Are You In The Right Learning Organization?

What do successful companies like Amazon, Google, IBM have in common? The answer: Learning Culture. Quite recently, they have gone deeper into offering postsecondary credentials, bypassing traditional colleges, with expanded training options (Fain, 2019). Other giants like FedEx, Oracle, and Microsoft, offer extensively long-term collaborations with universities to instil lifelong learning (Lutchen, 2018). Likewise, newfound companies like Coursera, Udemy, and McGraw-Hill are jumping in that burgeoning bandwagon of innovating learning and transforming the way we see learning (The Muse Editor, 2019). So if you observe our increasingly intelligent world today, from leadership, knowledge-driven outlook, down to technology utilization, it is clear that organizational initiatives and corresponding leadership directions are putting a premium on strengthening its learning ethos.

Learning Organizations

To sustain the competitive advantage of the organization’s culture, be it in theory or practical perspectives, leadership and learning are always underscored as it is interconnected. No matter how much the organization’s vision is tailor-fitted to its creed and circumstance, cultivating universal building blocks on learning are research-proven to be crucial in addressing strengths and weaknesses that impact overall performance (Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino, 2008). Organizations are more receptive to nurturing a holistic learning culture for their people by providing avenues for dialogue on how to create, acquire, and transfer different sets of knowledge. For example, the successful companies mentioned (FedEx, Oracle, Microsoft) earlier expose how their leadership teams demonstrate a willingness to new ideas and options for learning, triggering new process, innovative products, and collaborative teams (Lutchen, 2018).

In one recent study on organizational capabilities, particularly in ensuring effective organizational innovation and talent, five dimensions (1. connection, 2. community, 3. dialogue, 4. experience, 5. risk) have been recognized to have substantial interrelationship in leadership and learning performance (Tohidi and Jabbari, 2011). Organizational capabilities for utilization of learning factors require suitable diversity in language, daily culture, and resilient motivation to generate stronger results (Graupp, Jakobsen, and Vellema, 2014). Learning organizations are heavily influenced by core and external facets that are also abstract, dynamic, and qualitative, learning-oriented leadership is necessary, but should not be considered a standalone. For example, the successful companies mentioned (Amazon, Google, IBM) reveal how their leadership teams are sensitive to the widely varied local cultures of learning, therefore offering customized local-centric learning environments (Fain, 2019).

Leadership in Learning Organizations

Leaders must understand and become “lead learners” themselves to craft their leadership strengths and styles in terms of clarity, coherence, and capacity (McDowell, 2018). This enables the leaders to go beyond the challenges and differences of their inclined leadership styles, and influence learning and change. Different kinds of leaders must lean into their core leadership skills in seeking out ways to create a culture of learning that has no endpoint, but more of “built on as you go” (Center for Creative Leadership, 2020).

In navigating learning cultures and changes within an organization, great leaders who have preferred leadership styles, especially with more experience in life and work and wider geographic/demographic exposure, are often seen as adjusting according to the diverse circumstances within which he spearheads learning (Zhu and Valerie, 2017). Instead of identifying whether leaders are charismatic, transformational, or transactional, considerations should be on achieving fluid leadership (Goleman, 2017). This kind of leadership in action strengthens people with the right push for learning and maximizes reasons behind the inputs and characteristic results behind the outputs (Gallup, Rath, and Conchie, 2008).

Such fluid leadership in a learning organization is FedEx. Spearheaded by FedEx’s Chief Learning Officer Bob Bennett, the organization advocates for various pioneering programs in developing and measuring employee’s learning culture. For the past four decades, FedEx meticulously leverages its annual survey feedback action to maximize day-to-day tasks and find knowledge management approaches for the right teams, while championing existing platforms (FedEx, 2020). To become true partners of its people when it comes it achieving learning objectives, FedEx expands its extensive leadership training from entry-level positions up to ensure that leadership styles are non-monolithic (Corporate Learning Network, 2014). 

True to “The Purple Promise” of making every experience outstanding, FedEx builds different kinds of informal leaders depending on their strengths, current roles, and future aspirations are embedded into the culture (FedEx, 2020). FedEx (2008) takes this to the next level through the Skills Pledge, a government initiative advocating for its employees’ skills, which includes a learning ‘passport’, a virtual academy, a tuition assistance fund, and a government-recognized qualification. This demonstrates chances for its inexperienced/experienced leaders with specific predisposed styles to experience varied life-long learning and contemporary learning approaches that are not only specific to the organization but also general leadership-building skills.

Reflection

I like to echo March & Olsen’s (1976) theory on learning organization and organizational learning, which centres on adapting behaviours in terms of experiences and modifying understandings that are intendedly adaptive to bring meaningful engagements and results. This holds true, particularly when blending suitable leadership styles and learning processes to create powerful experiences, be it for innovation, competitive advantage, or knowledge sharing. Equally, this holds relevant, especially in times of crisis, ambiguity, and volatility, leadership impact should be a contagiously outstanding learning experience.

^{_{This blogpost is intended to be interactive, so feel free to leave a comment in the section below or, alternatively, you can send a request to find out more about the academic references used in this article.}}

What Kind of Leader Do You Want to Be?

Fresh out of university with much leadership optimism, I ventured into a luminous experience as a technology consultant for our biggest Fortune 50 client. Hailed as the global number 1 for leadership development, Procter and Gamble (P&G) preserve a culture of building change leaders and difference-makers, no matter the stakeholder level (Russell Reynolds Associates, 2012). Never have I witnessed an organization with so many emergent and established leaders all under one roof; these kinds of leaders trailblaze together and contribute to multidimensional goals. This immersion deconstructed and advocated my appreciation for leadership styles that add value to individual/organizational growth.

Leadership Styles

Case studies of historical, military, international, women, and corporate leaders, both transformational and transactional leadership traits and characteristics are always active and effective (Arenas, 2019). The foremost transformational leadership characteristic is on selling ideas and visions through perpetual innovation and improvement that underscore growth (Maryville University, 2021). For example, transformational leaders challenge followers to go above and beyond what’s expected of them, to reach even more than the confines of their ambitions, much like in product development, sales, or innovation teams. On the other side, transactional leadership’s focused characteristic is on managing the status quo through structure, schedule, and tasks/duties (Xiaoxia and Jing, 2006). For example, transactional leaders challenge followers with verbal castigation on what’s expected of them and the consequences of their performances, much like in military/law enforcement environments. If transformational leaders’ traits are on advocating idealized influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, then transactional leaders’ traits are on promoting contingent rewards, management-by exception (corrective actions), and strong laissez-faire (Scoulier and Chapman, 2018). Moreover, a study involving 186 leaders reveal that there is a significant qualifiable correlation between the organization’s overall goal achievement and its leaders’ full range of traits and characteristics (Barbuto, 2005).

Without compromising its mature and structured organization, and with its 180-year history of producing Fortune 500 CEOs, P&G’s leadership credo enables the world-class organic progression of transformational and transactional leaders through in-house leadership programs and initiatives (P&G, 2020). To continuously hone its leaders (new hires, contingents, executives), P&G does it by putting a spotlight on consistently creating awareness on its values-based leadership (ownership, integrity, trust) and its build-from-within culture (beliefs, competencies, values) (McDonald, 2009). Regardless of the organization’s size, stakeholder’s diversity, and business’ complexity, P&G’s innovation-driven culture prove how transformational/transactional leadership traits/characteristics can be shared, succeeded, and sustained through professional development pillars and training/learning approaches.

Change Management

The best way to compare the two leadership styles is by fundamentally anchoring each on the leader’s vision and value chain as a baseline. With myriads of competing characteristics, priorities, and cultures, leaders need to be self-aware enough to emphasize their authenticity in harnessing strategies, maximizing motivations, and prioritizing stakeholders’ potentials (Betz, 2021). The application of leadership philosophies/theories and styles should align with a holistic focus of considerations (Akran, 2018). A leadership’s edge, particularly in ways of working with the vision, whether through transformation or transaction, demands higher collaboration and communication (Harvard Business Review, 2014). According to a 2016 academic research, utilizing transformational/transactional leadership with its right drivers for change can increase customer loyalty (10%), productivity (20%), profitability (21%), and reduce turnover (40%) (Matthews, 2018). Nevertheless, one interesting research confirms that for organizations in some regions: transformational leadership is still moderate, transactional style is more frequent; transformational leadership has a positive impact on performance, transactional has a negative impact (Rejas et al., 2006).

• 

With P&G, from recruitment down to talent development, their leadership team offer personalized paths using unparalleled leadership training and development programs (rotational programs, 70/20/10 approach, succession planning frameworks) (Ong, 2017). I’ve observed that P&G gives tools to their leaders for reskilling and upskilling so that they won’t fully lean on certain styles of leadership that they are comfortable with. For example, if P&G sees you as an excellent transformational leader, they will place you in roles that are innovation-related, before a gradual exposure to operations-heavy (transactional) projects. P&G enables their leaders with research-proven formulas for synthesizing their strongest leadership traits to become an all-inclusive leader: one who can weave styles succinctly and synergistically. Some of P&G’s alumni who are now holistic transformational/transactional CEOs are Jeffrey Immelt (GE), Steven Ballmer (Microsoft), James McNerney (Boeing), and Margaret Whitman (eBay) (Belludi, 2006).

• 

Reflection

Because P&G leads by example, I discern it is not impossible to cultivate a leadership culture that normalizes being multi-faceted. It is never enough that we can differentiate and discern our styles; it is always ideal to associate an optimal mix of leadership styles customized to the circumstance. With a clear vision, dynamic transformational/transactional leadership development can be synergized. I got influenced to strive and become an ethically “ambidextrous” self-leader: someone who can balance transformational and transactional styles notwithstanding any challenge, change, or weakness.

Now at a different university with renewed leadership optimism, this school and cohort learning experiences help foster a deeper breeding ground for holistic leadership growth.

^{This blogpost is intended to be interactive, so feel free to leave a comment in the section below or, alternatively, you can send a request to find out more about the academic references used in this article.}

During Unprecedented Times: Charismatic vs. Transformational Leadership

With the dawn of high-impact organizations, the antagonistic advent of global crises, and the upsurge of new-growth transformation initiatives, distinctive leadership styles are catapulted into the limelight. Evident during these unprecedented times of transversely fast-tracked challenges and competitions, the question arises — if it’s down to achieving higher-purpose missions between two heroic leadership styles, which do we choose: charismatic or transformational leadership?

In my organization, I observe how our charismatic and transformational leaders are trusted and stress-tested to the maximum, enabling their distinctive leadership types to showcase a butterfly effect of results. The best leadership styles offer evident degrees of building meaningful new growth and of repositioning core values (Anthony and Schwartz, 2017). These leadership styles offer compelling strategies with measurable execution, continuous feedback loops, responsive adaptation, and disciplined ability to unite a broad-based team behind a strong vision (Stine, 2019). Despite unprecedentedness, the leaders’ approaches on behavioural and verbal cues enact influence and inspire change (Munyon and Cleavenger, 2013).

Charismatic Leadership

Embodying three core components (envisioning, empathy, empowerment), charismatic leadership behaviour promotes motivational effects on clearer role perceptions, improved task performance, greater satisfaction, collective identity and group cohesiveness, organizational citizenship behaviours, and self-leadership (Choi, 2006). One research identified how personalized (self-aggrandizing, non-egalitarian, exploitive) and socialized (collectively oriented, egalitarian, nonexploitive) charismatic leader traits strengthen their locus of control, in comparison to non-charismatic ones (House and Howell, 1992). Another academic article confirms that in various stages of the relationship-building process, clearer mission-driven opportunities, greater self-concept, and better intrinsic consequences can result from charismatic leadership (Howell and Shamir, 2005).

Charismatic Leaders

Charismatic leaders’ self-systems and situational assessments influence their strengths to achieve support on their vision, following, and organization. In a recent dramaturgical study (framing, scripting, staging, performing), charismatic leaders strategically invoke exemplification and promotion to facilitate the attainment of socially beneficial goals (Gardner and Avolio, 1998). Likewise, a study of 156 managers against a five-factor model of personality reveals that for in-role behaviours and social desirability, charismatic leaders own proactive personalities that can generate great perception and impression (Crant and Bateman, 2000). Another study from the University of Lausanne uncovers leadership charisma through verbal and nonverbal traits (Antonakis, Fenley, and Liechti, 2012).

I recognise them as unbelievably outstanding orators, inspiring in almost any context, and creating simple yet profound emotional connections that make people feel powerful, competent, and worthy of respect towards them / their vision, in a way that others cannot. I am reminded of historical world protagonists with their solicitous, sensitive, and supportive forerunner-like charm: Margaret Thatcher, Martin Luther King, Maya Angelou, Winston Churchill, and Napoleon Bonaparte.

Transformational Leadership

Billed as leaders of the future, transformational leadership is earmarked for creating positive revolutions notwithstanding turbulent times of change and innovation (Rooke and Torbert, 2005). One analysis explained how transformational leadership builds a lasting relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation of followers to leaders, and leaders to moral agents (Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987). Similarly, a field experiment of 54 military leaders and 814 followers uncovered how transformational leadership develops an enduring impact on follower development/performance, for direct/indirect outcomes (Dvir et al., 2002). In short, driving performance through revolutionary strategies on harnessing evolutionary aspects of prosocial motivations is what distinguishes transformational leadership.

Transformational Leaders

Transformational leaders have been research-proven to have a mediating effect on an individual’s creativity, self-efficacy, and learning orientation (Gong, Huang, and Farh, 2009). Morgan (2019) also shares ten evident traits of transformational leaders, namely: 1.) self-awareness, 2.) self-management, 3.) visionaries, 4.) innovative, 5.) network-builders, 6.) proactive, 7.) open-minded, 8.) trust initiator, 9.) humble, 10.) decision-maker. In a quasi-experimental study done, transformative leaders, even without strong rhetoric and charm, can transcend self-interest, motivate through interaction, and follow through with the vision towards prosocial impact and meaningful consequences (Grant, 2012).

I perceive them as those who lead by example, who are open to risks or innovative ideas, and who are enablers of conveying complexity, acting as beacons of direction and reliance through groundbreaking initiatives and in times of change.  I am reminded of high-impact CEO superstars with unparalleled vision, intellectual stimulation, and motivational communication ability: Jeff Bezos, Reed Hastings, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Steve Jobs.

Reflection

Because of cultural democracy and political/public policies, there is no perfect leadership style (Portis, 1987). Depending on the perceived and contextual characteristics of the individual/follower, plus his current hierarchy of needs, I deem certain aspects of each leadership style will require fair room for improvement; certain tactics and traits can be measured as substandard, some facets can be unknown, and styles can be customized.

For new-growth transformation (for individual, organization, global influence), these two heroic leadership styles can work wonders under pressure because they can drive motivation towards achievement and growth actualization. Just like any protagonist, the situation is never a hindrance to how a hero maximizes the story’s climax. I trust that one is not better than the other; rather, the odds of success for both charismatic and transformational leadership are extremely high, because of how their exponential level of cathartic effectiveness impact character, connection, and change.

Are you a charismatic or a transformational leader?

^{This blogpost is intended to be interactive, so feel free to leave a comment in the section below or, alternatively, you can send a request to find out more about the academic references used in this article.}

Diversity: Tangible Effects on Culture and Leadership

‘Diversity’ is frequently debated as an empty-bellied decorative corporate leadership maxim that does not bring tangible consequences. But, is that true? As a by-product of Fortune 500 organizations, of course, I am pro-diversity. While we all distinguish that there are unique strengths and equal opportunities, first, comprehending and associating the concept of diversity into leadership styles is vital (Demby, 2015). Diluting stereotypes and stigmas, which are severely embedded in one’s character and in an organization’s culture is the overall key objective of diversity (Ollapally and Bhatnagar, 2009).

Diversity Re-defined

Tangible statistical and empirical research have verified that leveraging on diversity in the workplace for imminent leadership success establishes not only as an inherent competitive advantage, but also as a business imperative and incentive to attain more informed decision-making, greater cultural and linguistic competence, and increased credibility and legitimacy (McCarthy, Rivera, and DeSimone, 2018). Sure, approaches vary depending on the organizational group, industry, national culture, and level of business success aspired for. Through leadership styles on affective, cognitive, and communication, symbolic successes are commonly linked to the types of diversity management being utilized in organizations (Milliken and Martins, 1996). Various custom-designed and action-oriented strategic dimensions, such as customer orientation, corporate social responsibility, human resource management, scientific management, and shareholder value are being explored in greater detail to help managers and leaders develop into more exceptionally holistic and diversity-centric ones (Goldsmith, Baldoni, and McArthur, 2010).

Diversity and Theories

Referencing theories like Geert Hofstede’s culture dimensions Theory, Iceberg Model of Culture, McKinsey 7S Framework, Deal & Kennedy Four Generic types of culture, and Sigmund Freud’s Theory of the Mind, more and more organizations are integrating concepts into their cultural diversity practices. One particular academic study shared how the framework of Blau’s Theory of Heterogeneity contextually provided value and curvilinear relationships between diversity (racial, gender) in management and successful team performance (innovation, financial success) (Richard et al., 2004). These theories are carefully integrated and applied into diversity management trends (outsourcing, offshoring, mergers, acquisitions) and initiatives taken by organizations, which as an effect, have been associated with increased greater market share, sales revenue, and more customers (Herring, 2009).

Diversity and Organizations

Through proactive efforts, leaders can utilize diversity management strategies to transform organizational paradigms and experience measurable bottom-line results (Gilbert, Stead, and Ivancevich, 1999). One study of 33 Information Technology firms discovered that there is a strong relationship between team diversity and firm performance, indicating that diversity: through functional background and locus-of-control, reinforces high-quality decisions and organizational effectiveness (Boone and Hendriks, 2009). Another study of 209 organizations found that even if the focus of diversity management is different across cultures if the basic premise of human resource management on diverse backgrounds (foreigners nationals, females, persons with disabilities, ageing workers) are being practised, it serves as enablers of communication and integration within teams (Kemper, Bader, and Froese, 2016).

Diversity and Leaders

Leadership through diversity plays an important part in creating curiosity that leads to innovation and ultimate success. One study finds that there is 19% more revenue achieved from diversity-driven leaders, because of its myriad of new and novel ideas from its leadership and teams (Powers, 2018). A different study from McKinsey involving 15 countries and 1,000+ large companies reveal that impressive gains in diversity, brought by adopting systematic, business-led innovative leadership by creating a long-lasting “social listening” culture and leaders’ behaviour (Dixon-Fyle et al., 2020). A study of Fortune 500 firms also revealed that global leaders would even go for culturally related international diversification and culturally unrelated globalization to strengthen their innovative diversity management practices (Gomez-Mejia and Palich, 1997). Some of these Best Leadership Workplaces for Diversity include Cisco, Accenture, Hewlett-Packard, and Marriott (Valet, 2019).

Reflection

Even if surface-level diversity is the starting point, which reaps minimal positive effects, as the leadership and teams progress into a deeper level of engagement and meaningful interactions through time, long-lasting diversity cohesion is achievable (Harrison, Price, and Bell, 1998). Yes, I surmise that cultural differences can bring either potential interpersonal conflict or communication breakdowns. Nonetheless, coming up with customized diversity-centred models of engagement can reap substantial benefits in better leadership and organizational decision making (Cox, 1991). Diversity not only provides an engaged learning type of leaders, but as an effect, positive consequences on sociocultural engagement (St. John, Rowley, and Hu, 2009).

Moreover, innovation remarkably plays a part in creating a culture of diversity and inclusion. With the rising generation of new leaders (generation Z, millennials), priorities for management to positively mirror equality and inclusion to ensure self-efficacy and to achieve cross-level effects are more pronounced (Choi, Price, and Vinokur, 2003). Through diversity management, leaders become more engaged against environmental favorability, environmental uncertainty, and organizational isomorphism (Pitts et al., 2010). These can be seen through wildly inspiring leaders like Pandora’s Global Diversity/Inclusion Officer – Adelmise Warner, Conbase’s Global Head of Belonging – Tariq Meyers, and Pfizer’s Global Director Diversity/Inclusion – Rachel Cheeks-Givan (Young, 2019). I cannot disregard how diversity brings about accelerated and tangible innovation, be it directly or indirectly, resulting in either cultural or commercial success.

With the constant increase of diversity-driven research, initiatives, leaders, and organizations, I cannot help but anticipate more newfound tangible consequences out of it.

Care to share your diverse thoughts?

^{This blogpost is intended to be interactive, so feel free to leave a comment in the section below or, alternatively, you can send a request to find out more about the academic references used in this article.}

Ethical Leadership: Expressions and Effects

“I am resigning from my post, effective immediately…” – This line from an email sent by a Fortune 500 company CEO left a permanent impression on how people see ethical leadership, especially in a global business context. At the time when Mark Hurd got luridly mired in several ethics-related scandals that led to his public demise from Hewlett-Packard (O’Brien, 2010), open conversations on corporate scandals and controversial moral dilemmas became judiciously relevant, especially to its employees, I included, who witnessed how the stories metamorphosed.

When horrible faces of unethical leadership step into the limelight, we cannot help but ask ourselves, what are the beautiful expressions of ethical leadership?

Ethical Leadership

Akin to a combination of transformational and transformative leadership in terms of goal (communicate truth), focus (in support of status quo), and purpose (promote goodness), ethical leadership is a commitment to the inner and outer drive of the leader’s social responsibilities in pursuing the common good (Grace and Grace, 1999). Ethical leadership exude a strong 4Vs character baseline (values, virtue, vision, voice) that embraces sensitive integration and understanding of certain levels of ethical analysis (individual morality of leaders, means of leadership, leadership mission) (Palmer, 2009). Moreover, ethical leadership serves as a unifying factor in cultures and mindsets (Connelley and Tripodi, 2012). In a recent empirical investigation in Singapore, ethical leadership is meaningfully interspersed with effectiveness, satisfaction, and positive organizational culture outcomes (Toor and Ofori, 2009).

Ethical Leaders

Ethical leaders profoundly extend their current ways of thinking on emotions, congruence, and identification of proper organizational behaviours (Brown and Mitchell, 2010). Whether in the Western or Eastern societal clusters, a more all-inclusive representation on ethically leading across cross-cultural and cross-sectoral commonalities and differences reveal that ethical leaders lean more into value-oriented perspectives (concern for responsibility/sustainability, honesty, integrity, people-orientation) (Eisenbeiß and Brodbeck, 2014). Because of the robust core self-evaluation that they default to, ethical leaders are proficient at invoking emotional linkages and influencing people engagement towards unquestionable moral actions and emotions (Zhang, Zhou, and Mao, 2018).

In highly changing and deeply competitive global landscapes, where continuous positive adoption to a culture of readiness and structure is vital, it is inevitable to have responsiveness barriers relating to dishonesty, corruption, egocentrism, manipulation, and other morality-related and (Metwally et al., 2019); it may be a choice of some to pursue unethical leadership options to reduce uncertainty. Nevertheless, ethical leaders are those who prove that it is possible to find purpose in enhancing readiness to change in direct, honourable, and positive ways that can shape cultures of certainty and value. Some of the most prominent ethical leaders that we know of are Sheryl Sandberg, Confucius, Bill Gates, Jesus, and Barack Obama.

Ethical Leadership Effects

As antecedents, analyses, and consequences reveal, particularly in the workplace setting, despite ethical cultures and pressures surrounding leadership, ethical leaders get and stay ahead because they exhibit superior potential for promotability, both in near-term and long-term contexts (Rubin, Dierdorff, and Brown, 2010). Empirical research has shown that ethical leadership builds social learning through enforcing ethical behaviours, facilitating empathy-enabling processes, and establishing effective relationships amongst peers; as a result, cognitive, relational, and structural breadths of social capital are generated successfully through ethical leadership (Pastoriza and Ariño, 2013). Likewise, there is a positive effect on employee-organization commitment (organizational deviance is low) when the leader’s reputation is perceived as with high moral standards (Neves and Story, 2015).

With openly constructive prosocial motivations and conscientiousness effects on relationships, ethical leadership also supports the social learning theory (behaviours, environmental/personal factors) in terms of strong dutifulness (Xia and Yang, 2020). This can be correlated not only with organizational support from an individual point of view but also towards positive cross-level effects on the team’s morale and performance. Furthermore, empirical data show that ethical leaders have helped transform organizations in irreversibly good ways, by enabling, influencing, and sustaining ethical approaches toward issues, culture building, and social movements in complex settings (Cortellazo, Bruni, and Zampieri, 2019).

Reflection

Just like Meg Whitman, the CEO who succeeded Mark Hurd, the way she advocated for ethical practices in every inch of the decision she made, strategically demonstrated ethical leadership in a way that inspired resilience, performance, and enablement for Hewlett-Packard to get back on track.

Societal and demographic shifts because of globalization, unprecedented challenges, tempting acts, and pressing issues can trigger impressions on the soundness of pursuing unethical leadership. This however does not mean that it is and that it certainly can be, right. Ethical leadership is irreplaceable, and the focus on purpose (values, virtue, vision, voice) and goal on every leadership dealing are relevant and significant. Ethical leaders are the role models of value-oriented perspectives, and they can spark sustainable high moral standards and performance that are truly coveted, no matter what conversation, controversy, or context it may be.

What is your ethical leadership story? Does it involve an “I am resigning from my post, effective immediately…”? Does it ignite emotional fervour and moral actions?

_{This blogpost is intended to be interactive, so feel free to leave a comment in the section below or, alternatively, you can send a request to find out more about the academic references used in this article.}