Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the links between ethics, leadership and psychology, and to introduce the papers for the special issue of the Journal of Management Development.

The paper provides a conceptual review of issues attached to research in the field of responsible leadership psychology.

Individual organisational members affect and are affected by the organisation's collective psyche, and all are potential leaders; therefore, all should care about their “inner life” and reflect on the interrelationships between their ethical responsibility, their psychological world, and their interaction with others.

The paper shows that self‐enquiry and understanding the unconscious influences on ego‐consciousness are essential for nurturing ethical awareness and responsible action as leaders, followers and more generally as organisational agents.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the parallels between the ethical concept of moral imagination and the psychoanalytical concept of active imagination. A model combining both concepts is then proposed and discussed. The paper argues that such synthesis is necessary to understand the process of moral deliberation, as well as to foster more consistent moral choices in organisations.

The paper is conceptual, and builds upon relevant literature from the field of business ethics and analytical psychology.

Imagination is a thoroughly ambivalent concept, which can be used to pursue moral as well as immoral goals. Moral imagination is an important element influencing decision making, but its quality depends on the state of balance of the psyche. A sound and effective moral imagination must be grounded in a healthy psyche, and needs the assistance of active imagination (or other similar activities) to achieve this. Such inner work is especially necessary for leaders to clarify their moral values and capabilities.

The Active and Moral Imagination (AMI) model proposed has not been empirically tested; therefore its implications are tentative at this stage. The paper does not discuss in detail other psychological activities which may be complementary to active imagination.

Managers and leaders should reflect on their own unconscious, so as to understand the deeper mechanisms influencing their decisions and behaviours.

The paper presents an interdisciplinary approach to the role of imagination in ethics.

The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a specialist at a research institution turned into an unwilling manager who lost her Jungian self under the managerial persona and shadow pressures of the organization. The findings lead to a personal development model.

The problem and solution are translated into Jungian language, which fits with the Buddhist approach chosen by the interviewee. The case study looks for answers to questions: How responsible should individuals be? How far should they go: blow the whistle? Is responsible leadership possible in an organization whose ego is in the powerful grip of its persona and shadow? What is the role of individual/group/organizational/societal unconscious in striving for responsible leadership? Can an organization become aware of its persona and shadow and develop into an enlightened self?

Individuals can take responsibility for the less powerful but not always for the more powerful. Whistle‐blowing may be counterproductive. Responsible leadership is possible, if individuals/groups/organizations/societies are mature enough to become aware of their persona and shadow to free this energy for responsible behaviour. A Jungian‐Buddhist personal development model is built.

Single case study results are not generalizable, but the presented problem may be common in research organizations. The model requires further empirical support.

Holistic personal development: “Loose (don’t lose) your self. Shelve your persona! Don’t fear your shadow; learn to know it!”

The paper presents a novel account of presenting and solving a real‐life managerial problem through integrating Buddhist and Jungian knowledge, and introducing a Jungian‐Buddhist model.

The research aims to examine how corporate social responsibility (CSR) is contextually understood, in comparison with the definitions proposed in the academic literature.

The research was based on a case study analysis of a local public hospital in France, using semi‐structured interviews with multiple stakeholders exploring the perceived responsibilities of the organisation.

The study findings provide the basis for the development of a model of CSR for the hospital. The findings highlight the importance of senior managers' involvement in stakeholder dialogue, as well as the effect of external influences, on the overall social performance of the hospital.

Case‐study replication of health care organisations would refine and allow for generalisations of results. Also the sample of participating stakeholders should be extended to include policy‐makers. The critical area for examination is whether management need to be at the core of open and constructive dialogue with stakeholders, in order for CSR application to be extended.

The proposed model serves as a basis for health care managers to understand the key elements of CSR and assess the social performance of their organisation.

Adopting multi‐stakeholder approach to explore contextually determined views of CSR, the study contributes to CSR research and is of value to academics as well as managers in the health care sector.

The responsible leadership movement may be seen as part of the wider sustainability revolution. Sustainability was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development as “economic development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Since then, guiding principles have been formulated and a growing number of business leaders have issued a call to action. Still one expert, Orr, recently concluded that “virtually no indicator of planetary health is moving in a positive direction, and we should ask why.” The purpose of this paper, heeding the admonition to “ask why”, is to examine what it means to be responsible as a leader at this time, in this context.

A consensus view of the context and the accountabilities it implies is gleaned from an analysis of sustainability principles. A psychological approach to conceptualizing leader responsibility as a variable in personal development is elaborated under the normative construct of generativity. A new model for coaching developing leaders and promoting leader responsibility is proposed. It is based on recent advances in psychoanalytic psychology, and aspects of its theory base and method are illustrated in a case example.

Development of responsibility is found to hinge on personal value commitments that can best be awakened and cultivated through professionally‐relevant personal development in conjunction with experiential development strategies such as stretch assignments and action learning.

The approach offers a practical, developmental pathway for promoting leader responsibility.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit philosopher Hannah Arendt's classic study of the banality of evil in light of posthumously published works bearing on moral psychology and philosophy.

Largely expository and interpretive, this conceptual paper articulates Arendt's approach to morally responsible thinking, with an emphasis on managerial decision making. Arendt's practical ethics draws, in part, on Kantian aesthetic theory, providing an original but unfinished account of “the life of the mind” and personal responsibility in community.

Arendt contends that humans can, and are morally obliged to, use conscience, imagination and reason to avoid evil‐doing; that self‐critical introspection, active imagination and representative judgment are essential for moral decision making, especially in times of moral crisis; and that neither profit nor pressure can justify breaching fundamental responsibilities to humanity.

This paper discusses, but does not critique, Arendt's oeuvre. It interprets, connects and applies ideas from disparate works relating to responsible moral psychology.

Confronting a “modern crisis” in values, Arendt acknowledged pressures on leaders to fulfill organizational objectives, even those effecting harm which violate deeply‐held personal ethics. Warning against temptations to divide selves into a “personal” moral self and a compartmentalized “organisational self,” she prescribed ways of thinking and judging to counteract thoughtless evil‐doing.

The paper connects Arendt's privative analysis of evil‐doing in Eichmann in Jerusalem with later works which delineate shared human mental capacities and processes which facilitate morally responsible leadership, independent of culture or context.