicable, other organiza-tional members might also come into play, such asother top management team members, board mem-bers, and so forth. Consequently, the domain of RLcannot be thoroughly considered without a focus onindividuals. Stated another way, when specificallyconsidering RL, it is not about whether organiza-tions act responsibly, but about how individuals actand make decisions.

19

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0016.test

In this overview article, we summarize the arti-cles in the special issue. We then use the issuesbrought forth by these articles as a means of iden-tifying several themes that will help to move theoryand research forward in the realm of RL. These in-clude aspects of RL processes and outcomes, RL ina global or macro context, measurement and as-sessment, training and development, and so forth.Within this review, we particularly highlight the

wide scope of RL perspectives within the literature.We conclude with specific suggestions to help guidefuture research and theory development.

OVERVIEW OF SYMPOSIUM ARTICLES

The articles in this symposium are summarizedin Table 1. As shown in the table, their focus andtopics span multiple levels and a range of issues

TABLE 1Summaries of Articles Included in This Symposium

Level ofanalysis Purpose Key issues identified Implications

Stahl and Sully de LuqueMultilevel c To synthesize past and current

research on RLc Whether or not executive leadershave social responsibilities beyondgenerating wealth

c RL is an outcome of both individualcharacteristics and specificcontextual factors.c To propose a conceptualization of

RL that is developed from “do good”and “avoid harm” perspectives

c Inconsistencies of previousresearch in its conceptualizationsof RL behavior, as well asantecedents

c Psychological strength and themoral intensity of the situation arethe mechanisms through which RLis attained.

c Recognition that RL involves “dogood” as well as “avoid harm”

behavior

c Researchers should be especiallycognizant of RL implications froma global perspective as multinationalmanagers deal with challenges thatmay be different from those of moreparochial organizations.

Doh and QuigleyMultilevel c To reconcile divergent approaches

to RL by developing a theory thataccounts for pathways throughwhich responsible leaders are ableto influence organizationaloutcomes

c Multiple approaches to RL exist inthe literature, including: (1) RLmustincorporate the use of strategic CSRactivities for the benefit ofshareholders, and (2) RL mustincorporate multiple stakeholderswhen making decisions.

c Responsible leaders can leveragea stakeholder theory to influenceothers through either a psychologicalor an informational path.

c The psychological path consists oftrust, ownership, and commitment.

c The informational path consists ofboundary-spanning betweenorganizations and key stakeholders,and encouraging functionalknowledge and information flow.

Pearce, Wassenaar, and ManzMultilevel c To propose shared leadership as

a model to guide theimplementation of RL at multiplelevels, including societal,organizational, and group levels

c An exclusive focus on hierarchicalleadership is insufficient asa means of considering RL.

c Shared leadership can be a usefulapproach toward the effectiveimplementation of RL as well asa means to prevent/remedyirresponsible leadership.

cAlthough a shared leadership modelholds promise, there are challengesin terms of its effectiveimplementation.

c A shared leadership model allowsfor a system of internal checks andbalances that may help to lessenirresponsible leadership practices.

Filatotchev and NakajimaOrganization c To explore the link between

corporate governance and RL, andhow this relationship affects CSRactivities

c There are many CSR-related issuesthat have yet to be resolved, or evenidentified.

c An understanding of the complexinterplay among leadershipbehavior, corporate governancemechanisms, and institutionalpressures can produce moreeffective CSR planning andimplementation.

c The literature is especially lackingin identifying and overcomingthese challenges by use ofa corporate governance lens.

20 JanuaryThe Academy of Management Perspectives

pertaining to RL. As such, they represent an eclecticmix of perspectives on this important topic. Thefirst article, by Stahl and Sully de Luque, defines RLas “intentional actions taken by leaders to benefitthe stakeholders of the company and/or actionstaken to avoid harmful consequences for corporatestakeholders and the larger society.” The authorsprovide a synthesis of prior research that is relevantto RL as a background for introducing a frameworkthat explains managers’ propensity to engage inwhat they term as “do good” versus “avoid harm”

socially responsible behaviors. This dichotomylargely reflects prescriptive and proscriptive mo-rality, respectively. The authors argue that “do good”and “avoid harm” behaviors have different psy-chological bases and antecedents and are thereforeconceptually distinct from one another. However,behaviors in both categories are a reflection of theinteraction of individual factors (such as personality,affective states, and moral philosophies) and con-textual factors (such as situational, organizational,institutional, and supranational).

Specifically, Stahl and Sully de Luque provide amodel from which to explore how specific contex-tual factors can increase the psychological strengthand moral intensity of the situations facing manag-ers in their work environments and, thus, eitherpromote or hinder managers’ responsible behavior.In emphasizing the ethics-based approach of theirpaper, the authors posit that this (either positive ornegative) augmentation of behavior manifests fromboth the strength of a situation and the degree ofmoral intensity of responsibility issues thatmanagersface, which often exist in parallel. Accordingly, thedegree to which leaders’ individual characteristicsaffect their propensity to engage in responsible be-havior during a managerial predicament is moder-ated by situational strength. Such predicamentsinclude magnitude of consequences, social con-sensus, probability of effect, temporal immediacy,proximity, and concentration of effect—all of whichmay account for why managers may act responsiblyin some situations and irresponsible in others.

In addition to this universal application, theauthors give special consideration to the global ormultinational RL domain. Stahl and Sully de Luquecontend that managers in multinational corporationsare faced with especially unique challenges and po-tentially different standards, such as cultural viewson bribery, with regard to implementing corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) activities and responsiblebehavior. The article concludes with the practicalimplications of their framework by suggesting that

many of the organizational-, situational-, societal-,and supranational-level determinants of managerialbehaviors can be achieved by internal forces, suchas the appropriate selection, training, and devel-opment of leaders, as well as external forces, suchas regulatory enforcement, media coverage, andpolicymaking.

Using stakeholder theory, the article by Doh andQuigley considers multiple levels of analysis toreconcile divergent perspectives of CSR by develop-ing a theory of how responsible leaders influenceorganizational outcomes. They present psychologi-cal and knowledge-based pathways through whichleaders display their responsibly oriented actions.These actions may then lead to positive outcomesfor both the organization and its stakeholders. Thefirst pathway is the psychological process mecha-nism, which includes trust, ownership, and com-mitment as the underpinnings of why responsibleleaders with stakeholder priorities can engenderpositive organizational outcomes. Doh and Quigleyposit that at the individual level, higher levels ofthese qualities, such as increased trust that followersplace in their leaders, are likely to have significantbenefits to both the organization and the stake-holder(s) involved. At the team level, a psychologi-cal boost is achieved by leader inclusiveness, whichincreases engagement and team learning, as wellas shared leadership experience in which trust isprompted between players both internal to andoutside of the corporation. And last, at the organi-zational level, the authors discuss how culture(organizational and global) continues to play a sig-nificant role in the relationship between a firm andits stakeholders.

The second pathway through which responsibleleaders can influence outcomes is knowledgebased. Such influences are achieved by boundaryspanning between their respective organizationsand key stakeholders, and by engaging in activitiesthat encourage knowledge and information to flowin a functional manner within the organization.Responsible leaders who use this pathway put them-selves in the best position to capitalize on engage-ment with external stakeholders who may help toincrease awareness and appreciation of importanttrends the firm would otherwise not have recog-nized. Thus, stakeholder engagement may preventleaders from being caught unaware by unforeseendevelopments stemming from new expectations fortheir organization.

Doh and Quigley provide recent examples ofleaders at Coca-Cola, DuPont, andWalmart to further

2015 21Waldman and Balven

illustrate select mechanisms through which the twoproposed pathways are manifested. For example,executive leaders at Coca-Cola exhibited elementsfrom both pathways as external signals were trans-lated into the internal information needed to bringabout the necessary organizational changes to in-crease employee sustainability efforts. The authorsconclude by encouraging researchers to empiricallyexamine their proposed theoretical pathways as theycall for the development of best practices throughwhich leaders can first identify key stakeholdersand then manage how knowledge should flow tosuch stakeholders.

The third article in this symposium, by Pearce,Wassenaar, and Manz, explores the role the sharedleadership paradigm has in promoting RL. Consis-tent with the symposium, the authors use the “dogood,” “avoid harm,” and stakeholder perspectivesof RL (Maak & Pless, 2006) rather than a more eco-nomic view (McWilliams & Siegel, 2011; Siegel,2009). The authors begin by defining shared lead-ership as the relative degree to which official andunofficial leader duties are considered collectiveobligations. One way to best conceptualize sharedleadership is to look at it in direct contrast with theview that leadership should take on a solely top-down hierarchical approach. Thus, shared leader-ship reflects the notion that there are social actorsin an organization who all play a part in the processof leading one another toward productive outcomes(Pearce & Conger, 2002).

Next, Pearce et al. describe four distinct types ofleadership influence—directive, transactional, trans-formational, and empowering (Pearce & Ensley,2004)—and discuss how these leadership types feedinto a more holistic model of responsible sharedleadership. The authors then shift into discussinghow a lack of shared leadership processes (i.e., apurely hierarchical leadership view) can result inleader irresponsibility. They illustrate this risk bydescribing the experiences and observations of twoof the authors, who lived in Nigeria. Their articledetails the crisis of irresponsible leadership that hasplagued Nigeria for decades, as the land’s bountieswere squandered by the relatively few people whoheld power. Furthermore, the authors point outthat such irresponsible actions on the part of leadersrarely have serious consequences for the perpe-trators and that irresponsibility has effects through-out society.

Despite such a seemingly futile cause, Pearceet al. suggest that there is hope for societies suchas Nigeria, as well as lower-level entities such as

organizations, in the form of a shared leadership ap-proach that incorporates responsibility. They pro-pose that shared leadership, as well as transparency,can allow a system of checks and balances onpower. In furthering this point, the authors elaborateon specific processes that hierarchical leaders canimplement to avoid irresponsible leadership anddevelop more of a shared RL model. These pro-cesses revolve around the appropriate applicationof different types of shared leadership: rotated, in-tegrated, distributed, and comprehensive (Pearce,Manz, & Sims, 2014). The authors conclude bydetailing how shared leadership has the potential tofacilitate responsibility and prevent/remedy irre-sponsibility at various levels.

In the last article, Filatotchev and Nakajima de-velop a multilevel theoretical framework thatattempts to bridge the research gaps that currentlyexist among the role of corporate leaders, CSRactivities, and corporate governance mechanisms.Although there has been progress in research per-taining to the challenges facing executive leadersconcerning CSR-related activities and policies, theauthors argue that these findings have not been as-similated into the corporate governance literature.It is this void that the authors endeavor to fill.By discussing the place that CSR has within agency-grounded corporate governance research, the au-thors suggest that agency theory posits an emphasison the shareholder-manager dichotomy, which inturn results in a transactional or “closed system”

perspective of the firm. Through this perspective,CSR-related activities chiefly serve to ensure regu-latory compliance.

In presenting alternative views, such as stew-ardship and stakeholder theories, Filatotchev andNakajima summarize previous work that points to-ward an understanding of potential links betweencorporate governance and CSR by way of a more in-clusive and detailed analysis of how firm-level gov-ernance processes relate to the demands of a widerbody of stakeholders. This process of engagementhints at a similar theme of stakeholder inclusion asthe Doh and Quigley article. However, Filatotchevand Nakajima argue that such outcomes may be dif-ficult to recognize until a more comprehensive andsystematic “open system” framework is developed tobetter recognize the interactions between corporategovernance factors and CSR. Such an approachwould shift the focus away from the structuralaspects of corporate governance and toward themoreorganizational aspects of different governance con-stellations and their impact on CSR policies.


Finally, Filatotchev and Nakajima introduce aninstitutional perspective as another way to explorehow both corporate governance and CSR are af-fected by external pressures for legitimacy. Using aninstitutional theory stance of corporate governanceas an endogenous entity, they suggest that the im-pact corporate governance strategies have on thefirm’s choice of CSR policies is highly responsiveto various regulative, normative, and cognitive in-stitutional pressures. Thus, the authors conclude byurging that researchers move toward a more con-textualized theory of CSR that includes both man-agerial and board member actions to fully recognizehow phenomena like CSR relate to issues of corpo-rate governance.

RESEARCH ISSUES ANDTHEORETICAL DIVERGENCE

The articles that compose this symposium di-rectly or indirectly raise several issues pertaining tohow theory, research, and the practice of RL mightmove forward. We now turn our attention towardthose issues, highlight how the articles in this sym-posium are relevant, and provide suggestions thatmight be useful. Specifically, we discuss issues re-lated to divergence in RL theoretical perspectivesand how these views may potentially converge tocreate a more succinct RL paradigm. Although ourdiscussion is directed primarily at researchers,we also consider practical implementation. Table 2summarizes our discussion, specifically questionsposed regarding RL and its implementation. Incapturing a wide range of issues, we address fiveareas: (1) responsible leadership processes and out-comes, (2) stakeholder priorities, (3) training anddevelopment, (4) globalization and macro-levelforces, and (5) measurement and assessment.

Responsible Leadership Processes and Outcomes

Some basic issues exist regarding what responsibleleadership is all about and how it manifests itselfin organizations. These issues pertain to how RL isdefined, the distinction between responsible andirresponsible leadership practices, the position(s)that are most important in the display of RL, and soforth. For example, Stahl and Sully de Luque (thisissue) propose a framework that encompasses bothmicro and macro perspectives in terms of in-dividual actions that either benefit or avoid harm tostakeholders.

One important question is whether leaders canbe responsible and irresponsible at the same time.Stated another way, do responsible and irresponsi-ble leadership reflect opposite ends of the samecontinuum, or are they reflective of differentabstractions altogether? This question is similar tothe notion of “doing good” versus “avoiding harm”

that is highlighted by Stahl and Sully de Luque (thisissue). Perhaps in many cases, leaders exhibit bothtypes of behaviors simultaneously.

In taking a stakeholder perspective, it may bethat a leader can be responsible for one stake-holder group but neglectful to others. As Dohand Quigley (this issue) describe, there is a greatchallenge in the task of prioritizing the potentiallylimitless number of stakeholders an organizationneeds to consider. This may result in a leader’sputting forth effort into appeasing a particularstakeholder group that he perceives as key to or-ganizational success or just appeals to his valueswhile neglecting another stakeholder group thathe perceives to be less important. For example, aleader can exhibit socially responsible behaviorby ensuring that her employees are not discrimi-nated against racially. However, this same leadermay condone the use of child labor by one of thefirm’s suppliers.

Irresponsible and responsible leadershipmay evenaffect the same stakeholder group. For example,environmental advocacy groups might be especiallyconcerned with an electric utility’s use of coal forenergy, so the leader develops a plan to create ahydroelectric dam to harness energy from flowingwater. However, when the dam is complete, theenvironmental group still considers the leader irre-sponsible as it has destroyed an ecosystem of fishand other creatures. Despite differing perspectives onwhether leaders can be simultaneously responsibleand irresponsible, research representing both view-points can proceed concurrently as each perspec-tive presents a different vein of exploration withinthe RL domain.

A further RL process worthy of research is that ofthe shared leadership model as detailed by Pearceand colleagues (this issue). By moving away froman exclusive, top-down hierarchical leadership ap-proach toward the implementation of shared lead-ership, we may be able to prevent the spread ofirresponsibility that many societal and businessleaders exhibit. Thus, irresponsible leadership maybe addressed by establishing a system of checks andbalances or transparency that is characteristic ofa shared leadership model. However, as Pearce et al.


detail, there are many unexplored paths as wellas differing perspectives regarding how to best im-plement shared leadership within an RL orienta-tion. They pose several questions: When is it most

appropriate to share leadership? How can an orga-nization implement such a model? How can an or-ganization shift between hierarchical and sharedleadership to best ensure RL?

TABLE 2Suggested Future Research Questions Relevant to Responsible Leadership and Its Implementation in Organizations

Responsible leadership processes and outcomesc What are the qualities or traits associated with responsible leadership at the top management team (TMT) level?c Do alternative forms of responsible leadership lead to more or less corporate social or financial performance at the firm level?c What is the role of traditional leadership processes (e.g., transformational, servant, or authentic leadership) in CSR formulation and

implementation at different organizational levels?c How do singular and shared/plural forms of leadership coincide to achieve effective responsible leadership processes?c What is the role of a CSR (or sustainability) department vis-a-vis TMT members in responsible leadership processes?c What is the connection between responsible and irresponsible leadership practices? Can both coincide within an organization?c What is themeaning and role of accountability within responsible leadership processes, andwhat organizational mechanisms and personal

qualities are associated with leader accountability?c Can the “responsible organization” be separated from “responsible leadership”?c How do informal leaders play an important role in terms of responsibility during times when the current formal leader(s) is perceived as

being irresponsible?

Stakeholder prioritiesc How do responsible leaders appropriately identify relevant stakeholders and align policies/actions that will balance their needs (as

suggested by stakeholder theory)?c How can a leader best tie in shareholder priorities with stakeholder priorities?c What are the traits, processes, and so forth through which executives balance economic and stakeholder concerns?c How can leaders utilize their stakeholder network to help in the creation of an organizational climate of responsibility?c Is there a “butterfly effect” in which an organization helps to serve the needs of one stakeholder, especially one who is a member of its

supply chain, thereby positively affecting other stakeholder groups? Are there situations in which being responsible to one group mayhurt another?

c How can responsible leadership orientations help organizations to overcome the potential trust gaps that may exist between certainstakeholders, or between stakeholders and the organization?

Training and developmentc Can orientations toward responsible leadership be trained or developed, or are the values, beliefs, and mindsets pertaining to responsible

leadership more trait-like and non-trainable?c Is effective responsible leadership training/development dependent on the managerial level of the employee? How should a middle-tier

manager’s training differ from a TMT member’s training when it comes to responsible leadership?c Do effective development processes differ for profit-based vs. not-for-profit organizations?

Globalization and macro-level forcesc How do leaders helpMNCs adjust to having to deal with culturally different perspectives or environments that may offer different views on

what CSR is all about?c How can leaders help integrate governmental policies or regulations pertaining to CSR into the CSR-related actions of their organizations?c What are the implications for responsible/irresponsible leadership in relation to corruption phenomena, such as kickbacks, bribery, and

government favoritism?c How is shared leadership governed in a multinational realm where the laws, regulations, and norms may differ for leaders in different

countries, potentially impeding leaders from executing an equivalent organizational standard of responsible leadership? In such contexts,are differing standards appropriate?

c How do cross-cultural differences in leaders affect the shared leadership dynamic?c Are there differences in terms of antecedents, outcomes, and so forth with regard to responsible leadership in for-profit organizations

versus not-for-profit organizations?

Measurement and assessmentc How is responsible leadership best measured in empirical research?c How do we measure multilevel relationships between CSR and responsible leadership?c How can we best use input from appropriate stakeholders when evaluating the actions of a leader, or outcomes?c How can (or should) the effects of responsible leadership be measured? How might more micro-level outcomes (e.g., identification) be

incorporated with more macro-level outcomes (e.g., firm social or financial performance)?c Regarding shared responsible leadership, how can research parse decisions that may have been more heavily influenced by certain leader(s)?c How can the effects of prior responsible/irresponsible leaders be differentiated from those of current responsible/irresponsible leaders?

That is, how do indefinite time frames come into play in the assessment of responsible/irresponsible leadership?c What types of questions might qualitative research address to further our understanding of responsible leadership?


Accountability represents an additional issue thatis relevant to RL research. Dictionary-based defini-tions of responsibility inherently include account-ability, although theory and research to date havebeen noticeably absent with regard to this particularissue. What exactly does it mean for leaders to beheld accountable to stakeholders, and what organi-zational or personal qualities of leaders are associ-ated with accountability? If organizational policiesstress accountability to particular stakeholders, whatconsequences might ensue if no leader is held di-rectly accountable, or if the leader attributes failureto meet the needs of stakeholders to external causes?These and related questions pertaining to account-ability might prove to be fertile ground for helpingto understand responsible leadership processes andtheir outcomes.

Stakeholder Priorities

As should be evident in the articles included inthis symposium, stakeholder theory is perhaps ap-plicable to any viable consideration of RL (see Dohand Quigley, as well as Pearce and colleagues, thisissue). For example, although stakeholder theorywould suggest that the needs of multiple stakeholderentities should be balanced, how exactly might aresponsible leader achieve such an ideal level ofharmonization in meeting stakeholder expectations?At an even more basic level, how do responsibleleaders appropriately identify “relevant” stake-holders? For instance, a textile firm that currentlyoperates in the United States has leaders who havepromoted strong community relations (i.e., thecommunity as a stakeholder) by employing localworkers and paying beyond sufficient wages. How-ever, the firm wants to increase profits (i.e., to betterserve shareholders) by using suppliers who canprovide cheaper labor overseas. In this situation, aresponsible leader may balance the various aspectsof this transition by first ensuring that currentemployees do not lose their jobs (or are providedsatisfactory severance packages and outplacementservices if their employment is no longer financiallyfeasible). Second, the firm and its leader(s) willensure that offshore suppliers do not use negli-gent business practices by having poor workingconditions.

Additionally, when leaders are able to meetstakeholder expectations, there can be a “butterflyeffect” in which other stakeholders also receive apositive benefit from the actions of the organiza-tion toward the intended stakeholder. RL is highly

dependent on the interplay between an organiza-tion’s leaders and its stakeholders (Waldman, 2014).Because an organization’s network of stakeholdersis highly interconnected, leaders who are able torecognize the shared value their business creates maybe better organized to handle their core stakeholdersas a unified group rather than as separate entities(Freeman, Wicks, & Parmar, 2004). Unfortunately,in some cases one stakeholder group maybe in directopposition to another stakeholder group’s needs. Thechallenge for responsible leaders is to try to avoidany negative repercussions that could affect onestakeholder group because of bringing about posi-tive outcomes for another stakeholder group. Per-haps the most effective responsible leaders are ableto identify such issues before they happen, and thusprepare for future actions or explanations that maybe demanded of them from the adversely affectedgroup(s).

Training and Development

There has beenmuch debate in past research aboutwhether individuals can be trained to become goodleaders and even responsible leaders (Ashkanasy,Windsor, & Trevirlo, 2006; Fleishman, 1953; House &Aditya, 1997). Regardless of the debate, leadershipresearch and consulting have focused on develop-ment programs that can shape the effectivenessof people in leadership positions. One such pro-gram, called Project Ulysses, serves as an integratedservice-learning program in which individuals travelabroad to spend time working with NGOs, entre-preneurs, and other small organizations in under-developed countries. A long-term, post-programsurvey provided evidence that this experience en-hanced RL qualities in the participants. Thus, thestudy serves as an example of an approach to howRL qualities can be learned outside of a formaltraining setting (Pless, Maak, & Stahl, 2011).

It should be noted that Project Ulysses and othersuch programs generally operate by training em-ployees from the same organization. This leads oneto wonder how such training might affect leaderswho are the only ones from their companies toparticipate in service-learning programs. If only oneindividual from a firm is granted the opportunity forsuch an experience, the rest of the organizationmight not reap the desired benefits of moving to-ward more responsible behavior from their leaders.That is, when only one key player in the firm has“seen the light” when it comes to making changestoward a more responsible existence, the burden


may be on that person to create an environment inwhich he can share his experience with otherleaders of the organization. Thus, others may be ableto live the experience vicariously through the actualparticipant (Bandura, 1977) and possibly adoptmore responsible leadership qualities. In this man-ner, the participant can contribute to the greater goalof having a whole organization of responsibleleaders by telling her story in a way that inspiresothers.

This process reflects on both the psychologicaland information pathways in which RL can affectan organization, as proposed by Doh and Quigley(this issue). Leader inclusiveness, which is theextent to which a leader can indicate by words oractions an invitation and appreciation for others’contributions (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006),suggests that the participant is signaling, throughparticipation in the project, his commitment to be-ing socially responsible, thus proceeding throughthe psychological pathway through which RL be-havior may be achieved. Likewise, the informationalpathway is being used as the participant thentransfers her experience to other organizationalmembers via knowledge and information flow. Weneed research to evaluate whether this potentialtransferring of the benefits of service-learning pro-grams to others is actually realized, as well as to testthe full breadth of how the psychological and in-formational pathways can benefit an organizationand its leaders.

Globalization and Macro-Level Forces

Although the topic of RL has garnered increasedattention and has a host of conceptualizations as towhat it means to be a responsible leader (Waldman,2014), we know little about the topic at the globallevel. For example, in multinational firms or firmswith a high degree of international diversity in topmanagement teams, there can be wide differencesin perspectives regarding practices and decisionsassociated with RL. This diversity and these dif-ferences could present challenges for attempts atshared RL among an internal collection of leaders ofa specific firm. To further complicate this issue, forleaders in a multinational firm, the laws and regu-lations may vary depending on where they arephysically located, leading to unique challenges inimplementing an organizational standard for RL.Factors such as differing cultural norms (e.g., normspertaining to corruption; see Pearce and colleagues,this issue), employment laws, and environmental

regulations serve to complicate any pursuit of ashared RL model. Thus, it behooves researchers toexamine the balance between holding all leadersto the same standards and adjusting the meaningof “responsible” to a specific cultural or societalcontext. Such research would not only contributeto leadership literature but would have importantpractical applications for multinational organizationsusing a shared leadership paradigm (see Pearceet al., this issue).

Relatedly, Filatotchev and Nakajima (this issue)deal with the potential effects of the institutionalcontext on RL. They note that previous studies havelargely failed to take into account the role of a firm’sinstitutional environment with regard to the linkbetween corporate governance factors and organi-zational CSR strategy. While not considering eithercorporate governance or board members per se,Stahl and Sully de Luque (this issue) echo a similartheme. We concur and suggest that future researchpay attention to RL within various institutionalcontexts.

Stahl and Sully de Luque (this issue) delve furtherinto the global perspective of RL by discussinghow the supranational context has a significant in-fluence on RL behavior. An example they give per-tains to the different ways that companies and theirleaders enforce the UN Global Compact (UNGC),a United Nations initiative that encourages busi-nesses to adopt sustainable and socially responsiblepolicies. Although case analyses have suggestedthat some companies have implemented the UNGC(Woo, 2010), there is also evidence of its slowand uneven adoption (Baumann-Pauly, Wickert,Spence, & Scherer, 2013). Perhaps societal or cul-tural differences affect leaders in their attempts toimplement the UNGC. In short, the UNGC may pro-vide an important mechanism (e.g., relevant data) forresearchers to address RL in a global context.

Measurement and Assessment

Measurement is an obvious research issue forany domain, including RL. Measures have beendeveloped to assess a range of leadership concepts,including those that have at least some conceptualoverlap with RL, such as transformational (e.g.,Bass & Avolio, 1997), ethical (e.g., Brown, Trevirio, &Harrison, 2005), and servant (e.g., Liden, Wayne,Zhao, & Henderson, 2008) leadership. As is evidentfrom the articles in this symposium, one potentiallydistinguishing aspect of future RL measurement isthe need to assess leaders at more strategic levels.


This focus implies an emphasis on actions anddecisions oriented to the internal organization aswell as external constituents. In contrast, existingleadership measures focus on the internal organi-zation and especially behaviors toward individualsand small groups. Furthermore, it is apparent fromthe work of Pless, Maak, and Waldman (2012) andthat of Stahl and Sully de Luque (this issue) thatmultiple orientations or dimensions of RL can beconceived and, thus, measured.

Taking these issues into account, several questionscome to mind. Can a measure of RL be developedthat displays discriminant validity in comparisonwith existing leadership measures? In addition toresponses from internal followers, will measures ofRL inherently require input from stakeholders be-yond organizational boundaries? And how can RLbe assessed in more qualitative terms? These andother measurement issues will need to be addressedin future RL research.

As Waldman (2011) argued, it maybe possibleto derive an RL measure that could have broaderapplications without the “baggage” of approachesto the measurement and research on ethical lead-ership. Specifically, existing measures of ethicalleadership (e.g., Brown et al., 2005) are rathersubjective due to inherent information processingconstructions of what people perceive to be ethicalbehavior based on personal biases that may comefrom religion, culture, or personal experience. It ispossible that considerations of RL may overcomesuch limitations. In addition, the application ofethical leadership measurement beyond small grouplevels has been problematic (Brown & Trevifio,2006), and as noted above, the assessment of RLmayprove to be more relevant at strategic levels ofmanagement (Waldman, 2011).

CONCLUSIONS

The articles in the current symposium provideideas for how to move forward with theory and re-search in the area of responsible leadership. In thissymposium we see a range of perspectives, includ-ing both micro and macro approaches to the phe-nomenon. As we have pointed out, one of the issuesthat gets at the heart of RL processes is the di-vergence of economic/strategic versus more

stakeholder-based views of RL. However, we be-lieve that these perspectives can converge by betterunderstanding and dealing with the seeming con-flict between satisfying the concerns of owners/shareholders and those of other stakeholders (Smith

& Lewis, 2011). Often, researchers and practitionerswho adopt the stakeholder perspective neglect thefact that key stakeholders include shareholders.By contrast, those who adopt a more economic/strategic perspective make assumptions that theremust be trade-offs between satisfying the needs ofowners/shareholders and considering others stake-holders of the firm. We propose that a paradoxmanagement approach would assume that, overtime, there is no inherent conflict in these views ofRL, and that a firm may be able to simultaneouslypursue multiple goals that would benefit a range ofstakeholders, including owners/shareholders.

In light of our suggestions, we caution theoristsand researchers to avoid the temptation to imme-diately put forth normative approaches, wherebya stated model of RL is proclaimed to be the “wayforward” for both researchers and practitioners. Asshown by Pless and colleagues (2012) and rein-forced by Doh and Quigley (this issue), there canbe multiple ways of conceiving of RL. Indeed, theprecise meaning of effective RL remains controver-sial (Waldman & Siegel, 2008). Given the nascentstage of both theory and research, we concur withStahl and Sully de Luque (this issue) that descrip-tive approaches may thus be more appropriate tospecify and determine the antecedents and con-sequences of alternative approaches to RL.

We further conclude that as suggested at the outsetof this overview article, it is impossible to considerresponsible leadership without simultaneously con-sidering individual leaders—either as singular lead-ers or more collectively through a shared leadershipmodel. So while one may speak of the “responsibleorganization,” to consider responsible leadership perse, researchers will need to frame their thinking atleast to some degree within existing leadership con-cepts and theory. Thus, with an eye toward the fu-ture, we can look forward to when RL more clearlyhas its place within the greater study of leadershipprocesses in organizations. We hope that the readersof this symposium are able to apply the ideas pre-sented here in striving to answer questions of interestin the responsible leadership domain.

REFERENCES

Aguilera, R., Filatotchev, I., Jackson, G., & Gospel, H.(2008). An organizational approach to comparativecorporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and com-plementarities. Organization Science, 19, 475–492.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Windsor, C. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2006).Bad apples in bad barrels revisited: Cognitive moral


development, just world beliefs, rewards, and ethicaldecision-making. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16,449–473.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1997). Multifactor leadershipquestionnaire manual. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.

Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L., & Scherer,A. G. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibilityin small and large firms: Size matters. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 115, 693–705.

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership:A review and future directions. The LeadershipQuarterly, 17, 595–616.

Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005).Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective forconstruct development and testing. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 97,117–134.

Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave insocially responsible ways? An institutional theoryof corporate social responsibility. Academy of Man-agement Review, 82, 946–967.

Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The roleof perceived organizational performance in organiza-tional identification, adjustment, and job performance.Journal of Management Studies, 44, 972–992.

Christensen, L. J., Mackey, A., &Whetten, D. (2014). Takingresponsibility for corporate social responsibility: Therole of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining,or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors.The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2),164–178.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework foranalyzing and evaluating corporate social perfor-mance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.

Davis, G. F. (2005). New directions in corporate gover-nance. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 143–162.

Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theoryor agency theory: CEO governance and shareholderreturns.Australian Journal of Management, 16, 49–64.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theoryof the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implica-tions. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). Leadership climate, humanrelations training, and supervisory behavior. Person-nel Psychology, 6, 205–222.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stake-holder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stake-holder theory and “The corporate objective revis-ited.”. Organization Science, 15, 364–369.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientificstudy of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Manage-ment, 23, 409–473.

Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow,corporate finance, and takeovers. The AmericanEconomic Review, 76, 323–329.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D.(2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multi-dimensional measure andmultilevel assessment. TheLeadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2006). Responsible leadership in astakeholder society—a relational perspective. Journalof Business Ethics, 66, 99–115.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery lovescompanies: Rethinking social initiatives by business.Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating andcapturing value, strategic corporate social respon-sibility, resource-based theory, and sustainablycompetitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37,1480–1495.

Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel,D. S. (2013). Extending corporate social responsibilityresearch to the human resource management andorganizational behavior domains: A look to the future.Personnel Psychology, 66, 805–824.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Makingit safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and pro-fessional status on psychological safety and im-provement efforts in health care teams. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 27, 941–966.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. (2003). Corporatesocial and financial performance: A meta-analysis.Organization Studies, 24, 403–411.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership:Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal andlongitudinal investigation of the innovation process:The central role of shared vision in product andprocess innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 25, 259–278.

Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2014). Share,don’t take the lead. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developingresponsible global leaders through internationalservice-learning programs: The Ulysses experience.Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10,237–260.

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Waldman, D. A. (2012). Differentapproaches toward doing the right thing: Mappingthe responsibility orientations of leaders. The Acad-emy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 51–65.


Siegel, D. S. (2009). Green management matters only if ityields more green: An economic/strategic perspec-tive. The Academy of Management Perspectives,23(3), 5–16.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theoryof paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of orga-nizing. Academy of Management Review, 36,381–403.

Sully de Luque, M. F., Washburn, N., Waldman, D. A., &House, R. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholderand economic values relate to subordinates’ percep-tions of leadership and firm performance. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 53, 626–654.

Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M., & Scherer, A. G. (2012). Re-sponsible leadership in global business: A new ap-proach to leadership and its multilevel outcomes.Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 1–16.

Waldman, D. A. (2011). Moving forward with the con-cept of responsible leadership: Three caveats toguide theory and research. Journal of Business Ethics,98, 75–83.

Waldman, D. A. (2014). Bridging the domains of lead-ership and corporate social responsibility. In D.Day, (Ed.), Handbook of leadership and organ-izations (pp. 541–557). New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Denning the socially re-sponsible leader.The LeadershipQuarterly, 19, 117–131.

Woo, C. Y. (2010). Implementing the United NationsGlobal Compact. In A. Rasche & G. Kell. (Eds.), TheUnited Nations Global Compact: Achievements,trends and challenges (pp. 115–143). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization.Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464.

David A. Waldman ([email protected]) is a professor inthe W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State Uni-versity. His research interests include responsible lead-ership and the neuroscience of leadership. He currentlysits on six editorial review boards and is a fellow of theAmerican Psychological Association and the Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology.

Rachel M. Balven ([email protected]) is currently a doc-toral student in the W. P. Carey School of Business atArizona State University. Her research interests includeleadership, organizational influences on moral behaviorand decision-making, and corporate social responsibility.


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Copyright of Academy of Management Perspectives is the property of Academy ofManagement and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

ContentServer (1)-done.pdf