Ethical Implications of Three Models of Leadership/Followership

Session Submission Type: Panel Discussion

Short Description

Do the means justify the ends? Ethical leadership does not just examine how to reach a goal, it also examines the means of reaching that goal. Panelists will use a case study approach to explore ethical implications of three leadership models (servant leadership, transformational leadership, and followership) to reveal new ways of thinking about workings between leaders and followers, the situational contexts that may affect leadership, and the ethical values and norms of other cultures and how they may affect the leadership process. The session will conclude with suggestions for leadership development, education, and practice.

Detailed Abstract

Ethical leadership can be thought of in two ways:1.) Theoretical Using ethical theories to analyze the leadership actions in a certain situation, and 2.) Applied Using one’s leadership position to bring about positive change.

Ethical Leadership opens up the field to new ways of thinking about workings between leaders and followers, the means of achieving a goal, the situational contexts that may affect leadership, and the ethical values and norms of other cultures and how they may affect the leadership process. In this panel, all contributors will examine the ethical implications of various leadership styles or concepts (servant leadership, transformational leadership, and followership) through the use of case study analysis, and guided by the definition of leadership set forth in McManus and Perruci (2015).

Case One: Will examine the ethical implications of servant leadership through the analysis of the leadership of Leymah Roberta Gbowee, a Liberian peace activist and Nobel Peace prize winner. Gbowee, a trained social worker who addressed trauma recovery in ex-child soldiers, rose to international prominence as the head of Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace. This non-violent movement brought Muslim and Christian women together to pressure Liberian leaders to bring an end to their 14-year civil war. In her Nobel lecture, articulated almost entirely in terms of collective work and accomplishments, Gbowee describes how the women of Liberia “used our pains, broken bodies and scarred emotions to confront the injustices and terror of our nation.” The case will address the question of how servant leaders can balance the goal to develop and empower their followers with the goal of maintaining a spirit of service and collective benefit in their sphere of work?

Case Two: Will examine the ethical implications of transformational leadership through the analysis of the initial decades of growth at Starbucks corporation. In 2007, Starbucks began confronting the most difficult economic challenges it had ever faced. Sales and profits had begun to slip, so had the company's overall financial health. Competition and economic pressures were bearing down on the company. Its senior executives had to make some difficult choices to save the company.

Despite the strong people-focused organizational culture that Starbucks had built over the years, had to eliminate 1,000 positions, resulting in 550 employees being terminated and the remainder being displaced within the organization. For those people who would remain with the company, Schultz faced the formidable leadership challenge of rebuilding trust in the organization, recommitting to the organizational values, and inspiring again the Starbucks people to move toward the vision on which the company originally had built its success.


Case Three: Will examine the ethical implications of followership, after all, one cannot be a leader without followers. Followers can be categorized as types based on how they either support or resist their leader. Kellerman (2008) describes bystanders (those who neither assist nor resist), participants (those who actively contribute), activists (those who are heavily invested), and diehards (those who are willing to sacrifice everything for the cause). 
 
While leaders may generally think that followers should focus on implementing the directions of the leader, Ira Chaleff (2009) makes a persuasive case against that assumption. In his description of a “courageous follower,” he explains that both leaders and followers must hold each other accountable to the purpose of the organization and speak up when they see that purpose being violated. Chaleff’s discussion is realistic, because he also discusses how followers can know when they must leave an organization and how to protect themselves when that time comes.
 
For an organization to be ethical, it needs both courageous followers and leaders who will empower their followers by recognizing the value of their contributions, respect their power as potential supporters or resistors, and most importantly, listen when followers give painful feedback about how the leader’s behavior or policies fall short of the organization’s purposes.

A recent example of empowered followers and how an appropriate response to courageous followers could have saved a company from moral failing is the example of Wells Fargo. In 2013, an investigative article by the LA Times reported that Wells Fargo employees were pressured into fraudulent cross-selling practices that involved signing up customers for additional accounts without the customer’s permission. To date (October, 2016), consequences have included over $190 million in fines for Wells Fargo and over 5,000 employees being fired. Senators Warren and Sanders have recently called for KPMG, who acted as an independent auditor for Wells Fargo, to be held accountable as well.
 
However, some of the most severe consequences were for those employees who tried to speak up. When employees called the ethics hotline, they experienced retribution that included losing both their jobs and notations on their personnel files that disqualified them from future employment in the banking industry. A class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo by former employees is now under consideration.
 
This case raises a number of questions for discussion. (1) How can organizations support “courageous followers”? (2) How can followers protect themselves when speaking up to their leaders? (3) What is the threshold for determining when to speak up or when to stay silent? (4) Once an organization has demonstrated a failure in advocating for courageous followers, how can the organization regain trust from both its followers and the larger community?

Sub Unit

• Leadership Scholarship

Chair

• Alexandra Perry, INTEGRIS Health

Presenters

• Maribeth Saleem-Tanner, Marietta College

• Stanley J. Ward, Claremont Lincoln University

• Benjamin P. Dean, The Citadel