Responsible Leadership As Virtuous Leadership

J Bus Ethics (2011) 98:25–35 DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1023-6

Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership

Kim Cameron

Received: 28 April 2011 / Accepted: 15 June 2011 / Published online: 27 September 2011 Ó The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Responsible leadership is rare. It is not that The idea that organizations need responsible leaders is most leaders are irresponsible, but responsibility in lead- quite common. In political elections, voters try to deter- ership is frequently defined so that an important connota- mine which candidate will actually follow-through on tion of responsible leadership is ignored. This article campaign promises, and in business organizations, boards equates responsible leadership with virtuousness. Using of directors seek to select CEOs whom they estimate to be this connotation implies that responsible leadership is most responsible for the organization’s performance and based on three assumptions—eudaemonism, inherent capital. The literature on effective leadership has largely value, and amplification. Secondarily, this connotation included an element of responsibility (Doh and Stumph produces two important outcomes—a fixed point for 2005; Yukl et al. 2002). Responsibility in this sense most coping with change, and benefits for constituencies who often is synonymous with accountability and dependability may never be affected otherwise. The meaning and (as in being accountable for performance and being advantages of responsible leadership as virtuous leadership dependable in achieving promised performance) (Bass and are discussed. Bass 2008; Meindl and Ehrlich 1987). Responsibility is also commonly associated with free- Keywords Virtuousness Á Leadership Á Responsible dom of action and empowerment, indicating that respon- leadership Á Virtuous leadership Á Ethics Á Virtues sible individuals have discretion or volition and the necessary authority. They have the wherewithal and the resources to achieve an objective (as in having responsi- Responsible leadership is rare. It is not that most leaders bility at work, or being given the responsibility for an are irresponsible, but responsibility in leadership is fre- activity or outcome) (Spreitzer 2007). These two conno- quently defined so that an important connotation of tations of leadership responsibility are closely related, as responsible leadership is ignored. The objective of this leaders are more likely to be accountable and dependable if article is to highlight this oft-ignored attribute of respon- they are able to act freely and to feel empowered to per- sible leadership, review its meaning, and identify two form (Spreitzer et al. 1999; Salancik and Meindl 1984). advantages it serves for organizations. In these two senses, responsibility means ‘‘response-able,’’ or possessing the capability and the capacity needed to respond. A third connotation of responsible leadership has been proposed by Pless and colleagues in which responsible leaders are described as possessing certain characteristics and performing particular roles. Responsible leadership in these discussions is grounded in stakeholder theory—that & K. Cameron ( ) is, leaders interact with and have responsibility for multiple Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA stakeholders. The roles associated with responsible lead- e-mail: [email protected] ership include ‘‘architect, change agent, citizen, coach, 123 26 K. Cameron networker, servant, storyteller, steward, and visionary’’ correctness, and goodness is the concept of virtuousness (Maak and Pless 2006b, p. 107; Pless 2007, p. 439), and the (Cameron and Winn 2012; Cameron et al. 2011). This characteristics of responsible leaders are quite extensive.1 concept is a universally accepted standard for the best of Responsible leadership in these discussions is defined in the human condition (Comte-Sponville 2001; Dutton and this way: ‘‘Responsible leadership can be understood as the Sonenshein 2007; Peterson and Seligman 2004). Using this art of building and sustaining social and moral relation- connotation, responsible leadership is equated with virtu- ships between business leaders and different stakeholders ous leadership, or leadership oriented toward being and (followers), based on a sense of justice, a sense of recog- doing good. nition, a sense of care, and a sense of accountability for a Responsibility used in the first three ways is associated wide range of economic, ecological, social, political, and with achieving desired instrumental results, such as pro- human responsibilities’’ (2007, p. 451). The multiple roles, ductivity, customer retention, sustainability, morale, characteristics, and relationships advocated are inclusive of effective networks, or employee well-being. Used in the most of the major theories of leadership (e.g., transfor- fourth way, responsibility is associated with promoting mational, charismatic, servant, and ethical) and place goodness for its own sake (Cameron et al. 2003). It focuses responsible leadership as an encompassing ideal type. on the highest potentiality of human systems, or on A fourth connotation of the concept of responsible virtuousness. leadership is less frequently used but equally meaningful. It is the attribute that makes a certain type of responsible leadership rare. It refers to the ability or inclination to act in The Meaning of Virtuousness in Leadership an appropriate fashion (as when an individual acts responsibly). The concept of appropriateness is key to this Virtuousness is not a common term in scientific circles. connotation in that it associates responsible action with The prevailing tradition in organizational studies suggests what is right, correct, or best. Behaving responsibly in this that discussions of virtuousness are associated with social sense means being good or doing good (Walsh et al. 2003). conservatism, religious dogmatism, and scientific irrele- Of course, what is considered good is often controversial,2 vance (Chapman and Galston 1992; MacIntyre 1984; but one term that connotes universal standards of rightness, Schimmel 1997). Virtuousness is often relegated to theol- ogy, philosophy, or mere naivete´. Fowers (2008), for 1 Responsible leadership characteristics are reported to include example, accused positive psychologists of being ‘‘super- ‘‘building public trust,’’ ‘‘sustaining an impeccable reputation,’’ ficial’’ and ‘‘colloquial’’ in their understanding of virtue. ‘‘walking the talk,’’ ‘‘managing with integrity,’’ ‘‘making profits with Fineman (2006) argued that virtuousness is culturally principles,’’ ‘‘delivering on the triple bottom line,’’ ‘‘creating value for stakeholders,’’ ‘‘mobilizing people and teams,’’ ‘‘coaching and restrictive and narrow-minded. Its relevance in the world of reinforcing employees,’’ ‘‘creating incentives to encourage respectful work and in organizations has little credence in the face of collaboration,’’ ‘‘safeguarding freedom of speech,’’ ‘‘ensuring adher- economic pressures and stakeholder demands. Confirming ence to employment standards,’’ ‘‘proving fair and equal employment this bias, Walsh (1999) analyzed word usage in the Wall opportunities,’’ ‘‘making sure that products and services meet customer needs,’’ ‘‘ensuring that ethical standards are respected,’’ Street Journal from 1984 through 2000 and reported that ‘‘driven by a values-based vision of the future,’’ ‘‘having a funda- the appearance of terms, such as ‘‘win,’’ ‘‘advantage,’’ and mental values base,’’ ‘‘maintaining personal and professional integ- ‘‘beat,’’ had risen more than fourfold over that 17-year rity,’’ ‘‘making principled decisions,’’ ‘‘using values as a moral period in reference to business organizations. Terms, such compass,’’ ‘‘promoting active citizenship inside and outside the organization,’’ ‘‘being rooted in an ethics of care,’’ ‘‘being driven by a as ‘‘virtue,’’ ‘‘caring,’’ and ‘‘compassion,’’ on the other desire to serve others,’’ ‘‘humility and modesty,’’ ‘‘an inclination to hand, seldom appeared at all in reference to business. The support others and to care for their interests and needs,’’ ‘‘being use of these terms remained negligible across the same connected and close to stakeholders,’’ ‘‘growing and sustaining a web 17-year period of time. of stakeholder connections,’’ ‘‘having a drive to realize the vision in and through stakeholder engagement,’’ ‘‘being cooperative,’’ ‘‘being A review of scholarly literature relating to the concept inclusive,’’ ‘‘being empathetic,’’ ‘‘creating a values-based sense of of virtuousness (including the terms ‘‘virtues,’’ ‘‘civic vir- identify among stakeholders,’’ ‘‘a combination of cognitive, emo- tues,’’ ‘‘moral virtues,’’ and ‘‘virtue ethics’’) reveals that tional, relational, and moral qualities,’’ and other characteristics (see little agreement exists regarding its definition and attributes Maak and Pless 2006a, b; Pless 2007). (Cameron and Winn 2012). Most articles focus on the 2 This connotation of responsible leadership, of course, raises the issue of what is meant by right, correct, beneficial, or good. The debate about whether or not virtuousness actually exists problem, of course, is that some argue that what may be right or good (Alzola 2008; Wright and Goodstein 2007; Weaver 2006; for one may not be good for another, or what is beneficial for some Whetstone 2003), on the development of virtue in societies may not be beneficial for all (Fineman 2006). This article does not (Moore and Beadle 2006; Nielsen 2006), or on the defini- propose to review these various arguments but, rather, to suggest that virtuousness can serve as one universalistic standard for what is tion of the term (Fowers 2009; Moberg 1999; Rachels defined as right, correct, or good. 1999). A few articles have attempted to identify universal 123 Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership 27 attributes of virtuousness or to develop instruments to Aquinas (1984) proposed that virtuousness is rooted in measure them (Chun 2005; Peterson and Seligman 2004; human character and represents ‘‘what human beings ought Shanahan and Hyman 2003), but two striking features to be,’’ inherent goodness, humanity’s very best qualities, characterize this literature. First, virtuousness is seldom or being in complete harmony with the will of God (also, associated with leadership and almost never with organi- Aristotle, Metaphysics XII; Sison 2006). Virtuousness zations. Second, very few studies have been conducted in refers to a constellation of virtues in the aggregate. Just as which virtuousness is investigated empirically (Rego et al. individuals may possess more than one virtue, responsible 2010; Den Hartog and De Hoogh 2009; Bright et al. 2006; leadership in organizations also may display and enable Sison 2006; Caza et al. 2004; Cameron et al. 2004). more than one virtue. Responsible leadership as equated with virtuousness, then, is leadership that exemplifies a Virtue Versus Virtuousness combination of virtues. From the organization level of analysis, virtuousness may be fostered by the organiza- The term virtue refers to singular attributes that represent tional policies, processes, practices, and culture nurtured by moral excellence. Based on the Latin word virtus, or the Greek leaders (Cameron 2010; Dutton and Sonenshein 2007). areˆte, a virtue is not a product of social convention but is a basic element of the human condition (Rachels 1999). Aris- Examples totle (1999) equated it with ‘‘excellence in the human soul.’’ Virtue is sometimes equated with character strengths (Grant Examples of virtuous leadership might be illustrated by the and Schwartz 2011; Peterson and Seligman 2004), but virtue senior leaders at Prudential’s Relocation Company con- and character strengths are not synonymous. One can possess tacting senior executives at BP Oil Company shortly after too much or too little of a strength, and in doing so it may the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. They offered to provide free become a weakness or produce a negative outcome (as when relocation services from the UK to the U.S. until the spill too much tolerance becomes spinelessness and too little tol- was cleaned-up. The rationale: ‘‘We want to help, and we erance becomes bigotry). Virtuousness, on the other hand, think that this is just the right thing to do’’ (personal cannot be exceeded. communication). Or, the approach to cost cutting and Virtuousness also differs from the concept of ethics. A downsizing at Griffin Hospital in which a culture charac- dominant (although not exclusive) emphasis in the leader- terized by ‘‘compassion, highest levels of integrity, for- ship ethics literature is on avoiding harm, fulfilling contracts, giveness, and love’’ was developed by the senior leaders as ensuring compliance, and obeying rules and laws (Brown a result of the announced downsizing activities (Cameron and Trevino 2006; Handelsman et al. 2002; Trevino et al. 2008). Or, the Rocky Flats Nuclear Arsenal case in which 2003). In practice, ethics are understood and implemented as leadership honesty, virtuousness, and personal concern duties (Rawls 1971). They are usually specifications were keys to an extraordinary, almost unbelievably rapid designed to prevent damage or avoid injury (Orlikowski and effective clean-up and closure of North America’s 2000), or to ensure compliance (Brown and Trevino 2006). most dangerous location (Cameron and Lavine 2006). Unethical action is harmful, detrimental, or destructive, and so to behave ethically is to avoid doing harm, damaging Attributes of Virtuousness another individual, or destroying something valuable. Admittedly, a few authors (e.g., Maak and Pless 2006b; Confusion regarding the meaning of virtuousness has been Sison 2006; Pless 2007) have included virtuousness as an important inhibitor to its use in organizational and one of the attributes of responsible leadership, but the leadership research. For example, virtuousness has been comprehensiveness of the characteristics incorporated used interchangeably in the organization studies literature and its association with instrumental outcomes differentiate with corporate social responsibility (CSR), citizenship it from virtuous leadership as discussed in the fourth behavior, business ethics, justice, and strengths. Illustra- connotation. tions of the variety of definitions include Moberg’s (1999) In contrast to the dominant approach to ethics, virtu- equating virtuousness with some of the Big Five person- ousness possesses an affirmative bias and focuses on ele- ality attributes—namely, agreeableness and conscien- vating, flourishing, and enriching outcomes. Virtuousness tiousness of managers in organizations—or Ewin’s (1995) pursues the ultimate best—eudaemonism—rather than proposal that virtuousness is exemplified by the persuasive merely avoiding the negative or emphasizing the attain- ability and influence techniques of salespersons. Sison ment of more valuable outcomes. More importantly, unlike (2006) associated virtuousness with the content of speech ethics—which may be situational—virtuousness represents (logos), character traits (ethos), and emotional disposition a universal and stable standard of the good (Cameron (pathos) in the service of persuasion and governance, and 2006). Fowers (2005, 2009) equated virtuousness with ethics and 123 28 K. Cameron with personal strengths in the pursuit of that which leads to together, pursue collective ends, and protect against those beneficial instrumental outcomes, implying a hedonistic who endanger the social order. From a genetic or biological pursuit of human fulfillment. perspective, virtuousness plays a role in the development Rather than being an instrumentally motivated action or and perpetuation of humanity. This also explains why emotion valued only because of what it produces, however, virtuousness is highly prized and admired, and why virtu- virtuousness as associated with responsible leadership ous individuals are almost universally revered, emulated, refers to the most ennobling behaviors and outcomes, the and even sainted. They help perpetuate the human species excellence and essence of humankind, the best of the (Cameron and Winn 2012). Miller (2007) pointed out, for human condition, and the highest aspirations of humanity example, that a selective genetic bias for human moral (Comte-Sponville 2001; Weiner 1993; Chapman and virtuousness exists. He argued that mate selection evolved Galston 1992; Dent 1984; MacIntyre 1984). That is, at least partly on the basis of displays of virtuousness. virtuousness in leadership is less a means to another more desirable outcome than an ultimate good itself. This Inherent Value Assumption is important because some authors have criticized the current literature on virtuousness, ethics, and positivity as A second core assumption of virtuousness is that it repre- being co-opted by a market-based, profit-as-the-summon- sents ‘‘goods of first intent’’ (Aristotle 1999, p. 3), meaning bonum ethic (Caza and Carroll 2012). They claim that if that it represents inherent value. Virtuousness in leadership virtuousness is relevant only to gain a desired end (e.g., is not a means to obtain another end, but it is considered to fulfilling customer demands), it is akin to manipulation be an end in itself. In fact, virtuousness in pursuit of and cooptation by the powerful at the expense of the less another more attractive outcome ceases by definition to be powerful. virtuousness. Forgiveness, compassion, and courage in Virtuous leadership does not assume, however, that search of recompense are not virtuous. If kindness toward profitability, customer service, or shareholder value are the employees is demonstrated in an organization, for example, ultimate ends. Responsible leadership using the fourth solely to obtain a payback or an advantage (kindness is connotation does not assume that more suitable outcomes displayed only if people work harder), it ceases to be are needed in order for virtuous action or virtuous decisions kindness and is, instead, manipulation. Virtuousness is to be taken. Rather, responsible leadership in this sense is associated with social betterment, but this betterment characterized by three core assumptions—a eudaemonic extends beyond mere self-interested benefit. Virtuousness assumption, an inherent value assumption, and an ampli- creates social value that transcends the instrumental desires fication assumption (Bright et al. 2006; Cameron and Winn of the actor(s) (Aristotle, Metaphysics VII). Virtuous 2012). leadership produces advantages to others in addition to, or even exclusive of, recognition, benefit, or advantage to the The Eudaemonic Assumption actor or the organization (Cawley et al. 2000). This also explains why leadership virtuousness is dif- Virtuousness is synonymous with the eudaemonic assump- ferent than participation in normatively prescribed CSR, tion. This is the assumption that an inclination exists in all sponsoring environmentally friendly programs, or utilizing human beings toward moral goodness (Aristotle, Meta- renewable resources (Bollier 1996; Hoffman and Haigh physics; Dutton and Sonenshein 2007). Several authors 2012). Although some activities included in the CSR and have provided evidence that the human inclination toward corporate citizenship domains may represent virtuousness, virtuousness is inherent and evolutionarily developed these activities are typically explained as motivated by (Tangney et al. 2007; Miller 2007). Inherent virtuousness, instrumental benefit or exchange relationships. That is, or an inclination toward the best of the human condition, engagement in these actions is initiated to acquire benefit develops in the brain before the development of language. to the firm or advantages from a reciprocal arrangement Studies of the human brain indicate that individuals appear (Batson et al. 1995; Fry et al. 1982; Moore and Richardson to have a basic instinct toward morality and are organically 1988; Piliavin and Charng 1990;Sańchez 2000). Exchange, inclined to be virtuous (Haight 2006; Hauser 2006; Pinker reciprocity, and self-serving motives, however, are not 1997). Krebs (1987, p. 113) asserted that human beings are indicative of virtuousness. Barge and Oliver (2003) and ‘‘genetically disposed’’ to acts of virtuousness, and Gergen (1999) argued that associating an instrumental observing and experiencing virtuousness helps unlock the motive with organizational virtuousness changes the nature human predisposition toward behaving in ways that benefit of the relationships among organization members and others. causes the behavior to evolve into ‘‘another technique of In functional terms, virtuousness is claimed to be evo- manipulation and discipline’’ (Barge and Oliver 2003, lutionarily developed because it allows people to live p. 11). Of course, virtuousness does not stand in opposition 123 Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership 29 to concepts such as citizenship, social responsibility, or virtuousness. Because virtuousness is a universal standard ethics, but it extends beyond them. for the best of the human condition, it addresses the question: What is the most responsible approach to lead- Amplification Assumption ership? Being clear about what is meant by the term virtuousness is a prerequisite to addressing this question. A third assumption is that virtuousness creates and fosters Responsible leadership, of course, refers not only to the sustainable positive energy. It is elevating and self-per- actions of leaders but also to the processes, strategies, and petuating, and it requires no external motivator for its culture that they foster and enable which support and pursuit. Because it is an ultimate end and an inherent manifest collective virtuous behavior. That is, leaders attribute of human beings, virtuousness produces an ele- behave in ways, and help foster organizational attributes, vating effect. This is to say, virtuousness is amplifying that are consistent with the highest aspirations of human when it is experienced (George 1995). Observing virtuous kind. They enable and perpetuate virtuousness so that its leadership creates a self-reinforcing inclination toward self-perpetuating and amplifying effects are experienced by more of the same. One difference between Aristotle’s members of the organization in which they interact (Maak ‘‘goods of first intent’’ and ‘‘goods of second intent’’ is that and Pless 2006b; Pless 2007). people never tire of or become satiated with goods of first intent. Leaders cannot be too virtuous. Fredrickson and Joiner (2002) found evidence that Benefits of Virtuous Leadership observing virtuousness in leaders creates upward spirals of positive dynamics. Compassion begets gratitude, gratitude Accepting virtuousness as a key attribute of responsible motivates improved relationships, witnessing good deeds leadership provides at least two functional benefits. leads to elevation, elevation motivates prosocial behavior, While supplemental advantage is not needed for virtuous and observing virtuousness fosters even more virtuousness leadership to be valued, benefits do accrue nevertheless. (also see Algoe and Haight 2009; Maslow 1971; Hatch One benefit is the role virtuousness plays in creating a 1999; Sethi and Nicholson 2001). Studies reported by fixed point in decision making. Another benefit is the Cialdini (2000) and Asche (1952) support the idea that increases in performance that virtuousness produces in when people observe exemplary or virtuous behavior, their organizations. inclination is to follow suit. Fredrickson (2003) applied her ‘‘broaden and build’’ theory—explaining the effects of Virtuousness as a Fixed Point experiencing positive emotions—to virtuous leadership. Employees’ and organizations’ social, intellectual, and It is commonly acknowledged that the most dominant emotional capacities were expanded and increased as a feature of the current environment for organizations is result of experiencing and observing virtuousness (Fred- turbulence. Change is generally acknowledged as ubiqui- rickson 2009). tous and constant. Unfortunately, when everything is This amplifying quality of virtuousness can be explained changing, it becomes impossible to manage change by its association with the heliotropic effect. The helio- (Cameron 2006). Without a stable, unchanging reference tropic effect is the attraction of all living systems toward point, direction and progress become indeterminate. Air- positive energy and away from negative energy, or toward plane piloting offers an instructive metaphor. The key to that which is life-giving and away from that which is life- successful flight is adjusting the plane’s movement in depleting (Smith and Baker 1960; D’Amato and Jagoda relation to a stable, unchanging referent such as land or the 1962; Mrosovsky and Kingsmill 1985). In nature, this is horizon. Without a fixed referent, it is impossible to steer a exemplified by light from the sun. Several researchers have course. Pilots with no visual or instrumentation contact described the dynamics of individuals and groups that with a fixed point are unable to navigate. experience virtuousness (e.g., Cameron 2008; Eisenberg Consider the last flight of John Kennedy, Jr., who began 1986; Hatch 1999; Leavitt 1996; Sethi and Nicholson a flight up the New England coast at dusk. He lost sight of 2001) proposing that under such conditions, individuals land and, when it grew dark, the horizon line as well. He experience a compelling urge to build upon the contribu- lost his fixed point of reference. The result was disorien- tions of others and to perpetuate a virtuous spiral (Fred- tation, and he flew his plane into the ocean, likely without rickson 2003, 2009; Erhard-Seibold 1937; Dutton and even knowing he was headed toward the water. He was Heaphy 2003). Observing virtuousness creates a self-rein- unable to manage the continuously changing position of his forcing cycle toward more virtuousness. airplane without a standard that remained unchanged. In sum, one infrequently acknowledged connotation of The same disorientation afflicts individuals and orga- responsibility in leadership is its association with nizations in situations where there are no unchanging 123 30 K. Cameron referents. When nothing is stable—no clear fixed points or Rules meant to specify duty or control behavior may be undisputed guiding principles exist—leaders are left with inadequate standards because they change (thus, disquali- nothing by which to steer. It becomes impossible to tell up fying them as fixed points) and do not always lead to from down or progress from regress. When nothing is desirable outcomes (Caza et al. 2004). stable—i.e., an absence of fixed points, dependable prin- On the other hand, virtuousness can serve as a fixed ciples, or stable benchmarks—leaders tend to make up their point to guide leadership in times of ambiguity, turbulence, own rules (Weick and Sutcliffe 2001; Weick 1993). They and high velocity change. This is because virtuousness make sense of the ambiguity and chaos they experience by represents what people aspire to be at their best—goodness deciding for themselves what is real and what is appro- and nobility—and these aspirations are universal and priate based on criteria such as past experience, immediate unchanging in essentially all societies, cultures, and reli- payoff, personal reward, and so on (March 1994). gions (Peterson and Seligman 2004; Kidder 1994). Without In the ethical arena, it has become clear that in high- virtuousness, it is difficult to identify unchanging fixed pressure, high-velocity environments, some leaders have points by which to manage change. Thus, responsible simply made up their own rules. They ended up cheating, leadership, as represented by virtuousness, is leadership lying, waffling, or claiming naivete´, not only because it that can effectively manage the turbulence and instability was to their economic advantage, but because they had characterizing the current external environment. Virtuous- created their own rationale for what was acceptable. They ness represents the unchanging standard by which to make operated in rapidly evolving, complex, and high-pressure decisions. environments where rules and conditions change con- stantly. Although their actions are now judged to be Virtuousness and Positive Organizational Outcomes unethical and harmful to others, within the rationale they had created for themselves, and within their socially con- Despite the fact that virtuousness need not be associated structed context, those actions made perfect sense to with instrumental outcomes to be of worth, an extensive themselves at the time (Mitchell 2001). This is why rules amount of evidence has been produced showing that vir- and standards meant to guide what is right and wrong, tuous behavior is associated with desirable outcomes. For appropriate and inappropriate, legal and illegal have example, honesty, transcendent meaning, caring and giving escalated in the interest of identifying fixed points (e.g., behavior, gratitude, hope, empathy, love, and forgiveness, Sarbanes-Oxley). among other virtues, have been found to predict desired The problem is, standards that avoid harm or control outcomes, such as individuals’ commitment, satisfaction, wrongdoing are not the same as standards that lead to one motivation, positive emotions, effort, physical health, and that is the best. Avoiding the bad is not the same as pur- psychological health (Andersson et al. 2007; Giacalone suing the good. Rules and standards that initially appear to et al. 2005; Fry et al. 2005; Kellett et al. 2006; Gittell et al. guide ethical obligations and socially responsible action 2006; Luthans et al. 2007; Dutton and colleagues 2006; may actually lead to the reverse. For example, unions often Grant 2007; Cameron and Caza 2004; Snyder 1994; ‘‘work to rule’’—doing only what is specified in contracts Sternberg 1998; Seligman 2002; Peterson and Bossio 1991; and rules—as a substitute for going on strike. This pattern Harker and Keltner 2001; McCullough et al. 2000; Em- of behavior quickly destroys normal organizational func- mons 1999). While relatively few studies have investigated tioning. Similarly, following the letter of the law in virtuousness in the leadership of organizations, a limited accounting practices, environmental pollution standards, or number of investigations have explored the effects of vir- performance appraisal systems often leads to the opposite tuous leadership on organizational performance. of the intended outcome—e.g., recalcitrance, rigidity, For example, Cameron and Caza (2002) and Cameron resistance, and rebellion (Caza and Cameron 2008). et al. (2004) conducted a series of studies in which indi- More importantly, ethical standards often change over cators of virtuousness and of performance outcomes were time and circumstance. Ethical standards regarding segre- assessed in organizations across sixteen industries (e.g., gation in public schools, for example, have changed retail, automotive, consulting, health care, manufacturing, markedly between the 1960s and the present time. The financial services, not-for-profit). All organizations in these same can be said for ethics associated with financial studies had recently downsized, so that the well-docu- transactions, accounting principles, environmental policies, mented negative effects associated with downsizing were sustainability, death, marriage, free speech, and many likely to accrue. That is, downsizing almost always pro- others. Ethical standards frequently do not remain stable duces deteriorating performance. Most organizations because they are socially constructed. Hence, ethics may regress in productivity, quality, morale, trust, and customer serve as inadequate fixed points and may not always satisfaction after downsizing (Cameron 1994, 1998; Cascio identify universalistic standards across different contexts. et al. 1997). 123 Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership 31

Leadership virtuousness scores in each organization between the virtuousness of the downsizing strategy and were measured by means of a survey instrument assessing financial return (as measured by stock price gains) was compassion, integrity, forgiveness, trust, and optimism in p = 0.86 in the first 12 months and p = 0.79 over the next the organization’s leadership (concepts included on lists of 5 years. The company with the highest level of leadership universally valued virtues, e.g., Chun 2005; Peterson and virtuousness earned the highest level of financial return in Seligman 2004). Organizational performance outcomes the industry. Virtuousness and financial return were posi- consisted of objective measures of profitability, produc- tively and significantly related over the next 5 years. tivity, quality, customer retention, and employee retention Two additional studies specifically investigated the (voluntary turnover) from company records, as well as extent to which leadership virtuousness produces these employee ratings of similar outcomes. Statistically signif- performance improvements rather than having higher per- icance relationships were found between virtuousness formance lead to virtuousness on the part of leaders scores and both objective and perceived measures of per- (Cameron et al. 2011). One study examined 40 financial formance outcomes. Organizations with higher virtuous- service organizations, and the other examined 30 health ness scores had significantly higher productivity, quality, care organizations over multiple years to discover what customer retention, and lower employee turnover than happened to performance when virtuousness scores other organizations. When controlling for factors, such as increased or decreased. These studies investigated the size, industry, and amount of downsizing, organizations extent to which leaders fostered and enabled virtuous scoring higher in virtuousness were significantly more practices and promoted a culture characterized by virtu- profitable, and, when compared to competitors, industry ousness. Virtuousness was measured by six dimensions: averages, stated goals, and past performance, they also caring (people care for, are interested in, and maintain achieved significantly higher performance on the other responsibility for one another as friends), compassionate outcome measures as well. support (people provide support for one another including In a more refined study, Bright et al. (2006) investigated kindness and compassion when others are struggling), tonic virtuousness—or virtuousness that occurs irrespective forgiveness (people avoid blaming and forgive mistakes), of conditions, such as kindness or integrity—and phasic inspiration (people inspire one another at work), meaning virtuousness—or virtuousness that is dependent on cir- (the meaningfulness of the work is emphasized, and people cumstances, such as forgiveness when harm is done or are elevated and renewed by their work), and respect, courage when danger is present—in relation to organiza- integrity, and gratitude (people treat one another with tional resilience. When leaders demonstrated virtuousness respect and express appreciation for one another as well as in the midst of downsizing, their organizations were sig- trusting one another and maintaining integrity).3 nificantly more able to absorb system shocks, to bounce At the beginning of the study period, leaders of these back from difficulties, to heal relationships, and to col- financial services organizations had embarked on system- laborate. When organizations had virtuous leaders—both atic efforts to incorporate virtuous practices into their tonically and phasically—they were also more proficient at corporate cultures. The performance outcomes of interest carrying on effectively despite the setbacks associated with were employee turnover, organizational climate, and six downsizing. financial performance measures, all of which were obtained A different kind of study was conducted in the U.S. airline industry after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. 3 This study investigated the relationships between the vir- These six dimensions of virtuousness were empirically derived from an assessment of 114 indicators of virtuousness. They are very tuousness of the downsizing strategies implemented by similar to a proposed comprehensive list of virtues reported in prior leaders and the financial return achieved by the organiza- published literature. Specifically, in one of the few published listings tions (Gittell et al. 2006). The tragedy led to enormous of proposed virtuous practices in organizations, Chun (2005) financial losses for the U.S. airline companies, and the reviewed several previous inventories of virtues and analyzed the corporate ethical value statements of 158 Fortune Global firms. Her study examined the extent to which the leaders of these analyses produced six dimensions of virtuous practices. Her six firms approached financial setbacks in virtuous ways. dimensions incorporated lists of individual virtues proposed by Virtuousness in this study was defined as preserving human Aristotle, Solomon (1999), Murphy (1999), Moberg (1999), and dignity, investing in human capital, and providing an Shanahan and Hyman (2003). Each of Chun’s six dimensions is incorporated within the 6 positive practice dimensions that emerged environment in which employee well-being was a priority. in these studies. Specifically, Chun’s ‘‘integrity’’ is assessed as Eight of ten U.S. airline companies downsized, but leaders ‘‘respect, integrity, and gratitude’’ in this study. Chun’s ‘‘empathy’’ is differed markedly in the ways that downsizing was assessed as ‘‘compassionate support’’ in this study. Chun’s ‘‘warmth’’ approached. is assessed as ‘‘caring’’ in this study. Chun’s ‘‘courage’’ has similar items as ‘‘meaning’’ in this study. Chun’s ‘‘conscientiousness’’ has Controlling for unionization, fuel price hedging, and similar items as ‘‘forgiveness’’ in this study. And Chun’s ‘‘zeal’’ is financial reserves, the study found that the correlation assessed as ‘‘inspiration’’ in this study. 123 32 K. Cameron from company records. Organizations that achieved higher good for individuals and their organizations. Virtuousness levels of aggregated virtuousness scores also produced represents the best of what humankind aspires to achieve, significantly higher financial performance, lower employee and responsible leadership in pursuit of the highest good is turnover, and better overall organizational climate 1 year a worthy aspiration. later than did those organizations with lower virtuousness Second, evidence suggests that virtuous leadership scores. Organizations that became highly virtuous gener- produces desirable ends. These ends can provide advanta- ated better results in the following year than comparison ges for all constituencies—rather than benefiting some at organizations. This suggests that leadership virtuousness the expense of others—by focusing on virtuous outcomes. was predicting financial results rather than the reverse. For example, Seligman (2011) recently articulated a goal The second study conducted among 30 health care for the field of psychology to be achieved by the year 2051. organizations also investigated changes in virtuousness This goal is to have 51% of the world’s population flour- scores over time and their effects on certain indicators of ishing by that date. Flourishing is defined as having people organizational performance. Leaders of these organizations experience positive emotions, experience engagement had engaged in multi-day sessions designed to help them (flow), experience satisfying relationships, experience implement and facilitate virtuous practices and processes in meaningfulness in their activities, and experience achieve- their organizations. Two findings of interest emerged from ment. These indicators were selected because they are this study. One is that when comparing organizations that argued to represent universally valued outcomes for all attempted to improve in virtuousness compared to those human beings. In the terms of this article, they represent that did not, organizations whose leaders were exposed to potentially virtuous objectives. Huppert et al. (2009) found virtuousness training improved their virtuous practice that the highest levels of flourishing are currently in scores significantly over a 3 year period. Units not exposed Northern Europe (e.g., Denmark, Norway) at approxi- to virtuousness training did not improve. mately 35%, whereas the lowest levels of flourishing are in A second finding is that organizations which improved Eastern Europe (e.g., Russia and Bulgaria) at approxi- the most in their virtuousness scores also produced the mately 5%. Adopting an approach to responsible leadership most improvement in the outcomes. Double digit improve- that includes the connotation of virtuousness would seem ment was detected over the 2 year period on the outcome to be one of the most likely mechanisms for making pro- measures included in the study. Organizations that gress toward such an aspiration. improved in overall virtuousness outperformed organiza- Taking responsibility as a leader, in other words, cer- tions that did not improve in subsequent years in patient tainly involves accountability, dependability, authority, and satisfaction, turnover, climate, resource adequacy, and empowerment. If responsibility also includes the notion of quality of care. virtuousness, however, the implications then become much The irony in this research is that while virtuousness does more far-reaching and inclusive. Responsibility implies the not require a visible, instrumental pay-off to be of worth, if pursuit of the ultimate best—eudaemonism—and, second- observable, bottom-line impacts are not detected, then atten- arily, to produce advantages for constituencies who may tion to virtuousness usually becomes subservient to the very never be affected otherwise. real pressures related to enhancing financial return and organizational value (Jenson 2002;Davis2008). Few business Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the leaders invest in practices or processes that do not produce Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which per- mits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any higher returns to shareholders, profitability, productivity, and medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. customer satisfaction. Without visible payoff, in other words, those with stewardship for organizational resources ignore virtuousness and consider it of little relevance to important References stakeholders. Hence, when associations between virtuousness and desired outcomes are observed in organizations, leaders Algoe, S. B., & Haight, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: may be more likely to respond to its pragmatic utility. The other-praising emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admi- Enhancing virtuousness also enhances economic outcomes. ration. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 105–127. Alzola, M. (2008). Character and environment: The status of virtues in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 343–357. Andersson, L. M., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2007). On Conclusion the relationship of hope and gratitude to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 401–409. Treatise on the virtues Associating responsibility with virtuousness provides two Aquinas, T. (1984). (J. A. Oesterle, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. advantages. One is that it helps identify a universally Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (M. Oswald, Trans.). Upper accepted standard for what leaders can consider the best or Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. 123 Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership 33

Aristotle: Metaphysics XII 7, 3–4. Caza, A., & Carroll, B. (2012). Critical studies and positive Asche, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer Prentice Hall. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Barge, J. K., & Oliver, C. (2003). Working with appreciation in New York: Oxford University Press. managerial practice. Academy of Management Review, 28, Chapman, J. W., & Galston, W. A. (1992). Virtue. New York: New 124–142. York University Press. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Chun, R. (2005). Ethical character and virtue of organizations: An Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New empirical assessment and strategic implications. Journal of York: Free Press. Business Ethics, 57, 269–284. Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., & Shaw, L. S. (1995). Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Influence: The science of persuasion. New Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: When compassion York: Allyn Bacon. and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Comte-Sponville, A. (2001). A small treatise of the great virtues ogy, 68, 1042–1054. (C. Temerson, Trans.). New York: Metropolitan Books. Bollier, D. (1996). Aiming higher: 25 Stories of how companies D’Amato, M. R., & Jagoda, H. (1962). Effect of early exposure to prosper by combining sound management and social vision. New photic stimulation on brightness discrimination and exploratory York: Amacom. behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 101, 267–271. Bright, D. S., Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2006). The amplifying and Davis, G. F. (2008). The rise and fall of finance and the end of the buffering effects of virtuousness in downsized organizations. society of organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 249–269. 23, 27–44. Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. S. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2009). Empowering and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616. behavior and leader effectiveness and integrity: Studying Cameron, K. S. (1994). Strategies for successful organizational perceptions of ethical leader behavior from a levels-of-analysis downsizing. Human Resource Management Journal, 33, 89–112. perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Cameron, K. S. (1998). Strategic organizational downsizing: An Psychology, 18, 199–230. extreme case. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, Dent, N. (1984). The moral psychology of the virtues. New York: 185–229. Cambridge University Press. Cameron, K. S. (2006). Good or not bad: Standards and ethics in Doh, J. P., & Stumph, S. (2005). Handbook on responsible leadership managing change. Academy of Management Learning and and governance in global business. New York: Oxford Univer- Education Journal, 4, 317–323. sity Press. Cameron, K. S. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change. Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. (2003). The power of high-quality Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 7–24. connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn Cameron, K. S. (2010). Five keys to flourishing in trying times. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Leader to Leader, 55, 45–51. Berrett Koehler. Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the Dutton, J. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2007). Positive organizational relationships between organizational virtuousness and perfor- scholarship. In S. Lopez & A. Beauchamps (Eds.), Encyclopedia mance. American Behavioral Scientist, 4, 766–790. of positive psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2002). Organizational and leadership Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. M. (2006). virtues and the role of forgiveness. Journal of Leadership and Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Science Organizational Studies, 9, 33–48. Quarterly, 51, 59–96. Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. positive organizational scholarship. American Behavioral Scien- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. tist, 47, 731–739. Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive and spirituality in personality. New York: Guilford Press. organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler. Erhard-Seibold, E. V. (1937). The heliotrope tradition. Orisis, 3, Cameron, K. S., & Lavine, M. (2006). Making the impossible 22–46. possible: Leading extraordinary performance—the rocky flats Ewin, R. E. (1995). The virtues appropriate for business. Business story. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Ethics Quarterly, 5, 833–842. Cameron, K. S., Mora, C., Leutscher, T., & Calarco, M. (2011). Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Effects of positive practices on organizational effectiveness. The Academy of Management Review, 31, 270–291. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 1–43. Fowers, B. J. (2005). Virtue and psychology: Pursuing excellence in Cameron, K. S., & Winn, B. (2012). Virtuousness in organizations. In ordinary practice. Washington DC: APA Press. K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Fowers, B. J. (2008). From continence to virtue. Theory and positive organizational scholarship. New York: Oxford Univer- Psychology, 18, 629–653. sity Press. Fowers, B. J. (2009). Virtue. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of Cascio, W. F., Young, C. E., & Morris, J. R. (1997). Financial positive psychology. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell. consequences of employment change decisions in major U.S. Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1175–1189. organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn Cawley, M. J., Martin, J. E., & Johnson, J. A. (2000). A virtues (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a approach to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 28, 997–1013. Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity. New York: Crown. Caza, A., Barker, B. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2004). Ethics and ethos: Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger The buffering and amplifying effects of ethical behavior and upward spirals toward emotional well-being. American Psychol- virtuousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 169–178. ogist, 13, 172–175. Caza, A., & Cameron, K. S. (2008). Positive organizational schol- Fry, L. W., Keim, G. D., & Meiners, R. E. (1982). Corporate arship: What does it achieve? In C. Cooper & S. Clegg (Eds.), contributions: Altruistic of for-profit? Academy of Management Handbook of macro-organizational behavior. New York: Sage. Journal, 25, 94–106.

123 34 K. Cameron

Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a happen. New York: Free Press. baseline. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835–862. Maslow, A. (1971). The farthest reaches of human nature. New York: George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: Viking. The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Social McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoreson, C. (2000). Psychology, 25, 778–794. Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social constructionism. London: Guilford. Sage. Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and Giacalone, R. A., Paul, K., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). A preliminary the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of investigation into the role of positive psychology in consumer Management Journal, 30, 91–109. sensitivity to corporate social performance. Journal of Business Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Ethics, 58, 295–305. Review of Biology, 82, 97–125. Gittell, J. H., Cameron, K. S., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Mitchell, L. E. (2001). Corporate irresponsibility: America’s newest Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience. Journal of export. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 300–328. Moberg, D. J. (1999). The big five and organizational virtue. Business Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to Ethics Quarterly, 9, 245–272. make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, Moore, G., & Beadle, R. (2006). In search of organizational virtue in 32, 393–417. business: Agents, goods, practices, institutions, and environ- Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The ments. Organization Studies, 27, 369–389. challenges and opportunity of the inverted-U. Perspectives in Moore, C., & Richardson, J. J. (1988). The politics and practice of Psychological Science, 6, 61–76. corporate responsibility is Great Britain. Research in Corporate Haight, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in Social Performance and Policy, 10, 267–290. ancient wisdom. New York: Basic Books. Mrosovsky, N., & Kingsmill, S. F. (1985). How turtles find the sea. Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2002). Positive Zeitschrift Fur Tierpsychologie-Journal of Comparative Ethol- ethics. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of ogy, 67, 237–256. positive psychology. New York: Oxford. Murphy, P. E. (1999). Character and virtue ethics in international Harker, L. A., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion marketing: An agenda for managers, researchers, and educators. in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 107–124. personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Nielsen, R. (2006). Introduction to the special issue—in search of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112–124. organizational virtue: Moral agency in organizations. Organiza- Hatch, M. J. (1999). Exploring the empty spaces of organizing: How tion Studies, 27, 318–321. improvisational jazz helps redescribe organizational structure. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting struc- Organizational Studies, 20, 75–100. tures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Hauser, M. (2006). Moral minds: How nature designed our universal Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. sense of right and wrong. New York: ECCO. Peterson, C., & Bossio, L. M. (1991). Health and optimism. New Hoffman, A. J., & Haigh, N. (2012). Parallels between sustainability York: Free Press. and positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron & G. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and M. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational virtues. New York: Oxford University Press. scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press. Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. (1990). Altruism: A review of Huppert, F. A., Marks, N., Clark, A., Siegrist, J., Stutzer, A., Vitterso, recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, J., et al. (2009). Measuring well-being across Europe: description 27–65. of the ESS well-being module and preliminary findings. Social Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton. Indicators Research, 92(3), 301–315. Pless, N. M. (2007). Understanding responsible leadership: Role Jenson, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory and the identity and motivational drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 437–456. 235–256. Rachels, J. (1999). The elements of moral philosophy. New York: Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and McGraw-Hill. the emergence of task and relations leaders. Leadership Quar- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard terly, 17, 146–162. University Press. Kidder, R. M. (1994). Shared values for a troubled world. San Rego, A., Ribeiro, N., & Cunha, M. (2010). Perceptions of Francisco: Jossey Bass. organizational virtuousness and happiness as predictors of Krebs, D. (1987). The challenge of altruism in biology and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, psychology. In C. Crawford, M. Smith, & D. Krebs (Eds.), 93, 215–235. Sociobiology and psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Salancik, G. R., & Meindl, J. R. (1984). Corporate attributions as Leavitt, H. J. (1996). The old days, hot groups, and managers’ lib. strategic illusions of management control. Administrative Sci- Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 288–300. ence Quarterly, 29, 238–254. Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Sańchez, C. M. (2000). Motives for corporate philanthropy in El Psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with per- Salvador: Altruism and political legitimacy. Journal of Business formance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572. Ethics, 27, 363–375. Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006a). Responsible leadership. London: Schimmel, S. (1997). The seven deadly sins: Jewish, Christian, and Routledge. classical reflections on human nature. New York: The Free Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006b). Responsible leadership in a Press. stakeholder society—a relational perspective. Journal of Busi- Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free ness Ethics, 66, 99–115. Press. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. of happiness and well-being. New York: Free Press.

123 Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership 35

Sethi, R., & Nicholson, C. Y. (2001). Structural and contextual Walsh, J. P. (1999). Business must talk about its social role. In T. correlates of charged behavior in product development teams. Dickson (Ed.), Mastering strategy. London: Financial Times/ Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 154–168. Prentice Hall. Shanahan, K. J., & Hyman, M. R. (2003). The development of a Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. (2003). Social issues and virtue ethics scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 197–208. management: Our lost cause found. Journal of Management, 29, Sison, A. J. G. (2006). Leadership, character, and virtues from an 859–881. Aristotelian viewpoint. In T. Maak & N. M. Pless (Eds.), Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a Responsible leadership. London: Routledge. foundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27, 341–368. Smith, J. C., & Baker, H. D. (1960). Conditioning in the horseshoe Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: crab. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 53, The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 279–281. 628–652. Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope. New York: Free Press. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Solomon, R. C. ( 1999). A better way to think about business. New Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San York: Oxford University Press. Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spreitzer, G. (2007). Participative organizational leadership, empow- Weiner, N. O. (1993). The harmony of the soul: Mental health and erment, and sustainable peace. Journal of Organizational moral virtue reconsidered. Albany, NY: State University of New Behavior, 28, 1077–1096. York Press. Spreitzer, G. M., De Janesz, S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to Whetstone, T. J. (2003). The language of managerial excellence: lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. Virtues as understood and applied. Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 511–526. 44, 343–357. Sternberg, J. J. (1998). A balanced theory of wisdom. Review of Wright, T. A., & Goodstein, J. (2007). Character is not dead in General Psychology, 2, 347–365. management research: A review of individual character and Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions organization-level virtue. Journal of Management, 33, 928–948. and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of Trevino, L. K., Brown, M. E., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior investigation of perceived ethical leadership: Perceptions from research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 55, 15–32. 5–37.

123