Ethical Leadership - Public Management

Carl Mackensen

Professor Sanjay Pandey

Public Management

Final Paper

Introduction

In this piece I examine ethical leadership from a myriad of perspectives.  I begin with Rainey’s work on Transformational and Charismatic leadership.  I then examine some empirical evidence, and begin looking at authentic leadership.  Spiritual leadership is thereafter articulated, followed by the situational antecedents of ethical and unethical behavior.  I then examined the importance of ethical role models, as well as the significance of the ethical situation of the organization in question.  Thereafter, I look at personality traits which impact ethical development and leadership.  After this, I go through the relevance of motivation to ethical leadership.  I conclude with a meditation on Virtue Ethics, which is of note to ethical leadership as traits of the person in question are found to be of paramount importance.  I then conclude with a reflection on all which I have found.

Transformational Leadership

In the 1970s researchers were dissatisfied with the theories which they had in place.  Research focused on exchanges and highly quantified models and analyses.  Many argued for focusing on larger aspects and alternative sources of thought on leadership.  This included both looking at the past, politics, and increasing qualitative research.  Burns (1978) was influential.  He was able to tease apart transformative leadership from transactional leadership. Transactional entails receiving support and performance in exchange for the noting of worker needs and giving rewards.  Transformational leaders, on the other hand, focus on subordinates’ goals and try to increase them to higher levels with an emphasis on transcendental higher-level goals such as Maslow’s self-actualization.    In doing so they rise above their individual self0interest, and work towards the bettering of the community, organization, or country.

Bass was able to systematize and routinize the approach used.  Transformational leadership lifts us up.  Among followers, it changes their preoccupation from lower to higher order focuses.  In. addition, these leaders can encourage their followers to give up self-interest by demonstrating that they are met of tied to the community, or higher-order attributes.  However, this modus operandi can have negative aspects.  Bad transformational leadership can hurt both followers, and outsiders, as evidenced by Adolf Hitler.  Transformational leadership has an emotional and intellectual component.  For the emotional, this would be charisma.  For the intellectual, it would include paying close attention to people on an individual level, and doing so in a “benevolent, developmental, mentoring nature, as well as intellectual stimulation.” (Rainey, 2021, 365)  Subordinates usually admire such leaders because they are particularly adept at that which they engage in.

On occasion, transactional leadership is necessary to give both goals and directions, as well as rewards.  Relying too much on the interactions with subordinates, especially punishing them, can have detrimental impacts.  “Transformational leadership lifts and expands the goals of individuals, not by overemphasizing direct, extrinsic satisfaction of self-interest, but rather by inspiring new, higher aspirations.  Empowerment, charisma, inspiration, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation are all hallmarks.  They don’t directly control followers but influence the climate in which they work.  This leads to a concern on managing organizational culture.”  (Rainey, 2021, 365)

Charismatic Leadership

Researchers have looked at the nature by which leaders can influence subordinates not merely through such things as authority or hierarchy, but in addition personal traits and attributes.  There are two main schools of thought, the attributional theory of perspective, and a self-concept theory.  The attributional examines charisma as traits which subordinates endow to their leaders.  This causes identification with the leader, and their attributes become internalized.  Followers are motivated to make their leader happy, and emulate him or her.  Particularly, followers are more likely to do this when the leader does the following:

1)    Advocates a vision that is different from the status quo, but still acceptable to followers

2)    Acts in unconventional ways in pursuit of the vision

3)    Engages in self-sacrifice and risk taking in pursuit of the vision

4)    Displays confidence in the leader’s ideas and proposals

5)    Uses visioning and persuasive appeals to influence followers, rather than relying mainly on formal authority

6)    Uses the capacity to assess context and locate opportunities for novel strategies

(Rainey, 2021, page 366).  Situations where these traits can be built upon and capitalized on are usually the place where such leaders emerge.

The self-concept theory looks at the enumerated traits of leaders and followers.  In addition, it is born from the way in which people prefer to maintain their self-concept, and the way in which these leaders influence that. “Leaders have charismatic effects on followers when the followers:

1)    Feel that the leader’s beliefs are correct

2)    Willingly obey the leader and feel affection for him or her,

3)    Accept high performance goals for themselves

4)    Become emotionally involved in the mission of the group and feel that they contribute to it, and

5)    Regard the leader as having extraordinary abilities.

(Rainey, 2021, page 366)

Charismatic leaders are able to get such interactions by articulating a concept which is positive through good communication.  They show confidence and trust in their subordinates, hold them to a high standard, and give them praise, rewards, and the resources to do things.  They usually will take risks, as well as give up things for the larger community.  As a result, subordinates have skin in the game for the leader’s success, as well as what they do.  Because of this they will endeavor to aid their leader, and work more.

Not all aspects of charismatic leadership are good ones.  People can come to rely on the leader.  What, then, happens when they leave? Secondly, Rainey distinguishes between ‘positive charismatics and negative charismatics’ (Rainey, page 367). An example of the latter would be Hitler.  They can be ‘self-absorbed, dependent on adulation, and excessively self-confident.  They may take excessive risks and inhibit followers from suggesting improvements or pointing out problems” (Rainey, page 367). 

Empirical Work

Of late, there have been a number of high profile cases of degradation of public morality in business and government.  This has consequently resulted in increased attention being placed on leaders to behave ethically.  It is of utmost importance for both credibility and being able to substantially impact followers.  It also impacts the careers of managers.  Most work on this issue examines the workplace ethical leadership.  Antecedents, outcomes, and contingencies are still largely unknown.  It is for these reasons that we must focus on a behavioral and perceptual view of ethical leadership.

Early empirical work on transformational leadership usually portrayed it as positive, moral, and values based.  Researchers have looked at authentic and pseudo-transformational leadership or personalized (unethical) and socialized (ethical) charismatic leadership.  Here, we can examine the social versus self-oriented use of power and the morality of the means and ends to differentiate between ethical and unethical leaders.

Authentic Leadership

Authentic transformational leadership has a moral foundation and emphasizes serving the collective rather than oneself.  In contrast, pseudo-transformational leaders behave immorally and focus on self-serving rather than collective goals.  It is difficult for those being led to distinguish between the good and the bad, because it requires knowledge of the leader’s true intentions.  Authentic transformational leadership assumes that people act on altruistic values for the good of the group, organization, or society, but this can compete with morality.  Leaders could pursue what is best for the group while denying the needs of outsiders.

We can describe morality along two axes: being a moral person, and being a moral manager.  The later concerns how those in managerial roles and leadership promote ethics in the workplace.  Brown and colleagues (2005, p. 120) define ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making.” questions that remain include, ethical for whom, what constitutes ethical failure, and does this include out-group members’ moral rights? (Hartog, page 412)

Exchange relationships develop through a series of mutual exchanges that yield a pattern of reciprocal obligation (e.g., Masterson et al. 2000). Over time, the norm for reciprocity leads to followers reciprocating the fair and caring treatment of ethical leaders through showing desired behaviors (e.g., Walumbwa et al. 2011).

Traits

People examining the functioning of organizations, both public and private, have for some time argued that there are personal attributes, like integrity, which are significant for the impression of being an effective leader.  Studies have corroborated this.  For example, survey research has linked perceived leader effectiveness with perceptions of the leader's honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness (Den Hartog et al., 1999). And, cognitive trust (the exercise of care in work, being professional, dependable; (McAllister, 1995) has been associated with effective styles of leadership as well. (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).

The interviews involved with these surveys showed that there were several characteristics of a person which impacted perceptions of ethical leadership.  These leaders were believed to be trustworthy and honest.  Moving past that, ethical leaders were construed as fair minded, and having principles, which impacted their decision making.  It was also perceived that they give weight to others and society as a whole, and that they are ethical both personally and professionally.  Those who conducted the study construed these attributes as constituting a moral person, which is a key aspect of ethical leadership.  Such a designation reflects the belief or perception of motivation, character, and traits. 

In addition, this paper showed another significant component of ethical leadership.  This is what Treviño and colleagues' described as the moral manager component.  This attribute of leading ethically reflects the person’s attempts to impact subordinates ethical or unethical behavior.  These leaders incorporated ethics as a pronounced aspect of their leadership style through communicating both ethics and values in their messaging.  They observably and purposefully role model good behavior and utilize a rewards schema to make subordinates accountable for good behavior.  “Such explicit behavior helps the ethical leader to make ethics a leadership message that gets followers' attention by standing out as socially salient against an organizational backdrop that is often ethically neutral at best.” (Trevino et al., 2000, Trevine et al., 2003)

“Authentic leaders are “individuals who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others' values/moral perspective, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and high on moral character” (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004, p. 4). view authentic leadership as a “root construct” that “could incorporate charismatic, transformational, integrity and/or ethical leadership”. But, they also argue that these constructs are distinct from each other.”  (Luthans & Avolio (2003, p. 4)

“Self-awareness, openness, transparency, and consistency are at the core of authentic leadership.”  (Brown et al, 2006, page 599).  It is also paramount to give weight to beneficial end goals and values and having concern for others, instead of being beholden to self interested motivations.  “Authentic leaders show good character and virtue traits such as hope, optimism, and resiliency.” (Brown, 2006, page 599). This leadership style is comparable to ethical leadership, but there are some key aspects which are different.  This includes being authentic and aware of oneself.  “Authenticity, or being true to oneself, was rarely if ever mentioned in the interviews conducted by Treviño & colleagues (2000) about ethical leadership.”  (Brown et al, 2006, page 599).

Spiritual Leadership

Spiritual leadership is an altogether different leadership style also, and “is comprised of “the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are necessary to intrinsically motivate one's self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership” (Fry, 2003, p. 711) and “is inclusive of the religious-and ethics and values-based approaches to leadership” (Fry, page 693). “Alternatively, spiritual leadership has also been described as “occurring when a person in a leadership position embodies spiritual values such as integrity, honesty, and humility, creating the self as an example of someone who can be trusted, relied upon, and admired. Spiritual leadership is also demonstrated through behavior, whether in individual reflective practice or in the ethical, compassionate, and respectful treatment of others” (Reave, 2005, p. 663).” 

Situation and Context

Situational influences, which are the precursors of ethical leadership, can also be examined, in addition to individual influences.  Situational influences include “ethical role modeling, the organization's ethical context, and the moral intensity of the issues that the leader faces in his or her work.” (Brown, 2006, page 600).  Both leaders and followers can get information from using role models.  “By observing an ethical role model's behavior as well as the consequences of their behavior, leaders should come to identify with the model, internalize the model's values and attitudes, and emulate the modeled behavior (Bandura, 1986).” 

Those interviewed by Treviño et al.'s (2000) put forth that visibly seeing an ethical role model was very relevant and a precursor of ethical leadership.  To examine ethical role modeling, Weaver, Treviño, & Agle (2005) interviewed people who had experienced being mentored by role models at work who behaved ethically.  Attributes that were relevant for learning from ethical role models included, “caring, honesty, fairness and behaviors such as setting high ethical standards and holding others accountable were similar to those previously associated with ethical leadership. But, interviewees also identified some characteristics of ethical role models that differed from those previously associated with ethical leadership such as willingness to turn mistakes into learning experiences and humility.”  (Brown, 2006, page 600) “Weaver and colleagues called ethical role modeling a “side by side phenomenon” because “ethical role models are well known by their daily conduct and interactions — the way they behave and the way they treat other people” (Weaver et al., 2005, p. 12).” 

Role Models

Brown & Treviño (2006b) looked into the impact of three different potential styles of role models in so far as they influenced good leadership.  This included early childhood role models, career mentors, and top managers. They found in their study that the effect of having experienced a mentor who was ethical in the participant’s professional life was positively related to ethical leadership. Those in leadership positions who put forth that they had in the past experienced an ethical role model in the workplace were, as a result, significantly more probable to be construed as ethical by their subordinates.  Early childhood models, however, as well as higher managerial ethical role modeling, did not have a relationship to ethical leadership.  This is in line with what Weaver et al. (2005) found, and it is intuitive because “early childhood ethical role models would not necessarily have modeled behavior relevant to leadership in the workplace.” (Brown, 2006, page 600). This resulted in the authors concluding that “Being able to identify a proximate, ethical role model during one's career is positively related to ethical leadership.” (Brown, 2006, page 601)

Ethical Situation

Of additional importance to good leadership is the organization’s ethical situation.  (Treviño, Butterfield, & Mcabe, 1998).  Most research has examined the ethical climate (Victor & Cullen, 1988) as well as the ethical culture (Treviño, 1990).  Ethical climate refers to “the prevailing perceptions of typical organizational practices and procedures that have ethical content” or “those aspects of work climate that determine what constitutes ethical behavior at work”” (Victor & Cullen, 1988, p. 101).  Treviño (1986) proposed “ethical culture as a subset or slice of the organization's overall culture that can moderate the relationship between an individual's moral reasoning level and ethical/unethical behavior.” (Brown, 2006, page 602)  The overriding culture of an organization affects those people who have more moral development less. 

Treviño, Weaver, Gibson, & Toffler (1999) determined that cultural components (including leadership and structures of rewards which uplift ethical behavior, treating employees fairly, including ethics in the decision-making of everyday activities, and being employee-minded all aided the pro social ethics based behaviors and attitudes.  Of particular note for ethical culture is the system of rewards which encourage unethical or ethical actions.  (Treviño et al., 1999)

Good leadership comes about in scenarios in which the culture and context of ethics is uplifted. Models, policies, and norms can all be helpful towards this ends.  Here, people form habits to the concept that ethical behavior has benefits, and corresponds to promotion and good outcomes.  If an organization has neither ethical culture, nor context, and which fosters unethical behavior, those in positions of power take actions which are in line with the ethos of their organization.  This corresponds to unethical leadership.  This results in a second maxim, “An ethical context that supports ethical conduct will be positively related to ethical leadership.” (Brown, 2006, page 602)

Moral Intensity

“Moral awareness (recognizing the moral aspects of a given situation) is a first interpretive step in the ethical decision-making process (Jones, 1991; Rest, 1986).” (Brown, 2006, page 602).  In order to perform ethically, we must first comprehend that a particular situation includes the ethical aspect.  The intensity of moral situations is more explored in business studies than in other disciplines.  This includes how serious the consequences are, as well as social consensus (Brown, 2006, page 602).  Should someone in a position of power be made to interpret a situation where there are serious outcomes for their behavior, and they act well, subordinates will take note and emulate that behavior.  People look to leaders in serious and intense scenarios.  Brown “proposes that morally intense situations will interact with the ethical context to influence ethical leadership.  Specifically, morally intense situations will enhance the relationship between ethical contexts and ethical leadership.”  (Brown, 2006, page 602).  This leads to another maxim, namely, “Moral intensity (magnitude of consequences and social consensus) enhances the relationship between ethical context and ethical leadership.” (Brown, 2006, page 602)

Personality Traits

Aside from situational elements which influence good leaders, there are additionally personality traits which have impact.  The Five Factor Model (Tupes & Christal, 1961) is of note. “The Five Factor (or Big Five) typology conceptualizes personality as clusters of traits that are organized within five dimensions: agreeableness (describing someone who is altruistic, trusting, kind and cooperative), openness (imaginative, curious, artistic, insightful), extraversion (active, assertive, energetic and outgoing), conscientiousness (dependable, responsible, dutiful, determined), and neuroticism (anxious, hostile, impulsive, stressed).”  (Brown, 2006, page 603). Through performing a meta-analysis, it was determined that “extraversion and openness to experience are the traits most dominantly associated with general leadership effectiveness, (Brown, 2006, page 603) conscientiousness and extraversion are associated with leader emergence, (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002), and neuroticism and agreeableness are minorly related to leadership. (Judge et al., 2002)

It has been found that, though controversial, agreeableness is the trait of personality which most significantly determines good leadership.  “This is because it incorporates being trusting, altruistic, and cooperative.”  (Brown, 2006, PAGE 603).  “By definition, ethical leaders are altruistically motivated, caring, and concerned about their followers and others in society (Treviño et al., 2003).”  People who are conscientious show self-control, plan carefully, are well organized, and reliable.  (Brown, 2006, page 603).  “Low scorers are not necessarily lacking in moral principles, but they are less exacting in applying them” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 16).  In order to be conceived of as a good leader, these people have to articulate forthright standards and concepts, and be willing to apply them not just to their subordinates, but also themselves. “Neuroticism is negatively associated with ethical leadership.  This is because it shows a leader’s likelihood to allow negative emotions take control, such as anger, fear, and anxiety.” (Brown, 2006, page 603). They are by their nature hostile to people.

Motivation

How and why people are motivated as leaders is also a serious issue when considering what constitutes good leadership.  McClelland's (1975, 1985) “theory of motivation specifies that individuals are driven by three main motives— the power motive (the need to influence others), the achievement motive (the desire to accomplish something better or more efficiently than it has been done previously), and the affiliation motive, (the desire to have positive relationships with others).” (Brown, 2006, page 603). “Research suggests that a high need for power, a moderate need for achievement, and a moderate to low need for affiliation are associated with leader effectiveness.” (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982).  In reference to the need for power, there is a distinction between those seeking power for self-aggrandizement, and those who want to help others.  “Research by Howell & Avolio (1992) revealed important differences between socialized and personalized charismatic leadership, with the former being the more ethical of the two styles of leadership.” (Brown, 2006, page 604).

Virtue Ethics   

Much of the debate we have heretofore examined has described the traits that make a leader ethical.  This way of seeing the world has its roots in Aristotelian Virtue Ethics.  It is worth, therefore, examining Virtue Ethics to a degree before we conclude.  Aristotle asks, what attributes make someone a virtuous person?  He argues that virtue is what all humans should aspire towards.  In order to do this, people must follow a life of reason.  In Modern Moral Philosophy, Anscombe argues that contemporary secular philosophy has gone far afield of its traditions.  She argues that modern philosophy is not logical, because there is no one to articulate the laws which we must follow.

Virtues and vices are actions which come about from habit.  Virtues are desirable, and vices undesirable.  Virtues lead to good character, from which good actions spring, and the opposite is true of vices.  For Aristotle, virtue lay at the middle of two vices.  Courage is between the vices of foolhardiness and cowardice.  Courage was believed to be the primary virtue needed by people, because it is required to begin the journey towards acquisition of other vices.  Geach, however, did not believe this so forthrightly.  He said, “Courage in an unworthy cause is no virtue; still less is courage in an evil cause.  Indeed I prefer not to call this non-virtuous facing of danger ‘courage.’  (Geach, page 114).  For Geach, there may be deeds which appear full of courage, but which are actually vices, or actively bad.  Plato in Euthyphro argued something similar, or a situation where a son must testify against his father in the trial of a murder.  In this meditation, the protagonist Socrates vacillates back and forth about whether this testimony should take place.  It could be put forward that the virtue of being a good family member outweighs the vice of killing someone else.  (Tredennick et al, pages 19 to 41). 

            Why is it desirable to have virtues?  This depends on each virtue being discussed.  Aristotle says, “virtues are important because the virtuous person will fare better in life.”  (Rachels, page 178).  Aristotle’s work, therefore, can be seen as a love letter to the virtuous life, or a life of human flourishing.  It is more than simply what one should and shouldn’t do.  Not all people need have the same virtues, however.  Nietzsche said, “How naïve it is altogether to say: ‘Man ought to be such-and-such!’  Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the abundance of a lavish play and change of forms – and some wretched loafer of a moralist comments: ‘No! Man ought to be different.’  He even knows what man should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints himself on the wall and comments, ‘Ecce homo!’ (Behold the man!).  (Kaufmann, page 491). 

As people have variegated dispositions and attributes, the flourishing described depends on each individual nature.  Aristotle argues in response to this that there are scenarios in which certain virtues are always needed irrespective of time, place and circumstance.  This is due to the fact that there are commonalities between all humans.  Much of Aristotle’s work focused on friendship, and political involvement.  To him the basic description of humans was the ‘zoon politikan’, or social creature.  For Aristotle human flourishing is at its highest when it is performed with the goal of ameliorating the human condition.  In the end, character is the primary concern for virtue ethicists. 

Conclusion

I have covered a lot of ground in this piece, and attempted to, through my research and literature review, deconstruct that which goes into making a moral leader.  It can be said that it is not so simple as to paint one person as good, and another as evil.  There is a complex interplay between personality, situation, context, traits, role models, and motivation.  What can be said, however, is that ethical leadership is increasingly becoming an important consideration for not just public service organizations, but increasingly businesses as well.  That moving forward we must find a way to steward the Earth through the climate crisis, and all that that entails, is enough of a motivator for all aspects, organizations, and hierarchies to reexamine their constituent foundations and build them up to meet the challenge that faces us.  Good behavior is rewarded, and though this should not be our primary motivation, perhaps it is a good enough foot in the door technique to begin the process by which leaders become ethical.  It is certainly high time, with all that we have witnessed in recent years, that leaders take these findings seriously.  I can only hope that this morally-minded disposition takes root, and grows, as does our culture and society. 

References

Rainey, Hal G. et al, (2021). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, Sixth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey. 

Brown, M.E. and Treviño, L.K., (2006), The Leadership Quarterly 17, 595–616

Brown ME, Treviño LK, Harrison DA. (2005). Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 97, 117–34

Masterson SS, Lewis K, Goldman BM, Taylor MS., (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work relationship. Acad. Manag. J. 43:738–49

Walumbwa FO, Mayer DM, Wang P, Wang H, Workman K, Christensen AL., (2011), Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: the roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 115:204–13

Den Hartog DN, House RJ, Hanges PJ, Ruiz-Quintanilla SA, Dorfman PW., (1999), Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadersh. Q. 10:219–56

Den Hartog, Deanne N., (2015), Ethical Leadership Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, 1018 TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 2:409–34

D.J. McAllister, (1995), Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 24-59

K.T. Dirks, D.L. Ferrin, (2002), Trust in leadership: Meta-Analytic findings and implications for research and practice, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 611-628

D.N. Den Hartog, R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, S.A. Ruiz-Quintanilla, P.W. Dorfman, et al.,

(1999), Culturally specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10, pp. 219-256

L.K. Treviño, L.P. Hartman, M. Brown, (2000), Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership, California Management Review, 42, pp. 128-142

L.K. Treviño, M. Brown, L.P. Hartman, (2003), A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite, Human Relations, 55, pp. 5-37

L. Reave, (2005), Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness, The Leadership Quarterly, 16, pp. 655-687

L.W. Fry, (2003), Toward a theory of spiritual leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 14, pp. 693-727

L.K. Treviño, L.P. Hartman, M. Brown, (2000), Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership, California Management Review, 42, pp. 128-142

B. Avolio, F. Luthans, F.O. Walumbwa, (2004), Authentic Leadership: Theory Building for Veritable Sustained Performance, Working paper, Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, R.E. Quinn (Eds.), (2003), Positive Organizational Scholarship., Berrett–Koehler, San Francisco

A. Bandura, (1986), Social foundations of thought and action, Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006b). Role modeling and ethical leadership. Paper presented at the 2006 Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Atlanta, GA.

L.K. Treviño, L.P. Hartman, M. Brown, (2000), Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership, California Management Review, 42, pp. 128-142

G.R. Weaver, L.K. Treviño, B. Agle, (2005), “Somebody I look up to”: Ethical role models in organizations, Organizational Dynamics, 34, pp. 313-330

L.K. Treviño, G.R. Weaver, D.G. Gibson, B.L. Toffler, (1999), Managing ethics and legal compliance: What hurts and what works, California Management Review, 41, pp. 131-151

B. Victor, J.B. Cullen, (1988), The organizational bases of ethical work climates, Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, pp. 101-125

L.K. Treviño, (1986), Ethical decision making in organizations: A person–situation interactionist model, Academy of Management Review, 11, pp. 601-617

L.K. Treviño, K.D. Butterfield, D.M. Mcabe, (1998), The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors, Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, pp. 447-476

L.K. Treviño, (1990), A cultural perspective on changing organizational ethics

R. Woodman, Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 195-230

T.M. Jones, (1991), Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue contingent model, Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 366-395

J.R. Rest, (1986), Moral development: Advances in research and theory, Praeger, New York

T.A. Judge, J.E. Bono, R. Ilies, M.W. Gerhardt, (2002), Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 765-780

E.C. Tupes, R.E. Christal, (1961), Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings

(Tech. Rep. ASD-TR-61-97), U.S. Air Force, Lackland Air Force Base, TX

L.K. Treviño, M. Brown, L.P. Hartman, (2003), A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite, Human Relations, 55, pp. 5-37

P.T. Costa Jr., R.R. McCrae, (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual, PAR, Odessa, FL (1992)

D.C. McClelland, (1975), Power: The inner experience, Irvington, New York

D.C. McClelland, (1985), Human Motivation, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL

D.C. McClelland, R.E. Boyatzis, (1982), Leadership motivation pattern and long term success in management, Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, pp. 737-743

J.M. Howell, B.J. Avolio, (1992), The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation

Academy of Management Executive, 6, pp. 43-54

The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, (2020), Translated by Adam Beresford, Penguin Classics

Elizabeth Anscombe, (1958), Modern Moral Philosophy

Geach, Peter, (1977), the Virtues, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant, (2003), Plato: The Last Days of Socrates,.  New York: Penguin Books

James Rachels, (2019), The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Ninth Edition McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY

Nietzsche, Frederick translated by Walter Kaufmann in The Portable Nietzsche, (1954), Twilight of the Idols, New York, Viking Press, 1954.