Business leaders are chosen in today's turbulent world fundamentally to generate results, but not at any price, which incorporates an important variable, ethics, into the leader's action. This article answers the questions: why do we do what we do in the business world? And what is the best method to achieve it? The analysis is made from the papers by Aronson (2001), Caldwell et al., (2002), Korabik (1990) and Turner et al., (2002).
Addressing the question of why we do what we do in companies involves delving into the dynamics of the relationships that exist between bosses and employees, by doing so the ethical perspective is introduced. Bowie (1991) quoted by Aronson (2001) expressed that “the firm is a moral community”, (p. 244), if this is true, it means that business management must lead leaders to take into account the interests of all stakeholders, and not just those of shareholders, as financial management continues to be taught in different business schools around the world.
If today's corporate leaders have the demanding task of earning the trust and loyalty of their followers, and the esteem of society for the path of ethical behavior in order to maintain the success of the company; then ethical behavior becomes a necessary condition to establish an ethical organization, which in turn requires the exercise of ethical leadership, since only leaders are the ones who have the mission of defining and instilling the spirit that guides the company. (Aronson, 2001).
The evolution of leadership has gone through several stages according to Aronson (2001):
- The initial focus, in the early 20th century, focused solely on the leader's traits, physical characteristics, and abilities; later, in the 1940s, the emphasis shifted to the leadership style, because the traits were insufficient to define a good leader. Stage two concepts were born that ended up being opposite, task orientation and orientation to interpersonal relationships, generating a dichotomy within companies between interest in production vs. interest in people and relationships, then in the 1960s the emphasis shifted and situational analysis was introduced because the leadership style was insufficient to determine effectiveness; then the need was put forward to analyze the conditions under which a leader can be effective or ineffective,and the way in which leaders make decisions was also discussed; Management thinking at this stage still continued to focus on day-to-day supervision, ignoring the development of a long-term vision and the management of the future of the company, which is why it did not respond to expectations from leadership either; In the 1980s, a new leadership perspective appeared, which substantially changed the concept of leader and marked a new milestone. The researchers devoted themselves to exploring the phenomenon of leadership based on personal charisma, which gave rise to the concepts of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Since then, the leadership literature suggests that there are three ways in which business leaders influence their followers:Management thinking at this stage still continued to focus on day-to-day supervision, ignoring the development of a long-term vision and the management of the future of the company, which is why it did not respond to expectations from leadership either; In the 1980s, a new leadership perspective appeared, which substantially changed the concept of leader and marked a new milestone. The researchers devoted themselves to exploring the phenomenon of leadership based on personal charisma, which gave rise to the concepts of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Since then, the leadership literature suggests that there are three ways in which business leaders influence their followers:Management thinking at this stage still continued to focus on day-to-day supervision, ignoring the development of a long-term vision and the management of the future of the company, which is why it did not respond to expectations from leadership either; In the 1980s, a new leadership perspective appeared, which substantially changed the concept of leader and marked a new milestone. The researchers devoted themselves to exploring the phenomenon of leadership based on personal charisma, which gave rise to the concepts of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Since then, the leadership literature suggests that there are three ways in which business leaders influence their followers:ignoring the development of a long-term vision and the management of the future of the company, which is why it did not respond to expectations regarding leadership either; in the 1980s, a new leadership perspective appeared, which substantially changed the concept of leader and marked a new milestone. The researchers devoted themselves to exploring the phenomenon of leadership based on personal charisma, which gave rise to the concepts of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Since then, the leadership literature suggests that there are three ways in which business leaders influence their followers:ignoring the development of a long-term vision and the management of the future of the company, which is why it did not respond to expectations regarding leadership either; in the 1980s, a new leadership perspective appeared, which substantially changed the concept of leader and marked a new milestone. The researchers devoted themselves to exploring the phenomenon of leadership based on personal charisma, which gave rise to the concepts of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Since then, the leadership literature suggests that there are three ways in which business leaders influence their followers:that substantially changed the concept of leader and marked a new milestone. The researchers devoted themselves to exploring the phenomenon of leadership based on personal charisma, which gave rise to the concepts of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Since then, the leadership literature suggests that there are three ways in which business leaders influence their followers:that substantially changed the concept of leader and marked a new milestone. The researchers devoted themselves to exploring the phenomenon of leadership based on personal charisma, which gave rise to the concepts of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Since then, the leadership literature suggests that there are three ways in which business leaders influence their followers:
- managerial leadership, transactional leadership, and transformational leadership. (Aronson, 2001).
The purpose pursued by the leader defines the type of leadership to use. Aronson (2001) characterized each of them, thus:
- managerial leadership style is used in situations related to task execution or relationship orientation; transactional leadership involves an exchange between the leader and the employee, each receiving something from the counterpart in order to achieve the established goals, ensuring a stable administration of essential practices and resources, using control and monitoring as a strategy; For these reasons, Conger and Kanungo (1998) argue that it is not leadership, but maintenance of the status quo; y The transformational leader strives to stimulate change in collaborators' attitudes and values, using empowerment as a strategy, which increases self-efficacy and fosters internalization of the leader's vision in each collaborator.The transformational leader is recognized for his personal charisma and because he has followers, which is why the transformational leader must be very attentive to staying focused on the collective interest, because otherwise he will inadvertently fall into Machiavellian, narcissistic and authoritarian.
According to Burns (1978) quoted by Aronson (2001) "the transformational leader is ethically superior to the transactional leader" (p. 247), because he uses persuasion to influence others and concentrates on empowering people with the intention of that their followers modify their attitudes, beliefs and values, trying to build in them feelings of self-efficacy and self-determination. (Aronson, 2001). On the opposite side, there is the transactional leader who, by concentrating on management, and not on leadership, ends up developing controlling attitudes that lead him to direct people in a dictatorial and coercive way. This type of leader is a “demolition of followers” Kanungo and Mendonca (1996) for its emphasis on control and compliance; that's why this type of leader is not seen as ethical."Ethical leadership does not depend on the leader's style, but on the way he expresses his values." (Aronson, 2001).
Ethics and not the leader is what determines what behaviors are right or wrong. At this point, ethics plays a very important role because it gives the business leader the responsibility of involving ethics in business, under the analysis of two integrating views, one that looks to the past in search of what cultural tradition indicates and religious; and another, which looks to the future, trying to find solutions that lead to the most positive results for all. (Aronson, 2001).
Businesses in the contemporary world, both in the public and private sectors, demand the development of their activities taking into account ethical considerations, an example of this is the certifications in corporate social responsibility, ISO 26000; considerations that have become essential behavior for business leaders, and have transformed their relationships with stakeholders; Now it is up to the business leader to earn the trust and loyalty of his followers, as well as the esteem of society in general, if he wants his company to achieve successful results. For this reason, today's business leader must be attentive to the values that he projects to his collaborators and the way he does it, since the quality of the behaviors that internal and external clients perceive from the leader,they are the ones that lead to greater effectiveness and efficiency, and generate loyalty. (Aronson, 2001).
_____________
An interesting point of view, to complement what has been described so far, is provided by Manuel Guillén, professor at the University of Valencia, in the following video-lesson in which he tries to answer the questions: What is the relationship between leadership and ethics? And why do we trust leaders?
Previously, the stages through which leadership has passed and how it has been related to ethics were discussed. Caldwell et al., (2002) proposed a paradigm for ethical leadership, which arises from the observation of reality and what the leader defines as reality. (De Pree, 1989, p. 11, quoted by Caldwell et al., 2002, p. 153). The leader's vision of reality, as well as his ability to perceive it, generates profound ethical implications; How the leader understands the realities that affect your organization can provide you with more effective leadership and create an effective plan for the success of your organization.
The look on reality can have several characteristics, Caldwell et al., (2002) present them with the figure of the four arbitrators:
- el primer árbitro ve la realidad en blanco y negro, las decisiones se centran única y principalmente en los resultados, dejando de lado las relaciones interpersonales; bajo esta mirada los hechos se ponen por encima de las personas, es decir, la “verdad” está externamente definida, es inequívoca e inquebrantable. Aquí no existen los conflictos éticos, todo permanece objetivo. El foco está en la búsqueda de precisión y objetividad, independientemente de sus consecuencias. (Donaldson y Durfee, 1999) citado por (Caldwell et al., 2002, p. 155);el segundo árbitro ve la realidad no sólo en blanco y negro, sino también ve el gris, muestra que es abierto, equilibrado y razonable, porque reconoce el error no intencionado y se esfuerza para mejorar; este líder no parte de “verdades”, sino que reconociendo sus limitaciones pretende evaluar con precisión la realidad externa a la medida de sus posibilidades y se esfuerza por cumplir. Este líder mantiene la distancia social con sus colaboradores y reduce al mínimo las relaciones con el ánimo de garantizar la objetividad en el desempeño. Su papel es ser lo más objetivo, práctico y justo posible;el tercer árbitro plantea que la realidad no siempre es clara, pero su percepción es tan buena que él la “ve” en blanco y negro, y considera que tiene la misión de proveer orden en el mundo caótico que lo rodea. Moralmente, cree que su lente para mirar la realidad es el correcto. Asume su rol de intérprete de los hechos y declara la realidad de acuerdo con su percepción, sus definiciones y sus valores suponiendo implícitamente su competencia personal y su derecho a dirigir, controlar y definir las reglas de juego que rigen a otros. Siempre hace énfasis en su competencia y claridad, rasgos que cree poseer de manera abundante. Su derecho de hacer valer su voluntad significa su derecho de «poder sobre» los demás (Graham, 1998), y presume que su autoridad se valora, y que su intención de proporcionar orientación y dirección será reconocido. Basado en sus propios criterios personales, define la conducta éticamente correcta. En tiempos de crisis es útil, el problema radica en que según su percepción siempre hay una crisis que atender. Su debilidad radica en el supuesto fundamental de su superioridad sobre los demás, y su presunción de que tiene el derecho de imponer sus percepciones atendiendo a sus valores;el cuarto árbitro ve la realidad gris y compleja, y reconoce que sus propias habilidades perceptivas son imprecisas, y es consciente que sus percepciones se ven afectadas por un conjunto de valores morales que reflejan un profundo compromiso con el bienestar de todos los interesados. Se compromete en el servicio de las necesidades situacionales y contingentes de las personas, la organización y las condiciones externas. Considera que la realidad es compleja e incierta. En el contexto de un mundo complejo y confuso, proporciona dirección. Respecto a la búsqueda de soluciones es sensible, adaptable, flexible y continuamente está aprendiendo. Busca empoderar a los colaboradores entregándoles responsabilidad, autoridad para tomar decisiones y les pide rendición de cuentas. Considera que las relaciones organizacionales y personales son importantes y busca soluciones en donde se refleje la interacción y los procedimientos justos. Cree que todas las personas tienen un gran valor intrínseco y son de importancia fundamental. Mientras que el tercer árbitro busca “poder sobre”, el cuarto árbitro busca “poder con”, porque cree que la búsqueda de soluciones integradas ayudan a crear una nueva y mejor realidad para todos los interesados. Este árbitro aporta valor en situaciones que pueden beneficiarse de su sabiduría y conocimiento, manteniendo la capacidad de ser flexible, de acuerdo con las necesidades de la situación. Su desventaja radica en el hecho de que los intereses de los participantes pueden entrar en conflicto.
The four arbitrators model allows us to identify the importance of leaders' personal perceptions, and how their personal scheme influences the way they see the world. This model additionally allows us to understand what we are looking for with what we do within companies. On the other hand, Senge and Schein (1997) proposed the model of the five beliefs that are key elements of organizational culture, and are generally derived from the leaders / founders of the organization. These beliefs include beliefs about yourself, about others, about the past, about current reality and about the future; and they are the foundation of values in leaders and organizations. Understanding these beliefs provides a clearer view of the ethical framework of core values.
Caldwell et al., (2001) proposed that the fourth arbitrator is the preferred model for exercising ethical leadership because of his elevated sense of service over his own interest, and his commitment to the well-being of others. Following the example of the butler, the fourth arbitrator is a servant leader, (Givovanni, 1992, cited by Caldwell et al., 2001, p. 160), motivated by deep intrinsic values and driven by an underlying social contract. (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1993, cited by Caldwell et al., 2001, p. 161).
Finally, Kohlberg (1969, 1976) proposed three stages of moral cognitive development: (a) pre-conventional moral reasoning emphasizes obedience to escape punishment, (b) conventional reasoning uses laws and rules to guide behavior, and (c) post-conventional reasoning uses more universal reasoning principles in decision making. These three stages of moral reasoning can be synthesized as the transition from low moral reasoning to high moral reasoning. The results of the study carried out by Caldwell et al. (2001) between moral reasoning and transformational leadership, previously characterized, showed that leaders with high levels of moral reasoning manifest higher transformational leadership behavior traits,that leaders with low levels of moral reasoning; while leaders with pre-conventional levels of moral reasoning showed less transformational leadership. It is noteworthy that transactional leadership behaviors do not differ between the levels of moral reasoning of leaders. These early associations found between transformational leadership and high levels of moral reasoning led to the incorporation of an ethical education focused on moral development into leadership training (Butterfield, Treviño, & Weaver, 2000; Rest, 1994; Thomas, 1997, cited by Caldwell et al., 2001, p. 310).that transactional leadership behaviors do not differ between levels of leaders' moral reasoning. These early associations found between transformational leadership and high levels of moral reasoning led to the incorporation of an ethical education focused on moral development into leadership training (Butterfield, Treviño, & Weaver, 2000; Rest, 1994; Thomas, 1997, cited by Caldwell et al., 2001, p. 310).that transactional leadership behaviors do not differ between levels of leaders' moral reasoning. These early associations found between transformational leadership and high levels of moral reasoning led to the incorporation of an ethical education focused on moral development into leadership training (Butterfield, Treviño, & Weaver, 2000; Rest, 1994; Thomas, 1997, cited by Caldwell et al., 2001, p. 310).cited by Caldwell et al., 2001, p. 310).cited by Caldwell et al., 2001, p. 310).
The introduction of the stages of moral cognitive development of the individuals allowed understanding, why certain leaders behave in one way or another, and significantly marked the relationships with their collaborators, according to the state of evolution in which the leader is in front to moral cognitive development. The positive correlation between individuals with high levels of moral reasoning and the transformational behavior of the leader show a path of development and growth for this type of leader who has the capacity and abilities to generate change within companies.
Finally, another analysis variable is introduced in the analysis of the initial question: why do we do what we do ?, and that relates the orientation of the sexual role and leadership. Korabik (1990) postulated that leadership strategies mounted on sexual differences have been disadvantageous for women, and in contrast proposed that androgynous management should be adopted that allows women to overcome the negative effects of the stereotype that has been seen. subdued in the workplace, when she plays the role of leader in any position in a company. Additionally, it confirmed that in the studies carried out on men and women who occupy leadership positions and perform similar functions, there is no difference in personality or leadership style, motivation, or effectiveness;Even possible differences by experience, education, age, type of occupation and level within the organization disappear. However, women who hold these positions have been shown to have more masculine characteristics than ordinary women. Sex differences have dominated existing stereotypes in companies towards leadership for many years, generating more problems than solutions.
In response to these differences Bern (1974) cited by Korabik (1990) showed an alternative path, which allowed to overcome sexual differences and stated that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are embedded in both genders, male and female. Men have more masculine than feminine attributes, and vice versa. In this regard, research has been carried out that has shown that:
- Sexual role orientation is a better predictor of leadership style than biological orientation - male, female - when masculinity prevails in individuals - male and / or female - there is a preference for task-oriented leadership; and when femininity prevails in individuals, the preference leans towards the social-emotional role: androgynous individuals, with both personality characteristics, are capable of adopting both types of leadership; ybeing male does not imply task-oriented leadership, nor does being female imply social-emotionally oriented leadership. (Korabik, 1990). Since then studies have shown that "the most effective managers will be those with high performance in the task and in the attitude" (Korabik, 1990, p. 288).
Femininity in individuals is manifested in a spirit of collaboration, openness to communication, sensitivity to feelings, support in development and trust (Eddy, 1980, cited by Korabik, 1990, p. 289); these attributes contribute significantly to effective leadership (Luthans, 1986, cited by Korabik, 1990), and become essential for men and women who serve as managers. Those individuals, men and women, who do not give importance to these feminine traits in their daily management report lower levels of job satisfaction, and are frequently not promoted to better positions, as they are excessively competitive and are solely task-oriented.; which is why they develop more masculine characteristics, and are perceived by their collaborators as insensitive, cold and arrogant.
Finally, research has shown that men and women who adjust to sexual roles - femininity and masculinity - are evaluated more positively by their collaborators than those who do not. (Korabik, 1990).
If we return to the initial questions in the article, it can be concluded that:
- We do what we do in the business world to generate well-being in all possible dimensions, both to internal and external customers, who are most interested in the success of the company; the best method to achieve this is transformational leaders, with a high sense of service, above their own interest, with high levels of moral reasoning, and committed to ethical leadership and the well-being of others.
References
- Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating Leadership Styles and Ethical Perspectives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18 (4), 244-256. Caldwell, C., Bischoff, SJ, & Karri, R. (2002). The four umpires: A paradigm for ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 36 (1/2), 153-163.Korabik, K. (1990). Androgyny and Leadership Style. Journal of Business Ethics, 9 (4,5), 283-292.Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O. Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational Leadership and Moral Reasoning. Journal of Applied Psycology, 87 (2), 304-311.
___________
Finally, a couple of video-lessons that briefly describe the most recognized leadership styles in organizations and their main characteristics.
