Search results

Ethical leadership is of great interest in the accounting profession. After numerous ethical and moral leadership failures over the last two decades, where accounting professionals played a significant role in the fraudulent behaviors that impacted individuals, businesses, and the economy as a whole, the profession has renewed its focus on promoting ethical behavior. To date, research contributing to improving ethical behavior in the accounting profession has been minimal. A plethora of research has identified the deficiency of ethical reasoning and conduct in accounting students and professionals but has provided minimal recommendations on how to improve the status quo. Earlier studies have also found that values based, ethical and transformational leadership behaviors contribute to leader effectiveness in the accounting and business professions. What has not been studied or identified are the specific ethical and transformational leadership behaviors that should be sought or developed in professionals that would improve the ethical conduct and effectiveness of accounting leaders. This study seeks to address the gap in the literature by using neuro network analysis to understand the individual components of ethical and transformational leadership that result in leaders that are more effective in the profession. It concludes that in this study of 212 accounting professionals, ethical leaders that: (a) communicate openly, (b) are trustworthy, (c) consider and support their subordinates’ interest and (d) are altruistic, with a selfless concern for the well-being of others and transformational leaders that encourage their followers to think creatively are innovative are more effective leaders.

One fundamental question in normative ethics concerns how norms influence human behavior and discussions within normative ethics would be facilitated by a classification that treats human actions/behavior and moral norms within the same functional framework. Based on evolutionary analysis of benefits and costs, we distinguish five categories of human action. Four of these – self-interest, kin selection, group egoism, and cooperation – are basically results of gene selection, benefit the individual's genetic interest and may be described as “broad self-interest.” In contrast, the fifth category, unselfishness, is more likely a result of cultural influences. All the five categories of action are influenced by three broad moral spheres, each of which represents many norms that have a common denominator. Thus, a sphere of integrity concerns the individual's right to act in his/her interest and against those of other individuals. A sphere of reciprocal morality deals with rules for various forms of cooperation. An altruistic sphere has to do with the obligations to generate advantages for others. Ethics can be viewed as a dynamic conflict among various norms within and between these spheres. The classical conflict is that between the integrity and altruistic spheres. However, we argue that the prime antagonism may be that between the altruistic and reciprocal spheres; the main impact of altruistic ideals may not be the reputed one of counteracting egoism, but subversively thwarting reciprocal morality.

Serious questions have been raised regarding the necessity to continue focusing our research on what constitutes individual, or what the authors refer to as singular leadership. Although the authors consider these questions to be important to advancing the field of leadership theory, research, and practice, they also suggest that attempts to minimize the relevance of singular leadership may hinder progress in other domains of leadership research. In this chapter, the authors explore how and why singular leaders and their leadership matter, and how they may influence follower, peer, and organizational outcomes. The authors use a paradoxical framework to present a theoretical model and propositions that allow us to clarify the influence of different forms of singular leadership within organizations. In our examination of singular leadership, the authors consider both positive and harmful modes of attributes, cognitions, and behaviors.

This article verified the construct of servant leadership and validated a measure developed in Western culture. Results from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (N=285) produced a five-factor model – altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom, and community stewardship with less items than the original measure. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (N=304) indicated that the 5-factor servant leadership model fits the data best. Correlation analysis of the supervisor-subordinate paired sample (N=209 dyads) showed that servant leadership has more common features with transformational leadership and less with paternalistic leadership; the predictive power of servant leadership was roughly equivalent to that of transformational leadership but higher than that of paternalistic leadership when predicting criterion variables such as overall satisfaction and deviance behavior. Our results totally demonstrated that the revised servant leadership scale in Chinese culture has higher reliability and validity, which could be used for subsequent studies as an effective instrument.

This chapter highlights the roots of corporate philanthropy from Frishkoff and Kostecka's (1991) concern for community, Young and Burlingame's (1996) Paradigm Lost, Saiia's (2001) strategic philanthropy, and Bruch and Walter's (2005) Four Types of Corporate Philanthropy.

Leaders’ emotional intelligence (EI), personality, and empowering behavior have been heavily studied in the organizational behavior literature. To date, the majority of research on EI and personality has shown their significant influence on personal outcomes. It has also been suggested that empowerment is a fundamental psychological mechanism underlying follower outcomes. Nevertheless, little attention has been paid to the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team outcomes and the potential mediating effect of team leaders’ empowering behavior. In this study, we developed theoretical rationale and empirically tested the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team climate and the mediating role that team leaders’ empowering behavior plays in this relationship. The results supported most of our hypothesized relationships, that is, the positive effects of team leaders’ EI and agreeableness on team climate were mediated by team leaders’ empowering behavior, whereas team leaders’ openness to new experience was not related to empowering behavior and team climate. Finally, theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Achieving sustainable development in heart-wrenching milestone in the face of the current pandemic (COVID-19) situation is becoming a key factor for competitiveness of organizations. Human Resource Development professionals are deemed to be in an ideal position to facilitate the organizational sustainable development by bringing about contextual changes in the workplace and by changing the behavioral patterns of employees. The COVID-19 pandemic has engendered the disruption across societies, raising challenges for the organizations besides other institutions to play their imperative role for a sustainable development pathway. One such way of striving by organizations would be to embark among employees a spark of bringing a change among its employees from being self-centered to societal-oriented by instilling among them the kindle of DSIW (Desire to have Significant Impact through Work). It is the desire of making substantial impact toward society and others' lives, which is evoked under ethical leadership and perceived ethical Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Thus, we have identified the underpinning values of being an ethical leader in wake of contributing toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) toward bringing a societal perspective among employees by infusing the altruistic desire, that is, DSIW among employees. This chapter is broadly divided into two main sections. The first section highlights the contextual settings and the underlying mechanisms that lead to DSIW. The second section draws the attention toward the implication of DSIW for employees in bringing about social change with respect to sustainability, social well-being, as well for the sustainable development of organizations and for positive socioeconomic consequences.

In this chapter, we propose that society- and organization-level social context cues influence the endorsement of ethical leadership. More specifically, we propose that certain organizational culture values provide proximal contextual cues that people use to form perceptions of the importance of ethical leadership. We further propose that specific societal culture values and societal corruption provide a set of more distal, yet salient, environmental cues about the importance of ethical leadership. Using data from Project GLOBE, we provide evidence that both proximal and distal contextual cues were related to perceptions of four dimensions of ethical leadership as important for effective leadership, including character/integrity, altruism, collective motivation, and encouragement.

Whitman argues that group selection is consistent with methodological individualism. He begins by defining a weak form of methodological individualism in which agents are not necessarily self-interested or rational and shows that this form is consistent with Sober and Wilson’s model of group selection. However, Sober and Wilson’s group selection is also consistent with a methodological individualism in which the individuals are rational and self-interested, and consistent with individual selection as well. A version of group selection similar to what Hayek may have had in mind when he talked about groups out-competing other groups is presented, however, this is not a version of group selection that is compatible with methodological individualism.