Misconceptions of Ethical LeadershipHow to Avoid Potentia.docx

Misconceptions of Ethical Leadership:
How to Avoid Potential
Pitfalls
MICHAEL E. BROWN
C orporate leaders have enjoyed life inthe national spotlight.
That spotlight
used to shine brightly on their accomplish-
ments, but today its glare scrutinizes the
ethical misdeeds of far too many business
leaders. Anyone who has followed the wave
of corporate scandals that began with the
collapse of Enron Corp., in 2001, will recog-
nize names like Ken Lay, John Rigas, and
Bernie Ebbers. They are but a few of the high-
profile leaders who fell from grace because of
their involvement in corporate scandals.
With so many examples of leaders behaving
badly, many questions come to mind: Why
have so many of our business leaders demon-
strated poor ethical leadership? Were these
leaders good people gone bad, corrupted by
the attendant wealth and power of the execu-
tive suite? Or were these individuals rotten
from the beginning? Can we develop more
ethical leaders?
Unfortunately, we will never know for
sure why these particular leaders did what
they did. However, business ethicists and

leadership researchers have been studying
leaders (both positive and negative) in order
to develop a better understanding of ethical
leadership in the workplace. Ethical leader-
ship seems easy in theory. After all, if every
leader (and employee) acted honestly, trea-
ted others the way that they wanted to be
treated (i.e., The Golden Rule), and remained
immune to greed, then there would be no
leadership scandals to discuss. Recent events
remind us that ethical leadership is more
difficult in practice.
The simplest and most obvious explana-
tion for the ethical lapses of our business
leaders is poor character, but it would be a
serious mistake to blame all of their misdeeds
on personal weaknesses and defects. In fact,
the tendency to attribute others’ behavior to
individual factors such as character more
frequently than to acknowledge alternative
influences (e.g., peer pressure) on behavior
has a name. Psychologists call it the funda-
mental attribution error, and it occurs fre-
quently whenever people try to explain
why leaders do the things they do.
Clearly, leaders’ character influences
their ethical performance at work. Many
management scholars have emphasized the
role that strong character and principles play
in effective leadership of self and others.
Leaders must rely on their ‘‘inner com-
passes’’ to point them in the right direction.
Without one, a leader is like a captain of a

ship sailing aimlessly along. However, pilot-
ing a ship requires more than a good sense of
direction. Good captains have a good com-
pass and know how to use it, but they also
must know how to sail a ship, motivate a
crew, and manage a journey. Similarly, dec-
ades of research on ethics and leadership
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 140–155, 2007
ISSN 0090-2616/$ – see frontmatter
� 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.03.003
www.organizational-dynamics.com
Acknowledgment: The author would like to thank Jim Detert
and special issue editor Mary
Uhl-Bien for their helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this
article.
140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.03.003
indicates that leadership (ethical or other-
wise) is a function of many factors and not
just the result of the ‘‘right’’ character and
integrity. So what is ethical leadership?
W H A T I S E T H I C A L
L E A D E R S H I P ?
Ethical leadership has typically been defined
in terms of normative business ethics. A nor-
mative approach to leadership and other
subjects in business ethics is concerned with

defining how individuals ‘‘ought’’ to behave
in the workplace. For example, philosophers
and theologians have considered which fra-
meworks and principles ought to be used to
make ethical decisions, debated whether a
particular leader is an ethical leader, or
judged whether a certain style of leadership
or type of influence is ethical.
Fewer theorists and practitioners have
focused on the perceptual aspects of ethical
leadership. What are called descriptive appro-
aches to business ethics attempt to understand
how people actually perceive things like ethi-
cal leadership as well as to investigate the
antecedents and outcomes of those percep-
tions. Questions such as—How do people
define ethical leadership? What characteris-
tics are associated with perceived ethical lea-
dership? And, what are the consequences of
being perceived as an ethical leader?—have
only been recently considered by leadership
scholars following a descriptive research
agenda.
In one of the first descriptive studies of
ethical leadership, Linda Treviño and collea-
gues interviewed senior executives and ethics
officers in a variety of industries to under-
stand how people describe ethical leadership.
The researchers found that ethical leaders
were described as moral persons who are hon-
est, trustworthy, and fair. Ethical leaders were
seen as principled decision makers who care
about people and the greater good of society.
They are known for behaving ethically in their

personal and professional lives.
The researchers also found that ethical
leaders were described as moral managers.
Moral managers proactively attempt to
influence followers’ ethical and unethical
behavior. They make ethics salient by com-
municating clear ethical standards, intention-
ally role modeling ethical behavior, and by
using rewards and discipline to hold fol-
lowers accountable for ethical conduct.
Treviño and colleagues’ research indi-
cates that an ethical leader can be described
as someone who is a moral person and moral
manager. Perceptions of ethical leadership are
a function of who the leader is (i.e., a moral
person with strong character) as well as what
the leader does (i.e., a moral manager who
leads others to behave ethically). Leaders
must have both elements in order to be seen
as an ethical leader by those around them. In
subsequent research, my colleagues and I
defined ethical leadership as ‘‘the demonstra-
tion of normatively appropriate conduct
through personal actions and interpersonal
relationships, and the promotion of such con-
duct to followers through two-way commu-
nication, reinforcement, and decision
making.’’
The purpose of this article is to address
the ‘‘fact and fiction’’ of ethical leadership.
There are many misconceptions about ethical
leadership (like the idea that ethical leader-

ship is solely a function of character or other
individual factors). Ignorance about these
myths can lead even a well-intentioned lea-
der to commit the same ethical missteps
made by others. It is essential then, to help
leaders chart these potentially treacherous
waters so that they can lead themselves
and others more ethically and effectively.
M I S C O N C E P T I O N # 1 : E T H I C A L
L E A D E R S M U S T N O T W O R R Y
A B O U T H O W T H E Y A R E
P E R C E I V E D B Y O T H E R S
Most would agree that ethical leaders are
individuals who do the right thing, even when
it is unpopular. Ethical leaders should be
guided by their own inner compasses and
must have the courage of their convictions.
McClelland argued that great leaders should
141
have a low need for affiliation and should not
concern themselves with how they are per-
ceived by others. But is this advice wise? Do
those perceptions matter? Should leaders care
what others think about them? Research sug-
gests that focusing too much on an inner
compass and ignoring the external reality of
how one is perceived is misguided and poten-
tially dangerous.
First and foremost, individuals are not

accurate self-perceivers. Most people rate
themselves as better than the average person
on any number of dimensions such as honesty
and competence. We know that most positive
self-perceptions are ‘‘biased,’’ because it is
improbable that a majority of people can be
better than average (unless there are a few
very terrible people dragging down the aver-
age). Also, when ratings from multiple
sources such as self, superiors, and subordi-
nates are used to evaluate performance (e.g.,
3608 feedback), self ratings are almost always
higher than ratings obtained from others.
There are a number of psychological
mechanisms that contribute to biased self-
assessments. Most of us have a tendency to
take credit when things go well and assign
blame to other sources when things go
wrong. For example, managers are likely to
take personal credit when quarterly goals are
met, but blame other factors (such as eco-
nomic or industry-wide conditions) when
performance is poor. Thus, our autobiogra-
phies tend to contain many accomplishments
and few failures.
A self-serving bias affects how we per-
ceive ourselves and others. Individuals often
place great weight on negative information
when judging others. And yet, we tend to
ignore or downplay negative information
about ourselves and more easily recall and
give greater emphasis to our positive quali-
ties. For example, if we catch a coworker
telling a lie, we are likely to consider that

colleague a dishonest person. However,
when we tell a lie, we might attribute our lies
to a temporary ‘‘lapse in judgment’’ that
allows us to maintain the positive self-impres-
sion that we are more honest than the average
person.
These biases are especially problematic
for leaders. Leaders are typically confident
individuals who are conditioned to have a
thick skin. Thick skin can be helpful for lea-
ders, especially since criticism comes with the
territory of being a leader, and no leader can
possibly please everyone. However, legiti-
mate criticism is important. If it is ignored,
the results can be damaging for both leaders
and their followers. Employees like to work
for leaders who listen to their concerns. A
leader who disregards negative feedback
can alienate and frustrate employees.
Bias is also acute when the domain under
self-scrutiny is related to ethics. Most indivi-
duals (leaders, non-leaders, etc.) tend to rate
themselves as more ethical compared with
the rest of the population. This inherent belief
in our own moral superiority is very danger-
ous. It contributes to moral disengagement, a
process in which ‘‘good’’ individuals justify
‘‘bad’’ behavior if it serves what they con-
sider to be a moral end. Throughout history,
there have been examples of leaders in all
spheres of life who believed the terrible acts
they committed were morally justified.
The second reason why perceived ethical

leadership is important is that by definition,
leaders rely on others to get things accom-
plished. Therefore, it is important for leaders
to understand what followers think and feel
about their leadership. Leadership research-
ers know that employees’ ratings of leaders
are better predictors of important individual
and organizational outcomes compared with
leaders’ self ratings. The same holds true for
ethical leadership. Ethical leadership is best
understood through the eyes of those being
led.
E x a m p l e : P a t r i c i a D u n n a n d t h e
H P L e a k S c a n d a l
Patricia Dunn, the former Hewlett-Pack-
ard Co. board chair, is an example of what
can happen when leaders are out of touch
with perception. In October 2006, Dunn was
charged with four felonies for her role in
directing HP’s internal investigation into
boardroom leaks. The investigation was con-
142 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
ducted to uncover the source of unauthor-
ized disclosures of confidential information
from board meetings that took place in 2005
and 2006. The tactics used during this inves-
tigation included pre-texting, in which inves-
tigators used false pretenses to obtain
personal phone records of board members
and journalists without their consent. During

congressional committee hearings that
looked into the matter, Dunn testified that
she was confident that the tactics used during
the investigation were not illegal. She also
noted that protecting board members’ priv-
acy was balanced by the need to root out the
source of the leak problem.
During her testimony, Dunn admitted that
as she looked back, she wished she had done
things differently. Dunn’s misplaced confi-
dence in the appropriateness of the HP inves-
tigation’s tactics serves as a cautionary tale
about the power of perception. Dunn was
convinced that tactics used during the inves-
tigation were justified, but the legal troubles
and public reaction to the investigation make
clear that others do not share Dunn’s convic-
tions. Although charges against Dunn were
ultimately dismissed, her involvement in the
scandal was costly. She was forced to resign
from the Board and her reputation has been
damaged.
Patricia Dunn is an example of a leader
whose biased self-perception clouded her
ability to detect her own ethically and legally
questionable behavior. But not all differences
in leader–follower ratings can be attributed
to biased self-perception. An alternative
explanation for the discrepancy is that fol-
lowers’ perceptions are out of touch with
who the leader ‘‘really’’ is.
Ethical people are often humble. They do
not broadcast their wonderful deeds to the

world. There are many leaders who quietly
struggle to make the best ethical decision.
These leaders are aware of their own concern
about ethics and assume that their concern is
transparent to others. Obviously, humility is
a good attribute to have. But an excess of
humility can be problematic, especially if it
causes a leader to shun the spotlight alto-
gether.
Sometimes leaders forget that others don’t
know them as well as they know themselves.
This is especially true for top leaders in big
companies. Executives feel that they operate
under a microscope, where every action and
decision is scrutinized and evaluated. The
reality is that on a day-to-day basis, few
employees in large companies ever come in
direct contact with top leaders and observe
how they operate. Leaders must be strong
moral managers to make ethics messages get
heard over the din of more frequent commu-
nications about organizational goals, tasks,
and performance. A moral person who does
not engage in strong moral management will
not be perceived as an ethical leader.
To summarize, biases in self-perception
can cloud a leader’s ability to accurately
evaluate his or her own ethical leadership.
Ethical leaders must be sensitive to how they
are perceived by others. Steadfastly relying
on their own inner compasses and ignoring
what others think can cause well-intentioned
leaders to make ethical lapses. On the other
hand, some leaders assume that their good-

ness is self-evident, and fail to demonstrate
moral management as a result. Ethical lea-
ders must be perceived as strong moral per-
sons and strong moral managers.
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r L e a d e r s
� Leaders must learn how they are perceived.
In large companies, questions about ethical
leadership (regarding immediate supervisor
and top management) should be included on
anonymous employee surveys. Almost all of
the Fortune 1000 utilize some kind of upward
or multi-source feedback system. A. G. Laf-
ley, chief executive officer (CEO) of the
world’s largest consumer products manufac-
turer, Procter & Gamble Co., receives feed-
back from his employees about his
performance. Even the U.S. Navy is piloting
a 3608 program. In small companies or other
situations in which anonymous surveys are
not feasible, leaders can rely on a trusted
subordinate to provide feedback. Exit inter-
views with employees who leave the com-
pany can also provide information about the
143
state of ethical leadership within the organi-
zation. Can feedback like this work (espe-
cially in light of the biases which cause us to
shun negative information about ourselves)?
In one study by Atwater and colleagues,
leaders who had inflated self-ratings of their

own leadership performance were provided
anonymous ratings from their followers.
After receiving this feedback, the researchers
found that in a subsequent assessment, these
‘‘over-estimators’’ had improved. Leader
self-ratings became more congruent with fol-
lower ratings, and follower ratings indicated
that these leaders were more effective. Thus,
despite our tendency to have biased self-
assessment, change is possible.
� Leaders can invite honest feedback from
followers by their leadership style. Listening
to employees is a hallmark of ethical leader-
ship. By encouraging employees to speak up,
welcoming candor, and not shooting bearers
of bad news, leaders can feel more confident
that employees will share their true feelings.
� Ethical leadership requires action. Ethical
leadership involves leading oneself and lead-
ing others. A leader’s decision-making pro-
cesses, inner thoughts, and motives are not
visible to others. Leaders must provide visi-
ble moral management to lead others ethi-
cally. Ethically silent leadership can be
interpreted as indifference or worse.
M I S C O N C E P T I O N # 2 :
E M P L O Y E E S D O N O T N E E D
E T H I C A L G U I D A N C E F R O M
L E A D E R S
Sometimes leaders assume that their employ-
ees know how to behave appropriately. They
prefer to let formal codes, policies, and train-

ing do the talking for them as a substitute for
ethical leadership. Or, they believe that their
employees will ignore attempts to shape
their ethical conduct. Why is it a misconcep-
tion to think that employees do not need
guidance from an ethical leader?
First, research shows that most people
are influenced by those around them.
Employees are likely to consider what others
think when forming their own judgments
about what constitutes appropriate conduct
in the workplace. If leaders fail to provide
ethical guidance to their employees, then
employees will get it from someone else.
Coworkers are one potential source of influ-
ence on employees. Although peers might
encourage positive ethical conduct, groups
can also influence members to engage in
unethical behavior. For example, manage-
ment researchers Sandra Robinson and Anne
O’Leary-Kelly found that antisocial behavior
among work group members was an impor-
tant predictor of an individual’s antisocial
behavior. Leaders who abdicate their moral
authority to others do so at their own peril.
Second, leaders should not assume that
people will always do the right thing without
appropriate encouragement and support. One
recent study found a high percentage of grad-
uate students of business and other disci-
plines admitted to cheating during the past
year. That means some of the best and bright-
est students are entering the workforce with

firsthand experience in doing the wrong
thing. The state of the workforce is not much
better. For example, estimated annual losses
due to employee theft in the workplace are
staggering. This does not suggest that
employees cannot be trusted. Rather, the mes-
sage to leaders is that employees need encour-
agement and support to do the right thing. It is
the leader’s job to ensure that employees are
surrounded by the right environment—an
environment that supports ethical conduct.
In a classic article that is assigned read-
ing in many business schools, Bowen
McCoy’s The Parable of the Sadhu recalls a
life-changing event that occurred on a hiking
expedition in the Himalayan Mountains.
During the attempt to reach a high-altitude
mountain pass before bad weather arrived,
McCoy encountered a very sick, half-naked
Indian holy man (the sadhu). McCoy, his
companion, and the other climbers who were
on the mountain were so focused on their
own journeys that they provided little help to
the sadhu. The climbers were unwilling to
end their own quests in order to bring the
sick man to safety. Although they reached
the top successfully, no one knew whether
the sadhu lived or died.
As McCoy reflected on how he and his

fellow climbers could have left the sadhu to
die, he concluded that a lack of context to
support individual ethical action contributed
to his own and his climbing partner’s inaction.
There were no shared values or culture that
bound the individual climbers together. The
climbers did not have a plan in place for
handling the type of situation they encoun-
tered. There was no leader to pull together the
different bands of climbers and coordinate an
organized response. McCoy believed that
what happened on the mountain that day
provides important lessons about how ethics
can and should be managed in business orga-
nizations. In corporate settings, individuals
need the support of others, especially leaders,
to behave ethically. When this support is lack-
ing, people won’t know how to behave. Lea-
ders have the power and responsibility to
create a workplace environment that values
and supports individual ethical behavior.
Third, a study conducted by Weaver and
colleagues highlights the importance of ethi-
cal role modeling in the workplace. The
researchers found that while ethical role
modeling can take place at all levels of man-
agement within an organization, it occurs
most frequently among supervisors and their
direct reports. Thus, even ordinary managers
can be role models for their employees. Why
are managers likely to be seen as role mod-
els? The answer can be found in Bandura’s
work on social learning.
According to social learning theory, one

way that people learn is by observing and
emulating attractive and credible models.
Attractiveness is a function of a model’s
power, status, and nurturance. Within orga-
nizations, most leaders possess power over,
as well as occupy positions of status relative
to, their followers. Nurturance comes from a
leadership style in which leaders demon-
strate care and concern for others. Credibility
enhances model effectiveness because cred-
ible leaders are trustworthy. Recall that most
people take cues from others about how to
behave ethically. Employees are likely to
look to managers who demonstrate ethical
leadership first because they possess the qua-
lities of attractive and credible models.
Fourth, leaders are often counseled about
the benefits of empowering and delegating
authority to employees. But what happens
to responsibility? Are employees accountable
for how they discharge the authority that was
delegated to them? Delegation does not allow
leaders to ‘‘pass the buck.’’ Leaders should
expect to be held responsible for whatever
happens on their watch. In fact, that’s what
actually happens in America and many other
individualistic cultures in which leadership is
revered. Leaders are credited for success and
blamed for failure, often more than they
deserve. This leads to a phenomenon that
Bandura calls displaced responsibility, which
can contribute to moral disengagement
among employees.

Displaced responsibility occurs when
individuals no longer feel personally respon-
sible for their own conduct. Even though
authority might have been delegated to them,
employees believe that responsibility remains
with the leaders. Research shows that dis-
placed responsibility encourages unethical
conduct in the workplace, while feelings of
personal accountability are associated with
ethical behavior. Strong ethical leadership is
required to combat displaced responsibility.
Leaders must put systems in place so that
employees are given clear standards and
proper training. They must demonstrate per-
sonal commitment to upholding high stan-
dards of ethical conduct. Leaders must hold
employees (as well as themselves) accounta-
ble for any ethical lapses that result. In other
words, leaders must follow the practices of
good ethical leadership.
E x a m p l e : D e t a i n e e A b u s e a t A b u
G h r a i b P r i s o n
The photographs tell the story. The revolt-
ing images of prisoners being humiliated by
U.S. military personnel in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib
prison triggered outrage around the world.
In response, then Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld appointed an independent
145
panel to investigate the Department of

Defense’s detention operations in Abu Ghraib
and other facilities around the world. The
panel concluded that there were no approved
procedures for the kinds of abuse that took
place, and that there was no evidence that
senior leaders promulgated a policy of abuse.
However, the panel found many obvious fail-
ures of ethical leadership, especially moral
management—a lack of clear standards, weak
oversight, inadequate training, and the failure
to discipline wrongdoers. For example, the
panel noted that there was much ‘‘confusion
on what (interrogation) practices were accep-
table. We cannot be sure how much the num-
ber and severity of abuses would have been
curtailed had there been early and consistent
guidance from higher levels. Nonetheless,
such guidance was needed and likely would
have had a limiting effect.’’
Elsewhere the panel found ‘‘serious lapses
in leadership’’ at many middle- and lower-
levels of management. Specifically, the com-
mander of the 320th military police (MP)
Battalion Brigade at Abu Ghraib was cited
for failing to properly train and supervise
subordinates. He was also faulted for
neglecting to establish basic standards and
hold his subordinates accountable. The panel
noted ‘‘by not communicating standards,
policies and plans to soldiers, he conveyed
a sense of tacit approval of abusive behavior
toward prisoners and a lax and dysfunctional
command climate took hold.’’ Finally, the
committee faulted the top commander in
Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez,

for not acting more forcefully once he became
aware of the problems at Abu Ghraib.
Despite worldwide criticism, few senior
military leaders were ever held accountable
for their actions (or inactions). Although he
was faulted by the panel for poor oversight,
Sanchez was ultimately exonerated of any
wrongdoing in subsequent investigations.
However, Sanchez could not escape the
stigma of being associated with Abu Ghraib.
He took an early retirement from the
military in 2006, which he claimed was
‘‘forced’’ because of his ties to the Abu
Ghraib scandal.
Overall, it is a misconception to think that
employees do not need ethical leadership.
Most individuals look to others for ethical
guidance. For better or worse, leaders are
role models for their employees and likely
sources of ethical guidance. Leaders also are
responsible for creating a workplace envir-
onment that makes it easier for employees to
make the right choices. If leaders do not
provide one, employees will have to fend
for themselves.
� Leaders can delegate authority, but not
responsibility to their employees. Leaders are
often going to be held responsible (some-
times legally) for the conduct of their
employees. Consider the case of former
New York Times editor Howell Raines and

his leadership during the Jayson Blair scan-
dal. Blair was a rising star reporter with the
paper who was eventually caught fabricating
stories. No one accused Raines of conspiring
with Blair or trying to help him cover up his
wrongs. But in the aftermath of the scandal,
an internal investigation concluded that the
organization needed clearer standards, bet-
ter ethics training, closer monitoring of
employees, and stricter discipline for wrong-
doers. In other words, the organization
needed strong ethical leadership, but Raines
was no longer around to provide it. He was
held responsible for the Blair scandal, and
forced to step down.
� Ethics is a process, not an event. In order
to influence followers’ ethical conduct more
effectively, leaders must engage in frequent
communication about ethics. Written stan-
dards are necessary but not sufficient.
Requiring employees to sign off once a year
that they have read the ethics policy is not
enough. Employees need more frequent and
powerful reminders about ethical standards.
Ethics should be part of the everyday pro-
cesses and procedures of organizational life.
Treviño suggested that ethics needs to be
integrated into an organization’s culture.
Leaders have the ability to shape and change
this culture.

� Ethical leadership can be contagious. Ethi-
cal values and standards are in part, socially
influenced. Organizations can grow the next
generation of ethical leadership by providing
modeling and mentoring programs for ethi-
cal leadership. Through such modeling, ethi-
cal leadership has the potential to spread
throughout an organization. According to
Boeing CEO Jim McNerny, ethical leadership
can be developed. How? It starts at the top
and flows down through the ranks. Ethical
leadership must be modeled, taught,
expected, measured, and rewarded.
M I S C O N C E P T I O N # 3 : F O R G E T
A B O U T E T H I C S — F O C U S
E M P L O Y E E S ’ A T T E N T I O N O N
O B E Y I N G T H E L A W
Some managers believe that leaders have
legal, not ethical, responsibilities. According
to this perspective, leaders are obligated to
ensure that employees understand and obey
the law, but nothing more. Attempting to
influence employees’ ethical values is thought
to be impractical because ethics is too ambig-
uous, too personal, or too abstract. This view is
also shared by many business school faculty.
In the debate over the best way to teach
ethical and legal issues in a post-Enron world,
many academics remain skeptical that ethics
can be taught in the classroom. In a national
newspaper, one business school professor
stated that if students had not learned right
from wrong growing up, they were not going

to learn it in a business school classroom. This
professor went on to argue that business
schools should emphasize business law
instead of business ethics. However, evidence
suggests the notion that ethics cannot or
should not be taught is a misconception.
Although life would be much simpler if
it were true, a good ‘‘sense of right and
wrong’’ is not the sole determinant of ethical
behavior. Ethical decision making and beha-
vior is the result of a complicated process.
Social and contextual influences on ethical
behavior have been well documented. Cow-
orkers, culture, rewards, and formal organi-
zational policies can all shape ethics in the
workplace. Furthermore, research suggests
that moral growth does not end in childhood.
On the contrary, moral reasoning can con-
tinue to advance well into adulthood. Thus,
leaders have both an obligation to create an
ethically positive workplace environment
and an opportunity to influence employees’
ethical decision making and behavior.
Few would disagree that business
schools should teach business law, and that
business leaders should be responsible for
making sure that their employees adhere to
the law. However, teaching individuals not
to break the law is a fundamentally different
activity from encouraging individuals to
engage in positive ethical behavior. A work-
place stagnates when employees are
expected to do the bare minimum (in terms

of ethics or anything else) and thrives when
employees are inspired to go above and
beyond the call of duty. Anyone who has
worked in an organization where employees
give the bare minimum (and nothing more)
knows how non-motivating this kind of
workplace can be.
In related research, Gary Weaver and
colleagues’ studies of corporate ethics and
compliance programs have found that pro-
grams focused on promoting positive ethical
conduct are more effective than programs
oriented toward assuring compliance with
the law. The most effective programs are
those that utilize a blended approach in
which employees are expected to obey the
law as well as inspired to go beyond it. Over-
all, the evidence is clear—employee commit-
ment, integrity, and awareness of ethical
issues are higher in companies with a
blended ethics program that both inspires
and requires.
Ultimately, the question of whether man-
agers should be emphasizing ethics or the law
is a moot point. The Federal Sentencing
Guidelines define the components of an effec-
tive ethics and compliance program. The pur-
pose of the Guidelines, which were
established in 1991 and revised most recently
in 2004, is to provide consistency in sentencing
of organizations found guilty of federal
147

crimes. Having an effective ethics and com-
pliance program in place is considered a miti-
gating factor that can reduce the level of
punishment a guilty organization receives.
As a result, the Guidelines provide an incen-
tive for companies to create effective ethics
and compliance programs. The Guidelines
explicitly state that companies have an obliga-
tion to ‘‘promote an ethical culture that
encourages ethical conduct and a commitment
to compliance with the law’’ (emphasis added).
In other words, emphasizing ethics and the
law are both part of a leader’s job description.
Boeing’s CEO Jim McNerny is one leader who
understands this job description well.
E x a m p l e : A C u l t u r e C h a n g e a t
B o e i n g
Boeing Company is one of the world’s
largest manufacturers of commercial air-
planes, military aircraft, and other defense
systems. The company has a proud history,
but its reputation has been tarnished because
of a number of high-profile scandals in recent
years. One of the worst scandals involved the
illegal possession of a competitor’s proprie-
tary information, which Boeing used to win a
government contract to launch military satel-
lites. In response to these scandals, Boeing’s
board of directors formed an independent
commission to review the company’s policies
regarding the handling of such proprietary
information, as well as to assess the com-

pany’s overall ethics and compliance pro-
gram. Although the panel praised the
company’s efforts to promote ethics and legal
compliance, the report identified some pro-
blems.
The panel found a widespread concern
that Boeing’s ethics program was too heavily
focused on legal compliance, with too little
emphasis on core ethical values. Many
employees compared Boeing’s compliance
orientation with McDonnell-Douglas’ (which
merged with Boeing in 1996) ethics orienta-
tion, which constantly encouraged employ-
ees to ‘‘take the ethical high road.’’ The panel
also found employees perceived that senior
leaders only emphasized the importance of
ethics and compliance after a scandal
occurred.
Current Boeing CEO Jim McNerny appears
to have the company headed in a new direc-
tion. In 2006, Boeing negotiated a $615 million
settlement with the U.S. government to end
investigations into Boeing’s high-profile scan-
dals. It was worth noting that Boeing was
legally entitled to deduct the settlement pay-
ment from its taxes, but chose not to because it
was ‘‘the right thing to do.’’ McNerny has
been working tirelessly to change the orienta-
tion of Boeing’s ethics and compliance pro-
gram ‘‘from defense to offense—going from
‘this will keep us out of trouble’ to ‘Hey, this
will make us different. . .and better . . .and
give us a competitive edge’.’’ McNerny has

taken steps to inculcate ethics throughout
Boeing and restore credibility to the organiza-
tion. Ethics is featured prominently on the
company’s Web site. The early results indicate
that McNerny is succeeding.
Leaders must concern themselves with
ethics and the law. Focusing on the law helps
employees to identify the boundaries which
should not be crossed. Focusing on ethics
helps set a higher bar of conduct. Research
shows that the most effective ethics pro-
grams emphasize both ethics and the law,
while the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
make clear that effective ethics programs
must address both ethics and legal compli-
ance.
� Avoid falling into the ‘‘if it’s legal, it must
be okay’’ trap. Prior to the collapse of Enron,
Vinson & Elkins, Enron’s external counsel,
was asked to investigate allegations made
by one of the company’s vice presidents,
Sherron Watkins. Vinson & Elkins conducted
a preliminary investigation and found some
concerns, but otherwise concluded that the
allegations of wrongdoing were not serious
enough to warrant further investigation. Of
course, we now know that the lawyers were
wrong. Leaders must not be lulled by a false
sense of security that the law provides.
According to ethics expert Michael Josephson,

‘‘a heavy emphasis on compliance is itself a
risk to your organization. It can lead to a
narrow view of compliance (‘‘as long as it’s
legal it’s proper’’). It’s a dangerous path, for
even when there is no legal liability, charges of
wrongdoing inevitably exact enormous costs.
They damage the organization’s reputation,
undermine its morale, crimp its ability to
attract and retain top talent, and divert the
energy and time of top management from
business development to damage control.’’
� Encourage employees to aspire to do the
right thing. Ethical leadership involves more
than telling employees ‘‘what to avoid.’’ Set
positive ethical expectations for employees.
The evidence is clear—programs that inspire
employees to do the right thing are more
effective than programs that only emphasize
following the rules. The best programs, and
the best leaders, integrate both ethics and
legal compliance.
� Sincerity matters. Modern organiza-
tions and institutions often suffer from orga-
nizational cynicism in which the ethics of
organizations and their leaders are ques-
tioned. In order to overcome this cynicism,
leaders must be sincere in their efforts to
manage ethical behavior. Research shows
that if leaders are perceived as disingenuous
in terms of ethics, then efforts to manage
ethics and compliance will backfire and

cause more harm than good.
M I S C O N C E P T I O N # 4 : E T H I C S
A N D E F F E C T I V E N E S S A R E
N O T C O M P A T I B L E
A popular adage states that ‘‘nice guys finish
last.’’ Many people worry that in the rough
and tumble business world, taking the ethical
high road limits a leader’s potential for suc-
cess. Business persons are often portrayed as
dirty rotten scoundrels in movies and televi-
sion. The success (albeit temporary) of real-
world cutthroat leaders like ‘‘Chainsaw Al’’
Dunlap and transgressions of so many leading
executives foster a belief that leaders must
compromise ethical principles in order to
get ahead in business. A recent book even
encouraged modern leaders to follow the wis-
dom of Machiavelli, a figure who is more often
associated with ruthlessness and deception
than a source of inspiration for businessper-
sons. Although many people believe the term
‘‘business ethics’’ is an oxymoron, the evi-
dence suggests that ethical leadership and
effective leadership are compatible.
Preliminary research shows that ethical
leadership is related to positive outcomes in
the workplace. In one such study, my collea-
gues and I found that employees’ percep-
tions of their managers’ ethical leadership
and effectiveness were positively related.
This finding should not be surprising.
Employees want to like and trust their boss.

And ethical leaders are likeable and trust-
worthy individuals who treat their employ-
ees fairly. Ethical leaders enjoy a satisfied
and motivated workforce, which makes it
easier for them to lead effectively.
At the organizational level, the relation-
ship between corporate social and financial
performance provides additional insights
into the link between leader ethics and effec-
tiveness. Economist Milton Friedman wor-
ried that corporate social responsibility was a
drag on corporate profitability. But research
has shown that corporate social responsibil-
ity does not harm the bottom line. In fact,
some studies have found that corporate
social reputation and financial performance
are positively related. Although this work
focused on corporations, the takeaway point
is relevant to leaders. Being perceived as
trustworthy and ‘‘doing the right thing’’ is
often an asset in business, not a liability.
Ethical leadership is based on trust and
fairness. People who study organizations
have found that trust and fairness are related
to many positive attitudes, behaviors, and
outcomes in organizations. Trust is a social
lubricant that makes it easier to get business
done inside and outside of organizations.
Leaders who have earned the trust of others
are afforded more discretion, are allowed to
take (calculated) risks, have stronger social
networks, and are likely to have more oppor-
tunities come their way. Transaction costs are
lower and relationship quality is higher

149
when two parties trust each other. Trust is
especially important for employees and is a
determinant of employee satisfaction and
commitment to their leader.
One of the troubling aspects of the
ethics–effectiveness relationship is that as
long as unethical leaders can hide their
wrongdoing from the public, these leaders
are likely to succeed (at least in the short
term). Some of the biggest names involved in
corporate scandals—such as Lay, Rigas, and
Ebbers—were also among the most philan-
thropic. They appeared to be ethical (or at the
very least did not come across as unethical)
leaders. And, in the short term, these leaders
led successful companies. There is no way to
know for sure whether or to what degree
ethical leadership can be faked, or to estimate
how many unethical leaders have never been
caught. However, it is questionable whether
unethical leadership is sustainable over the
long term. Unethical leadership is difficult to
conceal, especially in today’s post-Enron
business environment. Over the long term,
the advantages of being an ethical leader are
likely to emerge.
There are many ways to obtain success in
the short term. But performance built on
ruthlessness and deceit can be hard to sus-

tain. Perhaps no business leader in the mod-
ern era illustrates this point better than ex-
Sunbeam Corp. CEO Albert Dunlap.
E x a m p l e : ‘ ‘ C h a i n s a w A l ’ ’
D u n l a p
Dunlap made a career as a celebrity CEO
and corporate downsizer at a variety of com-
panies, including Scott Paper and Sunbeam.
Dunlap was a hero to his shareholders who
benefited from his ‘‘by any means necessary’’
approach to boost a company’s stock price.
However, Dunlap was loathed by employees
because of his abusive style of management.
His penchant for laying-off workers and mov-
ing production overseas earned him the nick-
names ‘‘Chainsaw Al’’ and ‘‘Rambo in
Pinstripes.’’
His personality was abrasive and his tactics
ruthless, but Dunlap never shied away from
the public spotlight nor attempted to disown
his controversial methods. No one ever con-
fused Dunlap’s style of management with
ethical leadership, but prior to his tenure at
Sunbeam, Dunlap had not be associated with
illegal conduct either. Dunlap took over at
Sunbeam in 1996, quickly conducted massive
layoffs and engineered a meteoric rise in the
company’s stock price. But Dunlap was ulti-
mately forced out in 1998, over allegations of
accounting irregularities and other schemes
designed to enhance the appearance of a suc-
cessful turnaround. Sunbeam declared bank-

ruptcy a few years later. Dunlap settled
charges of defrauding investors with the Secu-
rities and Exchange Commission in 2002. As
part of the settlement, Dunlap agreed that he
would never serve as an executive at a public
company again. Dunlap’s career was over.
Before his downfall at Sunbeam, Dunlap
enjoyed a controversial but successful career.
After the dust settled, previously unknown
details emerged about his past, including
information that, earlier in his career, Dunlap
had been terminated twice. In one case, Dun-
lap was fired because of his harsh manage-
ment style. After his departure, an
investigation by the company’s auditor led
to allegations that Dunlap cooked the books.
Although, these allegations were never
resolved (the company went bankrupt before
the matter could be decided in court), it is not
hard to imagine that Dunlap’s career con-
tained other acts of wrongdoing similar to
what took place at Sunbeam. In the long run,
unethical and illegal leadership is difficult to
sustain. Ethical leadership provides a more
reliable formula for lasting success.
� Ethical leaders are effective leaders. A
reputation for honesty and trustworthiness
is an asset. The marketplace rewards integrity.
Josephson suggests that ethics can be a source
of competitive advantage—‘‘By adhering to
higher standards than normally expected or
required, you will build trust that will solidify

your position with customers, regulators and
employees in a manner that will exclude
many competitors who cannot or will not live
up to those same standards.’’
� Unethical leadership is unstable and
unsustainable. In the short run, there are many
ways to succeed using unethical means, but
few business leaders can build a lasting and
successful career with a reputation for
unethical conduct. Persistent unethical con-
duct is difficult to conceal, and ethical leader-
ship is difficult to fake.
� If something is right, do it anyway (regard-
less of the outcomes). Although ethics and effec-
tiveness are related, there will be times when
taking the ethical high road may be costly. In
those situations, leaders must act with cour-
age. An ethical leader is someone who always
chooses to do the right thing, regardless of the
personal cost. Former Brown & Williamson
tobacco company executive Jeffrey Wigand
was fired after he challenged some of his
company’s unethical practices. Eventually,
Wigand went public with what he knew about
the tobacco industry’s ‘‘dirty secrets.’’
Wigand’s actions cost him a high-paying
job, an executive career, and his marriage,
and it almost cost him his life (he received
numerous death threats). Wigand eventually

landed on his feet (he is an award-winning
teacher, speaker, anti-smoking advocate, and
subject of the popular movie The Insider), but
the price tag for ‘‘doing the right thing’’ was
costly.
M I S C O N C E P T I O N # 5 : W H A T
L E A D E R S D O I N T H E I R
P E R S O N A L L I V E S I S
I R R E L E V A N T
Is an employee’s private life relevant in the
workplace? It is good practice for leaders to
focus on job-related behavior when evaluat-
ing their employees. What an employee does
in his or her personal life should have no
bearing on workplace decisions. But what
about the private lives of leaders? Should a
leader’s private life influence how s/he is
perceived in terms of ethical leadership in
the workplace? In reality, does it?
Normative theories of ethics and leader-
ship emphasize the importance of personal
morality. Authentic leadership theory
encourages leaders to be true to themselves
and follow their personal values. Aristotle
emphasized the importance of acquiring vir-
tues that encourage moral conduct. An indi-
vidual with a properly formed character will
make moral decisions in both her personal
and professional life. Poor ethical choices in a
leader’s personal life could be a sign of bad
character and a harbinger of poor ethical
choices in the workplace as well. From a

normative character-based perspective, the
personal morality of leaders is important.
Descriptive business ethics research has
revealed that perceptions of a leader’s perso-
nal morality are considered when employees
judge ethical leadership in the workplace.
Leaders who work in a small town are prob-
ably aware of this already. For example, con-
sider Bill, who worked as a manager of a local
company in a small town. It is often said that in
a small town, everyone knows everyone else.
Bill’s boss, customers, and employees were
also his neighbors. In the workplace, Bill trea-
ted others with respect, but in public, Bill
acted like a different person. Bill was the
stereotypical ‘‘little league father,’’ often seen
berating umpires and carrying on inappropri-
ately at his children’s sporting events. People
who worked with Bill said his personal con-
duct negatively affected what they thought of
him as a manager. They lost respect for him as
a manager and his credibility as an ethical
leader was eroded.
The influence of personal morality not
only affects small-town leaders. Many lea-
ders in highly visible positions must be care-
ful that their personal conduct does not cause
scandal for themselves or embarrassment to
their organization. For better or for worse, an
individual’s personal reputation follows
him/her into the workplace. Ethical leaders
are individuals who are deemed to be ethical
both personally and professionally.

E x a m p l e : L e a d e r s h i p a t B o e i n g
When Jim McNerny took over as CEO at
scandal-ridden Boeing in 2005, he succeeded
Harry Stonecipher. Stonecipher was a former
151
president at Boeing who was brought out of
retirement to restore integrity at Boeing fol-
lowing a series of scandals that occurred
during his predecessor’s tenure. Stonecipher
was brought back because he possessed
unquestionable professional integrity.
Unfortunately, Stonecipher’s return to Boe-
ing was short lived. He was forced to resign
after he was caught having an extramarital
affair with one of his employees. Stonecipher
is not the first or last executive to have an
affair. And, he was not fired for marital
infidelity. Stonecipher lost his job because
his personal conduct was an embarrassment
to an organization attempting to repair its
tattered ethical reputation. Cheating on his
wife and using the company’s e-mail system
to send inappropriate messages to his lover
hurt Stonecipher’s credibility as a model of
ethical conduct. His personal actions affected
his ability to function as an ethical leader.
� Strive for consistency. Virtue-based
approaches to ethics emphasize the impor-

tance of developing good character. Good
character positively influences decisions
and behavior at home and in the workplace.
Leaders should attempt to follow the same
guiding principles at home or on the job.
� Leaders are always on the job. Research
shows that people judge ethical leaders
based on their personal and professional
conduct. Fair or unfair, that means leaders
are held by others (and must hold them-
selves) to high standards personally and
professionally. Personal indiscretions can
cost leaders their jobs, even their careers.
Many leaders have managed to survive
lapses in their personal lives, but there have
been plenty of leaders who have not. Leaders
must realize that what they do on their off
time can impact their ability to lead in the
workplace.
� Personal reputation can be an asset. Per-
sonal reputation does not have to be a liabi-
lity. More positively, personal conduct can
enhance one’s professional reputation. Lea-
ders can enhance their reputation as ethical
leaders by getting involved in civic and com-
munity endeavors. Engagement in the com-
munity helps a leader stay grounded and
committed to serving the greater good.
C O N C L U S I O N
The purpose of this article is to clarify com-
mon misconceptions about ethical leader-

ship. With so many accounts of ethical
scandals and missteps, one might conclude
that ethical leadership is rare. After all, pub-
lic confidence in business leaders has been
weak for decades and has reached new lows
in the aftermath of recent business scandals.
The poll numbers are disturbing—a 2006
Harris Interactive Poll found only 13% of
respondents expressed a great deal of con-
fidence in business leaders who are running
major companies. Harvard University’s
National Leadership Index for 2006 indicated
that business leaders failed to muster even a
moderate amount of confidence from the
public. Other national surveys echo these
results. Yet, the belief that ethical leadership
is rare is another misconception that must be
addressed. Why is this belief erroneous?
Survey respondents rate leaders more
positively when the subject is leadership in
their own place of employment instead of
leadership in general. Over 80% of respon-
dents in the Ethics Resource Center’s 2005
National Business Ethics Survey indicated
that leaders at all levels in their organization
(senior leaders, middle managers, and super-
visors) communicate the importance of ethics
and set a good example in terms of ethical
behavior. The results of many academic stu-
dies confirm that when employees are asked
about their actual bosses, positive, trust-
worthy, and fair leadership in the workplace
is the norm.
The popular perception is that business

persons are morally bankrupt, but the data
from studies of actual leaders paint a differ-
ent picture. It is a sad reality that business
leaders must contend with this negative
stereotype. If ethical leadership is not rare,
why does negativity prevail? And, why are
so many of the examples in this article
focused on negative leadership? The simple
reason is that unethical leadership is easy to
spot, especially from a distance.
Research shows that negative information
is more memorable. Bad examples catch our
attention and often arouse strong feelings of
indignation, making them harder to forget.
This partially explains why the general per-
ception of business leaders is so negative. It
also reinforces the need for strong moral man-
agement to override this cloud of cynicism.
Negative information is also very useful
for forming impressions. Acts of wrongdoing
tell us something about a leader’s (lack of)
ethical leadership, but leaders with a ‘‘clean
slate’’ cannot be presumed virtuous. The
absence of wrongdoing or the commission
of good deeds could be interpreted any num-
ber of ways. Perhaps such leaders are ‘‘truly’’
ethical leaders, but they could also be good at
creating false impressions by covering up
their transgressions. It is hard to know the

difference without firsthand knowledge of,
or direct access to, these leaders. From a
distance, it is easier to highlight leadership
failures than it is to hold someone up as a role
model. Nevertheless, it is fitting to conclude
this article with a positive example of ethical
leadership.
Charles ‘‘Ed’’ Haldeman took over as
CEO of Putnam Investments in 2003 after a
group of the firm’s portfolio managers were
implicated in a market-timing scandal. He
was given the top job because of his strong
reputation for integrity and ethics. Halde-
man has been described as a role model of
ethical conduct—someone who is tough, fair,
principled, and cares about others. In terms
of ethical leadership, Haldeman sounds like
a strong moral person.
In terms of moral management, Halde-
man has strengthened the company’s ethics
and compliance program and changed the
company’s culture. He brought in an outsider
to conduct an audit of the company’s policies
and procedures and stated publicly that
the company would become a model of ethics
for the rest of the industry. Haldeman has
worked to create a more open and transparent
culture by reducing hierarchy and opening up
better communication with employees. He
conducted the firm’s first employee survey,
and established an employee advisory council
that meets with Haldeman regularly. In an
attempt to reduce the pressure to cheat in a

highly competitive climate, Haldeman chan-
ged the compensation system to reward con-
sistent long-term performance and deter the
pursuit of short-term results.
Ethical leaders like Ed Haldeman are a
source of inspiration to those around them.
They are people who represent the very best
ideals of leadership and bring out the best in
others. Although ethical leadership is not
easy, it is not impossible. By avoiding some
of the common misconceptions presented in
this article, I hope that more leaders will be
able to rise to the challenges before them and
become ethical leaders.
153
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Treviño and colleagues’ research on ethical
leadership can be found in L. K. Treviño, L.
P. Hartman, and M. E. Brown, ‘‘Moral
Person and Moral Manager: How Execu-
tives Develop a Reputation for Ethical
Leadership,’’ California Management Review,
2000, 42, 128–142; and L. K. Treviño, M. E.
Brown, and L. P. Hartman, ‘‘A Qualitative
Investigation of Perceived Executive
Ethical Leadership: Perceptions from
Inside and Outside the Executive Suite,’’
Human Relations, 2003, 55, 5–37. Building
on this research and other relevant litera-
ture, my colleagues and I developed a

measure of ethical leadership called the
ethical leadership scale. For more informa-
tion, see M. E. Brown, L. K. Treviño, and
D. Harrison, ‘‘Ethical Leadership: A
Social Learning Perspective for Construct
Development and Testing,’’ Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
2005, 97, 117–134. For a review of the
relevant literature on ethical leadership,
see M. E. Brown and L. K. Treviño, ‘‘Ethical
Leadership: A Review and Future Direc-
tions,’’ The Leadership Quarterly, 2006, 17,
595–616.
For more on McClelland’s research on
motivation, power, and leadership see D. C.
McClelland, Human Motivation (Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman, 1985) and D. C. McClel-
land and D. H. Burnham, ‘‘Power Is the Great
Motivator,’’ Harvard Business Review, 1976,
54, 100–111. McClelland made an important
distinction between socialized (i.e., power
used to benefit others) and personalized
power (i.e., power used to benefit self) that
is relevant to ethical leadership because ethi-
cal leaders are likely to have a socialized
power motive.
For an excellent article on how cognitive
bias relates to ethical leadership, read D. M.
Messick and M. H. Bazerman, ‘‘Ethical Lea-
dership and the Psychology of Decision Mak-
ing,’’ Sloan Management Review, 1996, 37, 9–
22. An example of Atwater and colleagues’
research on self–other ratings of leadership

can be found in L. Atwater, P. Rousch, and A.
Fischthal, ‘‘The Influence of Upward Feed-
back on Self- and Follower Ratings of Leader-
ship,’’ Personnel Psychology, 1995, 48, 35–59.
Bowen H. McCoy’s ‘‘The Parable of the
Sadhu’’ was first published in 1983, but re-
published again with additional commen-
tary in Harvard Business Review, 1997, 2–7.
The benefits of integrating ethics into
organizational culture are described in L.
K. Treviño, ‘‘A Cultural Perspective on
Changing Organizational Ethics,’’ in R.
Woodman and Passmore (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Change and Development
(Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1990, 195–230).
The Abu Ghraib Investigation’s report is
available online at http://news.findlaw.-
com/wp/docs/dod/abughraibrpt.pdf. The
report on Boeing is posted on the company’s
Web site http://www.boeing.com/news/
releases/2004/q1/rudman_030904.pdf. The
panel’s findings on the Jayson Blair scandal
at the New York Times can be found at http://
www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journa-
lism_0904.pdf. All of these reports were
accessed in January 2007.
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for
Organizations are online at http://
www.ussc.gov/orgguide.htm.
Michael E. Brown is an assistant professor of management in
the Sam
and Irene Black School of Business at Penn State-Erie. His

Ph.D. in
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/dod/abughraibrpt.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/dod/abughraibrpt.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q1/rudman_030904.
pdf
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q1/rudman_030904.
pdf
http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf
http://www.ussc.gov/orgguide.htm
http://www.ussc.gov/orgguide.htm
management is from the Pennsylvania State University. His
primary
research and teaching interests are in the areas of ethics and
leadership.
His publications have appeared in such journals as Academy of
Manage-
ment Executive, Journal of Applied Psychology, The Leadership
Quarterly, and
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. (Tel.:
+1 814 898
6324; fax: +1 814 898 6223; email: [email protected]).
155
mailto:[email protected]Misconceptions of Ethical
Leadership:AcknowledgmentWhat is ethical
leadership?Misconception #1: Ethical leaders must not worry
about how they are perceived by othersExample: Patricia Dunn
and the HP Leak ScandalImplications for LeadersMisconception

#2: Employees do not need ethical guidance from
leadersExample: Detainee Abuse at Abu Ghraib
PrisonImplications for LeadersMisconception #3: Forget about
ethics-focus employees’ attention on obeying the lawExample:
A Culture Change at BoeingImplications for
LeadersMisconception #4: Ethics and effectiveness are not
compatibleExample: ‘‘Chainsaw Al’’ DunlapImplications for
LeadersMisconception #5: What leaders do in their personal
lives is irrelevantExample: Leadership at BoeingImplications
for LeadersConclusionSelected bibliography

Misconceptions of Ethical LeadershipHow to Avoid Potentia.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Misconceptions of Ethical LeadershipHow to Avoid Potentia.docx

Semelhante a Misconceptions of Ethical LeadershipHow to Avoid Potentia.docx (19)

Mais de raju957290

Mais de raju957290 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Misconceptions of Ethical LeadershipHow to Avoid Potentia.docx