A Multidimensional Measure of Responsible Leadership: Integrating Strategy and Ethics

Abstract

Research on leadership generally discusses the normative and strategic perspectives of leadership separately. However, in the context of stakeholder theory and corporate sustainability, researchers and practitioners have called for the integration of these two seemingly disparate perspectives to create a hybrid leadership framework. In this regard, theoretical work on responsible leadership (RL) combines the disciplines of ethics and strategy to propose integrative behaviors. Nonetheless, RL mostly has been explored as a one-dimensional concept with stakeholder welfare as the focus. Although this aspect is salient, leaders must display other ethical and strategic behaviors to respond to the changing demands of business. Therefore, we combine such behaviors into one RL framework. Through a strategic lens, we define the first two dimensions of RL as sustainable growth focus and multistakeholder consideration. Furthermore, these goal-setting behaviors are looked upon as genuine when they depend on leaders’ ethical behaviors. Therefore, we consider ethical leadership to be an inherent part of RL through the dimensions of the moral person and moral manager. Across four quantitative studies, we test the construct validity of the suggested four-factor structure of RL as well as its ability to predict relevant organizational outcomes such as individual followers’ moral courage and citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders.

Keywords

responsible leadership construct validation scale development integrative leadership framework

Some of the earliest leadership conceptualizations focused on traits needed for leadership roles and behavioral meta-categories such as relational and task orientations (Day, 2012). These conceptualizations have evolved into new leadership theories that incorporate the demands of changing situations or contexts (Day, 2012). For example, several ethical scandals that jolted the business world in the early 1980s led to the development of prominent value-based theories such as ethical leadership, servant leadership, and authentic leadership that promote leaders’ moral traits and behaviors toward immediate followers (Ciulla, 1991). At about the same time, the growing success of young organizations such as CNN, Walmart, and The Body Shop illustrated how competitive strategies developed by their leaders led to these organizations overtaking the business giants of the time (Leavy, 1996). This generated a strategic perspective of leadership that called for building enduring competitive organizational value beyond tactical measures (Hitt et al., 1998). Both the ethical and strategic perspectives have been developed over the years, albeit separately. However, the continued evolution and prominence of these perspectives demonstrate that leadership needs both to respond to current business demands (Elms et al., 2010).

More recently, businesses have come under pressure to respond to Freeman’s stakeholder theory and address all stakeholder interests (Voegtlin, 2011). Prominent works such as the 1987 Brundtland Report have also brought the concept of organizational sustainability (striving for the triple bottom line of planet, people, and profits) into focus (Maak & Pless, 2006). Failing to deliver on any of these aspects can lead to catastrophic consequences such as customer defection, loss of reputation, employee dissatisfaction, and irreversible depreciation of future resources (Voegtlin et al., 2012). To join this stakeholder theory with the corporate sustainability debate, leadership researchers have called for hybrid theories that integrate the ethical and strategic behaviors of a leader (Waldman & Balven, 2014). This integration of seemingly diverse perspectives (ethics and strategy) through accumulated knowledge has been considered as the new trend in leadership research (Day, 2012).

A theory that has emerged in the works of multiple researchers and suggests such an integration of ethics and strategy is responsible leadership (RL). However, RL is often measured on a one-dimensional scale that focuses on leaders’ concerns for stakeholders (e.g., Voegtlin, 2011). Researchers have argued that RL encompasses various behaviors and that tools to measure the diverse responsibilities and multidimensionality of RL are lacking (e.g., Voegtlin, 2011; Voegtlin et al., 2012; Waldman & Balven, 2014). Therefore, to address calls for the study of the multiple RL dimensions and develop measurement tools, the first aim of this study is to review RL literature, specify its key definitions, and outline its important behavioral categories. We then design studies to develop and validate the RL Scale and conclude with suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

In our review of extant literature, we found 71 articles that mentioned “responsible leadership” in the title or abstract and were published between RL’s conceptualization by Maak and Pless (2006) and 2018. We then searched for key definitions and leader behaviors in these studies (as shown in Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of Definitions of RL.

	Authors	Definitions of RL
1	Pless & Maak (2005)	RL is a values-based and ethical principles–driven relationship between leaders and stakeholders who are connected through a shared sense of meaning and purpose through which they raise one another to higher levels of motivation and commitment for achieving sustainable value creation and social change
2	Maak & Pless (2006)	RL is a relational and ethical phenomenon, which occurs through social processes of interaction with stakeholders
3	Lynham & Chermack (2006)	Responsible leaders give an ethical, enduring, and effective performance
4	Schraa-Liu & Trompenaars (2006)	Responsible leaders take care of the bottom line and shareholders as well as recognize and respect multiple demands of stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, NGOs, government, environment, and society at large
5	Maak (2007)	Key to RL is the ability to enable and broker sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders, to create stakeholder goodwill and trust and ultimately a trusted business in society—that is, one of multistakeholder benefit
6	Pless (2007)	RL can be understood as the art of building and sustaining social and moral relationships between business leaders and different stakeholders (followers), based on a sense of justice, a sense of recognition, a sense of care, and a sense of accountability for a wide range of economic, ecological, social, political, and human responsibilities
7	Waldman & Galvin (2008)	RL consists of economic and stakeholder perspectives that urge leaders to assess business issues with relative parity
8	Cameron (2011)	RL involves promotion of goodness for its own sake, driven by three main assumptions: eudaemonic assumption, inherent value assumption, and amplification assumption
9	Doh et al. (2011)	RL has three main components: value-based leadership, ethical decision making, and quality stakeholder relationships
10	Freeman & Auster (2011)	Responsible leaders need to understand their inner “poetic self” in forms of values, experiences from the past, and entanglements of relationships to move beyond followers and think about other stakeholders
11	Pless et al. (2011)	Global responsible leaders are individuals who face temporal, geographical, and cultural dynamics to successfully create positive social change by building communities, structures, and processes to engage stakeholders all around
12	Maritz et al. (2011)	Responsible leaders are architects of different strategies within the system
13	Voegtlin (2011), Voegtlin et al. (2012)	RL entails being aware of and considering the consequences of one’s actions on stakeholders, engage in active stakeholder dialogue, and weigh and balance the forwarded claims
14	Pless et al. (2012)	RL is defined as a matrix consisting of four orientations that vary in degree of accountability toward others and breadth of constituent group focus (traditional economists, opportunity seeker, idealist, and integrator)
15	Doh & Quigley (2014)	Responsible leaders connect with stakeholders, prioritize their interests, and in process tap upon emergent trends to enhance organizations’ strategy and processes
16	Stahl & Sully de Luque (2014)	Responsible leaders “do good” and “avoid harm” toward stakeholders
17	Miska et al. (2014)	RL entails three comprehensive perspectives: agent, stakeholder, and convergent views
18	Maak et al. (2016)	Instrumental responsible leaders drive the business with a strategic focus on business performance, and integrative responsible leaders try to achieve the “double bottom line” of business and social value
19	Voegtlin (2016)	Responsibility in leadership includes accountability of leaders even for actions in which they are not involved directly, judgment in evaluation of differing normative norms, anticipation of consequences of their decisions, and adoption of collective approach toward problem solving
20	Patzer et al. (2018)	Responsible leaders are “mediators between life/world and economic system” who influence both strategic actions and ethical goals to achieve communicative action

Note. This table presents the unique definitions/conceptualizations of RL that were specifically mentioned in the 71 articles we reviewed (list of the articles is available from the authors). RL = responsible leadership; NGO = nongovernmental organization.

Responsible leader behaviors broadly fall into four categories: (a) moral conduct as an individual, (b) ethical performance, (c) stakeholder relationships, and (d) long-term goals such as organizational sustainability and social change. Table 2 outlines these categories along with a sample of articles that mention them. The table also shows behavioral constructs derived from the literature review reflecting the above categories (e.g., moral person [MP], moral manager [MM], multistakeholder consideration [MSC], and sustainable growth focus [SGF]). The existence of these four dimensions simultaneously is essential because strategic behaviors to promote organizational growth and stakeholder welfare are viewed as genuine only when they are supported by equally strong ethical behaviors across each organizational level of dyadic interactions (Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).

Table 2.

Summary of Broad Areas of RL Behaviors.

Categories of responsible leader behaviors in extant literature	Examples of articles	Dimension of responsible leader behaviors in this study
Morality, virtue, sense of responsibility, positivity, authenticity, justice and fairness, ethical decision making	Pless & Maak (2005), Maak & Pless (2006), Cameron (2011), Freeman & Auster (2011), Voegtlin (2011), Doh et al. (2011), Voegtlin et al. (2012), Pless et al. (2012), Voegtlin (2016), Patzer et al. (2018)	MP
Promoting ethics in subordinates’ conduct, ethical goals, avoiding harm	Pless & Maak (2005), Maak & Pless (2006), Lynham & Chermack (2006), Pless (2007), Stahl & Sully de Luque (2014), Patzer et al. (2018)	Moral manager
Ensuring stakeholder welfare and maintaining relationships, stakeholder capital, doing good	Pless & Maak (2005), Maak & Pless (2006), Schraa-Liu & Trompenaars (2006), Pless (2007), Waldman & Galvin (2008), Doh et al. (2011), Pless et al. (2011), Voegtlin (2011), Voegtlin et al. (2012), Miska et al. (2014), Doh & Quigley (2014), Stahl & Sully de Luque (2014), Patzer et al. (2018)	Multistakeholder consideration
Strategic performance/sustainable value creation/organizational sustainability and social responsibility as strategic vision	Pless & Maak (2005), Maak & Pless (2006), Lynham & Chermack (2006), Schraa-Liu & Trompenaars (2006), Pless (2007), Waldman & Galvin (2008), Maritz et al. (2011), Pless et al. (2012), Doh & Quigley (2014), Maak et al. (2016), Patzer et al. (2018)	Sustainable growth focus

Note. We define the dimensions as the behaviors that have been mentioned in RL definitions. For example, the first dimension of MP depicts the morality, virtuousness, authenticity, and positive attitudes of a leader. The second dimension shows concern for “avoiding harm” and achieving performance ethically. The third dimension reflects the value of “doing good” and building stakeholder networks and relationships. The fourth dimension covers the positive orientation toward long-term goals and value creation. RL = responsible leadership; MP = moral person.

Responsible Leader Behaviors

In terms of personal moral conduct and concern for ethical performance, we draw on Brown et al. (2005) and suggest MP and MM as the first two dimensions of RL. For the strategic perspective of RL as reflected in stakeholder relationships/alliances and long-term goals, we follow Maak and Pless (2006) and Voegtlin (2011), and develop the third dimension as MSC. In addition, we draw on Hamel and Prahalad (1994) and Wang and Bansal (2012) and consider the fourth dimension to be SGF that describes leaders’ positive orientations toward long-term goals.

The MP

Trevino et al. (2000) drew upon Bandura’s social cognitive theory to illustrate that leaders can choose to use their stature and power to act morally. Through reciprocal interactions with followers and other constituencies (e.g., stakeholders), leaders affect the lives of people around them (Trevino et al., 2000). The authors named this aspect of leadership the MP and included ethical traits and behaviors such as principled decision making, fairness, objectivity, and concern for subordinates. As our first dimension, we consider leaders’ moral conduct as the most critical in RL, in absence of which, organizations merely operate as “soulless structures” (Kanungo, 2001).

The MM

In addition to individual traits and behaviors, Trevino et al. (2000) drew upon Bandura’s social learning theory to note that followers learn from their leaders through observation, imitation, and identification. In their definition of the MM, a leader is a role model and reinforces ethical behaviors in guiding subordinates toward the right means of achieving results. We consider this to be our second dimension because leaders’ behaviors are crucial in others’ ethical performance, an integral aspect of an organization’s sustainability.

MSC

With roots in stakeholder theory, MSC reflects a leader’s genuine interest in the impacts of organizational actions on shareholders and employees as well as external stakeholders such as suppliers, customers, and society at large (Voegtlin, 2011). This aspect is most crucial for organizations to obtain stakeholders’ cooperation and a legitimacy to operate in the society (Voegtlin et al., 2012). In situations in which leaders cannot address all stakeholder interests, they must ensure that the prospects of one group are not pursued at the expense of others (Maak & Pless, 2006). To create healthy partnerships, leaders must treat stakeholders with respect and dignity and ensure that stakeholders are updated on relevant issues (Maak, 2007). In addition to viewing stakeholder welfare as the moral duty of an organization, responsible leaders also take stakeholder inclusion as a strategic advantage that allows them to tap into knowledge and information on the organizational ecosystem (Maak, 2007).

SGF

Managerial short-term practices with no concern for long-term consequences have resulted in organizational economic and reputational losses (Marginson & McAulay, 2008). Hamel and Prahalad (1994) said this is one of the most significant oversights that lead to organizational failure. To correct this, Wang and Bansal (2012) urged leaders to have long-term views that may not necessarily generate immediate returns but will lead to organizational effectiveness in the long run. Moreover, leaders need to ensure that short-term goals such as operating margins and quarterly profits are achieved while considering the organization’s future welfare (Hitt et al., 1998). Therefore, we consider leaders’ commitment toward long-term goals or SGF as our fourth dimension. Table 3 summarizes the definitions of the RL dimensions.

Table 3.

Definitions of RL Dimensions.

RL dimensions	Definition
Moral person	Displays moral conduct, takes ownership of own actions, makes fair decisions
Moral manager	Is a role model for ethical behaviors and ensures that team members deliver ethical performances
Multistakeholder consideration	Respects stakeholders’ opinions and considers their welfare as integral to organizational success
Sustainable growth focus	Balances short-term business tasks with long-term organizational goals

Note. RL = responsible leadership.

Based on the above discussion, we define RL as a phenomenon in which a leader aims at achieving sustainable organizational growth through development of positive stakeholder interactions and promotion of ethical behaviors. The definition has a few key assumptions. First, leaders’ ethical behaviors include MP and MM behaviors. Second, we concur with Waldman and Balven’s (2014) suggestion that stakeholder interactions and ethical and strategic decision making are increasingly taking place at all leadership levels; therefore, RL is applicable to all employees who have leadership roles. Third, through stakeholder interactions, we focus on interactions with key stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, customers, investors, and the community in which the organization operates. This is to avoid making the term “stakeholders” too broad to be useful. We then perform multiple cross-sectional field studies to develop and validate the RL Scale.

Study 1: Item Generation and Content Validation

As an item-generation strategy, we use Hinkin’s (1995) deductive approach in which initial content specifications are developed through an extensive literature review on RL theory, development, and practices. To maintain continuity with earlier research, we adapt items from previous scales wherever possible (Yukl et al., 2013). For example, we use Brown et al.’s (2005) 10-item Ethical Leadership Scale that includes five items representing the aspects of the MP, which consist of ethics in personal life and decisions, fairness, trustworthiness, and concern for subordinates; and five items representing the aspects of the MM, which consist of role modeling for ethical behaviors, willingness to discipline unethical conduct, and communication regarding ethics (including listening behaviors that are a passive but crucial part of the communication process).

Other authors attach several values such as authenticity, virtuousness, compassion, and altruism to individual’s moral conduct (MP), which has led to substantial conceptual confusion (Yukl et al., 2013). Therefore, we only add aspects that minimize confounding with other constructs and emphasize the main essence of MP, which is the individual’s moral conduct. For this, literature suggests aspects of accountability and integrity that have not been included in Brown et al.’s (2005) scale and yet are important to the MP dimension. For example, Voegtlin (2016) noted that leaders are ethical only when they are accountable for their actions. Not blaming others for one’s mistakes is another facet of accountability (Smith, 2007). Moreover, Trevino and Brown (2007) noted that although leaders’ honesty, integrity, and truthfulness form important aspects of MP, they have not yet been included in the construct. Therefore, to represent the MP dimension, we have created eight more items representing leaders’ accountability and integrity and added to the five items that were initially given by Brown et al.. We maintain that Brown et al.’s five items adequately cover the three aspects of the MM dimension (acting as a role model, willingness to discipline unethical conduct, and communication). However, we add five more items that further substantiate these aspects through behaviors such as keeping organizational authorities informed and creating performance-management tools.

Because there are no available scales for MSC and SGF, we create 20 items from the extant literature (10 items for each dimension). For example, Voegtlin (2011), while developing discursive RL, noted that leaders should assess the “claims” and consequences of “affected” stakeholders. We incorporate this as “assesses impact on stakeholders before making business decisions.” Also, Maak and Pless’ (2006) leaders’ relational perspective toward stakeholders is addressed through behaviors such as “ensures that stakeholders are treated with dignity and respect.” Another example is in the dimension of SGF that is based on Wang and Bansal’s (2012) suggestion that leaders need to consider the long-term growth of the organization. We capture this as “communicates a vision of long-term growth for the organization.” In total, we develop 43 items across four dimensions (MP = 13, MM = 10, MSC = 10, SGF = 10). The list of items is available from the authors.

As a preliminary content validation strategy, we obtain open-ended feedback from academic experts (two professors and two senior research scholars specializing in leadership) on the appropriateness of the items depicting the core dimensions (Hinkin, 1995). Seven items are removed from the MP dimension. Some examples of the items removed are “leader can be trusted” because trust is an outcome of MP and “leader leads h/h personal life in ethical manner” because this behavior is not manifested in day to-day professional dealings and, therefore, may not be assessed properly. As well, the experts consider behaviors related to leaders’ honesty, trustworthiness, and truthfulness as part of leaders’ integrity (Butler & Cantrell, 1984). Therefore, we remove items concerning those behaviors and instead include “leader displays consistency in words and actions” to reflect perceived integrity. After review, the MP dimension covers the aspects of fairness, integrity, ethical decisions, accountability in actions, and concern for employees, and is represented through six items. Due to inappropriateness or redundancy, all five of the items that we had added to the MM dimension are removed. For example, the experts consider “informs higher authorities in case of an unethical issue” as whistleblowing, and “ensures ethical codes are followed” is found to be repetitive. From SGF, items such as “leader promotes recycling” or “initiates sustainability drives” are removed because those behaviors are better suited to role modeling for green behaviors.

Moreover, the experts also exclude any items that do not reflect the core RL definition. For example, though responsible leaders are likely to generate effects such as relational and cognitive trust in leader, leader–member exchanges, positive corporate social responsibility attributes, and proenvironmental behaviors, such constructs are actually outcomes of RL. In all, 19 items (MP = 7, MM = 5, MSC = 3, SGF = 4) are dropped and the remaining 24 items (MP = 6, MM = 5, MSC = 7, SGF = 6) are submitted for content validation to a sample of employed students.

For preliminary content validation, we choose 40 part-time MBA students from a prominent educational institution who are employed full time, as they are exposed to leadership behaviors in organizational settings. Of those, 52.5% have more than 2 years of work experience and the rest have worked for more than 6 months but less than 2 years. Males make up 74% of the sample. The students are provided with a brief note on each RL dimension and are asked to mark their perceptions of how each item represents its dimension on a Likert-type scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Moreover, to avoid any misunderstanding, we define stakeholders as any group with which the leader frequently interacts (e.g., customers, suppliers, investors, employees, and the local community in which the organization operates). We also define long term as a period greater than 5 years because the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recently indicated that the average employee tenure in an organization is 4.6 years (Sturt & Nordstrom, 2016). We, therefore, assume leaders are planning for the organizational long term when setting goals that may extend beyond their tenures (Marginson & McAulay, 2008). After data collection, the items that are assigned to the proper a priori category more than 80% of the time are retained. Four items scoring lower than 80% are dropped and the remaining 20 are retained for analysis.

Study 2: Item Reduction and Refinement

In Study 2, the 20 items generated in Study 1 are subjected to item refinement and factor reduction and are randomly administered to a respondent sample of employees from various organizations across India.

Sample and Procedure

A snowball procedure is used to contact respondents who are asked to further invite friends to voluntarily respond to the survey. In total, 250 surveys are distributed and 178 are completed (134 Google forms and 45 handout surveys), meeting Hinkin’s (1995) criterion of a minimum of 150 respondents when conducting exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Of those, 90% have worked with their managers for more than 6 months. The respondents’ average age is 28 years, standard deviation (SD) = 4.6 years; 117 are male and 62 are female (76% male). Of the 179 respondents, 177 have a graduate/postgraduate degree.

Measures

The respondents are given the 20 items of RL dimensions and are asked to mark their perceptions of their immediate manager’s leadership style on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Likert-type scale.

Analyses and Results

To determine the factor numbers and structure, we use the maximum likelihood procedure in EFA. The number of factors extracted is determined through Kaiser’s eigenvalues > 1 as well as Horn’s parallel analysis and Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial (MAP) test. All three methods extract the four factors from the data. Furthermore, for factor rotation, we use direct oblimin (an oblique form of rotation) as we do not expect the four dimensions of RL to be entirely uncorrelated. We look for the “cleanest” factor structure with item loadings above .50, secondary loadings of not more than .32 (approximately 10% overlapping variance) on another factor, no loading of items on factors other than those hypothesized, and no factor having less than three items (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Two items are removed due to low (<0.50) or cross loadings. The first item is “tries to make stakeholder connections for business development” in the MSC dimension. One reason for the low loading may be that it is interpreted as having a personal motive rather than a genuine concern for stakeholder welfare. The item “has subordinates’ best interests in mind” has low and cross loadings in the MP, MM, and MSC dimensions. Yukl et al. (2013) noted that this item is more closely associated with a leader’s consideration structure than as a characteristic of the MP dimension. Moreover, this item is covered in MSC. The eventual 18 items are grouped into four reliable dimensions of RL that explain 65.1% of variance as a set, that is, more than the acceptable minimum of 60% (Hinkin, 1995). Table 4 shows the results of the EFA.

Table 4.

Results of EFA Conducted on an Employee Sample in Study 2 (n = 178).

Pattern matrix^a	1	2	3	4
Moral person
Makes fair and balanced decisions^b	.70 (.76)	−.14
Takes ownership for own actions^c	.81 (.79)
When making decisions, asks “what is the right thing to do?”^b	.64 (.79)			.26
Shows consistency in words and actions^c	.85 (.86)			.11
Does not blame others for own mistakes^c	.66 (.86)		.14
Has subordinates’ best interests in mind^b,d	.22	−.11		.21
Moral manager
Explains what comprises of ethical and unethical behaviors^b				.82 (.74)
Disciplines followers who violate organization’s ethical standards^b	−.12	−.12		.80 (.75)
Sets an example of achieving results ethically^b	.29		−.12	.65 (.88)
Defines success not by results but the way they are obtained^b		−.12		.65 (.81)
Listens to what subordinates have to say^b		−.11		.73 (.81)
Multistakeholder consideration
Considers stakeholder well-being as important business outcome^c		−.77 (.86)
Tries to assess impact on stakeholders before making business decisions^c		−.84 (.76)
Makes sure that stakeholders are treated with dignity and respect by all subordinates^c		−.90 (.79)
Ensures that stakeholders receive relevant, correct, and timely information^c		−.82 (.75)
Promotes personal connections with stakeholders for better business development^b,d	.23		−.33	.18
Sustainable growth focus
Shows concern for availability or conservation of resources (e.g., natural resources) when planning for future business demands^c	−.11	−.12	−.72 (.70)
Links present business tasks with long-term organizational goals^c			−.83 (.81)
Communicates a vision of long-term growth for the organization^c			−.77 (.87)	.10
Encourages business activities beneficial for team/organization in long term^c	.12	−.21	−.66 (.81)	−.11

Note. Extraction method: Maximum likelihood. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis. Values in parentheses show the factor loadings from CFA in study 3 (n = 285).

Rotation converged in 12 iterations. ^bBrown et al. (2005). ^cSelf-developed. ^dRemoved due to low loading.

Together, the empirical results of Studies 1 and 2 result in the development of an 18-item measure consisting of four dimensions of RL. The next two studies confirm the factor structure and validate the measure.

Study 3: Dimensional Structure of the RL Measure

Study 3 analyzes the relationship between the four dimensions by testing the factor structure and convergent and discriminant validity of the measure (Byrne, 2016).

Sample and Procedure

To increase generalizability of results across sectors, we select employees from organizations in sectors such as automobiles, lighting solutions, and information technology (IT) client services. Data are collected on-site, participation is voluntary, and respondents are assured confidentiality.

Respondents are asked to rate their immediate manager’s RL style (items are described in Table 4). After contacting 430 respondents across three organizations, we received 285 completed responses, meeting the minimum of 200 respondents needed to use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as a modeling technique (Byrne, 2016). Respondents’ average age is 32 years (SD = 8.1 years), 208 are male (73%), 97.5% have a postgraduate/graduate degree, and tenure in the present organization averages 5.3 years. Of the respondents’ managers, 223 are male (78.2%).

Results

To first confirm the factor structure, we conduct a CFA on the 18 items of the RL Scale using the AMOS Maximum Likelihood Estimation. We load the CFA as a first-order four-factor model due to correlations among the factors. This results in a model with all item loadings on their proposed factors ranging from .70 to .90 (noted in parentheses in Table 4). Several fit indicators are used to test the goodness of fit: the chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.96, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ≥ 0.96, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ 0.08), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.06; cf. Hu & Bentler, 1999). For χ²/df, we interpret a ratio of less than 3.00 as a good fit (Kline, 2005). The indices for the first-order four-factor model, χ²(129, N = 285) = 235.50, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05, all show a good fit.

To test the robustness of the four-factor model, we conduct a chi-square difference test with the proposed model as the baseline model (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The alternate models are shown in Table 5 and are as follows. Model 1: MP and MM are combined to represent the ethical perspective. Model 2: MSC and SGF together represent the strategic perspective and also have the highest correlation among dimensions. Model 3: MP and MSC are combined as both have people orientation. Model 4: MM and SGF are combined and the model comprises results-oriented dimensions (ethical and sustainable results). Model 5: MP and MM are combined as one factor (ethical) and MSC and SGF as a second factor (strategic). The proposed model is significantly better than the other models.

Table 5.

Comparison of Factor Models for Study 3^a Conducted on a Single Source Employee Sample (n = 285).

	χ²	df	Δχ^2b	Δdf	χ²/df	SRMR	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Null model	3,326.6	153	3,091.06	24	21.74		0	0	0.27
First-order four-factor model (MP/MM/MSC/SGF; proposed and baseline models)^c,d	235.5	129	—^e	—	1.83	0.04	0.96	0.97	0.05
One-factor model (combining all factors)	1,478.7	135	1,243.20	6	10.95	0.13	0.52	0.58	0.19
Second-order model	259.13	131	23.64	2	1.97	0.05	0.95	0.96	0.06
Three-factor model (combining MP and MM as one factor, MSC as second, and SGF as third factor)¹	726.32	132	490.83	3	5.50	0.08	0.78	0.81	0.13
Three-factor model (combining MSC and SGF as one factor, MP as second, MM as third factor)²	489.17	132	253.68	3	3.71	0.06	0.87	0.89	0.11
Three-factor model (combining MP and MSC as one factor, MM as second, and SGF as third factor)³	690.18	132	454.69	3	5.23	0.11	0.80	0.82	0.12
Three-factor model (combining MM and SGF as one, MSC as second, and MP as third factor)⁴	700.19	132	464.70	3	5.31	0.11	0.79	0.82	0.12
Two-factor model (combining MP and MM as one factor and MSC and SGF as second factor)⁵	976.79	134	741.29	5	7.29	0.09	0.70	0.73	0.15

Note. ¹MP and MM together represent ethical perspective of RL, ²MSC and SGF together represent strategic perspective of RL and also have the highest correlation, ³both MP and MSC comprise of people orientation, ⁴both MM and SGF comprise of result-oriented dimensions (ethical and sustainable results), ⁵MP and MM as one factor (ethical) and MSC and SGF as second factor (strategic). SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; MP = moral person; MM = moral manager; MSC = multistakeholder consideration; SGF = sustainable growth focus, reasons for combining two dimensions to study the alternative models; RL = responsible leadership.

Statistics reported are based on the use of a covariate matrix. ^bSignificance checked at p < .001. ^cAll alternative models are compared with the five-factor model. ^dBest fitting model and baseline model. ^eMeans it is the baseline model.

We also test the second-order latent factor model and find that adequate fits exist, χ²(131, N = 285) = 259.13, p < .001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.06. However, the first-order model is significantly better than the second-order model. Moreover, the fit indices of the first-order model are also slightly better than the second-order model (lower chi-square and RMSEA and higher CFI). Table 5 shows the results.

The estimated internal consistency alphas (Cronbach’s α) for each of the dimensions are also at acceptable levels: MP (α = .90), MM (α = .90), MSC (α = .87), and SGF (α = .87). Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) noted that reliability above .7 is acceptable during early stages of scale development because the scale is not yet used for training or decision-making purposes. Table 6 details the correlations, Cronbach’s alphas, and descriptive statistics. In line with intercorrelations as described by other leadership measures, the dimensions of the RL Scale show good correlations with each other (r = .34–.56). Although there are no set limits for correlations, factors that form part of one concept are expected to be positively and significantly correlated. However, the correlations are not so high (approaching 1) as to show empirical redundancy (Banks et al., 2016).

Table 6.

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Cronbach’s Alphas of Variables Used in Study 3 (n = 285).

	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5
1. Moral person	4.04 (0.68)	.90^a
2. Moral manager	3.92 (0.76)	.52**	0.90
3. Multistakeholder consideration	4.17 (0.59)	.41**	.34**	.87
4. Sustainable growth focus	4.05 (0.76)	.41**	.44**	.56**	.87
5. Respondent age	31.8 (8.11)	−.03	.08	−.03	.06
6. Respondent gender	0.31 (0.46)	.05	−.10	.05	−.05	−.24**

Acceptable cutoff value for Cronbach’s alpha is .70.

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two tailed).

We also test the discriminant validity of the dimensions using Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) method. As expected, the square root of each dimension’s average variance explained is greater than the correlations with other dimensions, meaning that all dimensions are distinct from each other. Table 7 shows the results.

Table 7.

Discriminant Validity of the Dimensions of RL in Study 3.

Moral person	.81 **
Moral manager	.52	.80 **
Multi stakeholder consideration	.41	.34	.79 **
Sustainable growth focus	.41	.44	.56	.80 **

Note. Diagonal elements (in bold) are square root of average variance extracted (AVE). Off -diagonal elements are the correlations among constructs. For discriminant validity, diagonal elements should be larger than the off-diagonal elements. RL = responsible leadership.

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two tailed).

The results validate a first-order four-factor model that shows the dimensions as distinct but correlated and represents RL as a set of these four dimensions (latent constructs). Hence, it is reasonable to conceptualize RL as an overarching framework consisting of distinct and integral dimensions that are interconnected (Edwards, 2001). Such a model is also preferable when antecedents and outcomes of the dimensions can differ (N. Lee & Cadogan, 2013). Therefore, in Study 4, we construct hypotheses that relate these four dimensions of RL to other leadership styles and their outcomes. In line with recommendations of P. M. Podsakoff et al. (2003), we use multisource ratings to address concerns of common source bias.

Study 4: Testing the Convergent, Discriminant, and Criterion Validity

This study reconfirms the factor structure and further examines the validity of leader behaviors as measured by the RL Scale. We investigate the relationships of RL with prominent leadership styles such as servant leadership and authentic leadership as well as with unique outcomes such as followers’ moral courage and citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders. As noted earlier, we consider dimensions of ethical leadership (MP and MM) as subsumed within RL and, therefore, do not include ethical leadership in the validity assessment.

RL and Other Leadership Styles (Servant Leadership and Authentic Leadership)

Given their inherent moral component, value-based leadership styles such as servant leadership and authentic leadership are bound to have similarities with RL. For example, the “people” side of servant leadership through which a leader connects with followers through empathy, ethical behaviors, and acceptance (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) is similar to “relational intelligence” in RL, which is the ability to accept and resolve varying ethical and emotional conflicts of stakeholders (Maak & Pless, 2006) and is consistent with a leader as a steward in providing direction and encouraging stakeholder-friendly behaviors. However, the difference between these theories lies in leaders’ motivations and focuses. A servant leader leads through a natural urge and as a calling to develop and serve followers. RL, on the other hand, is understood neither as an obligation nor as a calling but basically as the right thing to do to generate sustainable business and social value (Pless et al., 2012). Similarly, RL is consistent with authentic leadership as both theories include moral traits such as trustworthiness, integrity, and the desire to do what is ethically correct. However, despite the similarities, there again are notable distinctions. Authentic leaders have a core purpose of building consistency between what people are in their personal lives and what they portray within the organization through performance and behavior. Responsible leaders instead are motivated to achieve ethical and sustainable performance for the organization and its stakeholders and would occasionally have different views in personal and professional lives if required for the organizations’ and stakeholders’ betterment. Therefore, these conceptual overlaps and differences lead us to our first hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Although the dimensions of RL are positively related with those of servant leadership and authentic leadership, they are empirically distinct.

We then examine the related validity of the measure with respect to outcomes such as followers’ citizenship behavior toward stakeholders and moral courage.

Individual Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors Toward Stakeholders

The positive value of stakeholders’ relational commitment to organizational performance has been well documented in strategy literature (cf. Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). To develop this relational commitment, citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders such as extending help with business issues or being accessible even when not formally required make important contributions (Dimitriades, 2007). When direct followers view their leaders as handling relational challenges with stakeholders in fair and respectful manners, they are more likely to emulate those behaviors (Maak & Pless, 2006). Moreover, responsible leaders, with their inherent fairness, care, and accountability, and their motivation to deliver long-term and ethical performances, evoke followers’ trust and pride in the organization (Doh et al., 2011). These positive attitudes are likely to result in followers performing their own citizenship behaviors. Hence, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The MP, MM, MSC, and SGF dimensions of RL are positively connected with follower’s citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders.

Individual Followers’ Moral Courage

Unethical practices have proven to be detrimental to their organizations (Ciulla, 1991). When exposed, such issues can cause significant loss of stakeholder trust (Voegtlin, 2011). Employees may be privy to information about organizations’ unethical practices but may withhold that information for fear of retaliation. However, to make timely organizational corrections, it is imperative that employees proactively speak out about such issues (D. Lee et al., 2017). Termed moral courage, this behavior describes employees’ abilities to speak honestly, fearlessly, and proactively about unethical issues to make positive changes in their organizations (Sekerka & Bagozzi, 2007). D. Lee et al. (2017) argued that such behavior can simply be publicly supporting the leader’s stand against unethical behaviors or it can take more active forms such as protesting unethical situations. They further stated that leaders are the first source for followers’ perceptions of potential reactions if they reveal unethical behaviors. Leaders’ actions “set the tone” for the team, guiding and reinforcing followers in voicing their opinions and safeguarding their employment while doing so (Maak & Pless, 2006). Hence, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The MP, MM, and MSC dimensions of RL are positively connected to follower’s moral courage.

Sample and Procedure

We conduct a multisource study. Data are collected on-site, participation is voluntary, and respondents are assured confidentiality. We first contact managers to rate a maximum of two and a minimum of one of their direct report on their moral courage and citizenship behaviors. We restrict the number of direct reports to maximum of two so that the managers can respond without feeling constricted for time. Each of the direct reports then rate their manager’s responsible, authentic, and servant behaviors. We eventually are able to make 230 matched dyads meeting the recommended minimum of 200 for CFA (Byrne, 2016). The average age of leaders is 45 years (SD = 6.5 years); the average tenure in the current organization is about 10 years; 80% are male; and 53.5% have postgraduate degrees. The average age of members is 32 years (SD = 5.1 years); average work tenure in the current organization is about 4.1 years; the dyadic work experience is around 2 years; 77% are male; and 43.5% have postgraduate degrees.

Measures

Perceived RL is assessed through an 18-item scale (Table 4). Managers are rated on the four RL dimensions: MP (α = .88), MM (α = .86), MSC (α = .83), and SGF (α = .84). Servant leadership is measured on Liden et al.’s (2015) seven-item scale (α = .91). A sample item is “my manager can tell if something work related is wrong.” Authentic leadership is measured on the 16-item Walumbwa et al. (2008) scale that includes relational transparency (α = .83), internalized moral perspective (α = .79), self-awareness (α = .79), and balanced processing (α = .82). A sample item is “my manager seeks feedback to improve interactions with others.” Members’ moral courage is measured on Hannah and Avolio’s (2010) four-item scale. A sample item is “this member will not hesitate to confront me if I commit an unethical act” (α = .78). Citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders are measured on Dimitriades’ (2007) Customer-Oriented–Organizational Citizenship Behavior (CO-OCB) Scale adapted to measure citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders in general (α = .83). A sample item is “this follower would deal relentlessly with any stakeholder issue until it is resolved.” Because we change “customers” to “stakeholders” when adapting the scale items, we conduct an EFA (maximum likelihood, direct oblimin) on a different respondent sample of 152 employees, with average age of 26 years (SD = 3.4 years), 57.8% male, 95% university graduates, and average total work experience of 2.5 years. The EFA results in a stable structure with all seven items having factor loadings >.4. Hence, we use this adapted scale in Study 4. All items for Study 4 are measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Results

To reconfirm the factor structure, we conduct a CFA on the 18 items in the RL Scale. All items load on their proposed factors with loadings ranging from .70 to .90. The indices for the four-factor model, χ²(129, N = 285) = 235.50, p < .001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05, show a good fit. As in Study 3, we find the proposed model to be significantly better than the other models through the chi-square difference test (as described in Study 3 and presented in Table 8). All four RL dimensions are significantly and positively related with each other (r = .28–.59; Table 9).

Table 8.

Comparisons for Factor Models for Study 4^a Conducted on a Multisource Employee Sample (n = 230 Leader–Member Dyads).

	χ²	df	Δχ² (Δdf)^b	χ²/df	SRMR	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Null model	2,148.91	153	1,968.73 (24)	14.05	.23	—	—	.24
First-order four-factor model (MP/MM/MSC/SGF; proposed and baseline model)^c,d	180.18	129	−^e	1.40	.04	.97	.97	.04
First-order one-factor model (all items load onto one factor)	747.04	135	566.86 (6)	5.53	.11	.65	.69	.14
Second-order model	194.44	131	14.26 (2)	1.48	.05	.96	.97	.05
Three-factor model (combining MP and MM as one factor, MSC as second, and SGF as third factor)¹	382.36	132	202.18 (3)	2.90	.07	.86	.88	.09
Three-actor model (combining MSC and SGF as one factor, MP as second, MM as third factor)²	409.74	132	229.56 (3)	3.10	.08	.84	.86	.10
Three-factor model (combining MP and MSC as one factor, MM as second, and SGF as third factor)³	495.61	132	315.43 (3)	3.76	.10	.79	.82	.11
Three-factor model (combining MM and SGF as one, MSC as second, and MP as third factor)⁴	340	132	159.82 (3)	2.58	.06	.88	.90	.08
Two-factor model (combining MP and MM as one factor and MSC and SGF as second factor)⁵	600.70	134	420.52 (5)	4.48	.10	.73	.77	.12

Note. The alternate models (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are made with the same logic as described in Study 3. SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; MP = moral person; MM = moral manager; MSC = multistakeholder consideration; SGF = sustainable growth focus.

Statistics reported are based on the use of a covariate matrix. ^bSignificance checked at p < .001. ^cAll alternative models are compared with the five-factor model ^dBest fitting model and baseline model. ^eMeans it is the baseline model.

Table 9.

Describes the Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Cronbach’s Alphas of Variables Chosen in Study 4 (n = 230).

	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Moral person	3.97 (.69)	.88
2. Moral manager	3.90 (.66)	.56**	.86
3. Multistakeholder consideration	4.22 (.55)	.28**	.45**	.84
4. Sustainable growth focus	4.44 (.57)	.59**	.55**	.41**	.84
5. Relational transparency	4.12 (.40)	.53**	.50**	.43**	.51**	.76
6. Internalized moral perspective	4.31 (.44)	.64**	.53**	.38**	.58**	.65**	.79
7. Balanced processing	4.33 (.53)	.42**	.44**	.42**	.47**	.58**	.62**	.82
8. Self awareness	4.03 (.45)	.52**	.53**	.47**	.45**	.62**	.59**	.65**	.78
9. Servant leadership	4.30 (.61)	.50**	.52**	.47**	.51**	.58**	.62**	.45**	.52**	.91
10. Citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders	4.08 (.47)	.27**	.48**	.46**	.23**	.33**	.30**	.23**	.36**	.34**	.83
11. Followers’ moral courage	3.92 (.57)	.47**	.76**	.47**	.48**	.45**	.51**	.33**	.48**	.55**	.46**	.78
12. Respondent’s age	0.77 (.42)	.03	.06	.05	.07	.05	.01	.06	.09	.00	.00	−.03
13. Respondent’s gender	32.09 (5.13)	.01	.06	.11	.10	.01	.07	.10	.11	.05	−.03	−.03	.11

Note. Acceptable cutoff for Cronbach’s alpha was .70.

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two tailed).

In H1 testing, the RL subscales have positive correlations with the authentic leadership subscales, namely, relational transparency (r = .25–.32), internalized moral perspective (r = .38–.64), balanced processing (r = .42–.47), and self-awareness (r = .45–.53), and with servant leadership (r = .47–.52; Table 9). These positive and significant correlations between RL and the authentic leadership subscales and servant leadership scale are the minimum and essential requirement to demonstrate convergent validity (Fiske, 1971). Moreover, the correlations are not high enough (closer to 1) to show construct redundancy (Banks et al., 2016). To test the discriminant validity between the three leadership styles, we follow Tracey and Tews’ (2005) method in which several EFA (factor extraction, rotation, and retention method as described in Study 2) and CFA are conducted. These models examine the extent to which RL items load uniquely on their proposed dimensions in contrast with items that assessed distinct but related constructs (in this case, authentic and servant dimensions). For the RL and authentic leadership items, the EFA generates a seven-factor model that accounts for 56% variance with all the RL items loading on their proposed four factors and authentic leader items loading on three factors. For the RL and servant leadership items, the EFA generates a five-factor model that accounts for 59% variance and all the RL items load on their proposed factors. The results are shown in Tables 10 and 11.

Table 10.

Discriminant Validity Between RL Dimensions and Authentic Leadership Dimensions in Study 4.

Pattern matrix^a
	Factor
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
MP2		.56				−.13
MP4		.70			.11	−.11
MP5		.70					−.12
MP6		.74
MP7		.65				−.16
MM1		.10					−.66
MM2							−.67
MM3		.12			.11		−.76
MM4							−.73
MM5							−.68
MSC1				.60		−.17	−.13
MSC2		−.12		.72			−.11
MSC3				.73
MSC4				.75
SGF1		.12		.23		−.65
SGF2					−.14	−.59	−.16
SGF3						−.64
SGF5		.13				−.58	−.10
al1		−.14	.77	−.14		−.18
al2	−.15	.10	.69		−.29
al3			.73
al4			.70	.10		.11
al5		.16	.55	.18
al6		.55			−.27
al7	.25	.20			−.20	−.26
al8		.14	.10		−.36	−.29	−.12
al9		.25	.15		−.15
al10	.15	−.12			−.69	−.22
al11		.29		.16	−.54	.14
al12	.17				−.66	−.11
al13	.97
al14	.41	.18			−.33
al15	.35			.13	−.27	.11
al16	.21	.24	.12				−.13

Note. Extraction method: Maximum likelihood. Rotation method: Direct oblimin with Kaiser normalization. RL = responsible leadership; MP = moral person; MM = moral manager; MSC = multistakeholder consideration; SGF = sustainable growth focus; AL = authentic leadership.

Rotation converged in nine iterations to give a seven-factor model in which all RL items loaded on their respective factors. Except AL6 (“demonstrates beliefs consistent with actions”) that loaded on MP, all other secondary loadings were less than .32.

Table 11.

Discriminant Validity Between RL Dimensions and Servant Leadership Dimensions in Study 4.

Pattern matrix^a
	Factor
	1	2	3	4	5
MP2	.13	−.58
MP4		−.73
MP5		−.79
MP6		−.82
MP7		−.70			−.10
MM1		−.17		.63
MM2				.65
MM3				.71
MM4				.69
MM5				.70
MSC1			.63	−.10	−.14
MSC2			.76	−.11
MSC3			.72
MSC4			.73
SGF1			.13	0.13	−.72
SGF2			−.12	0.13	−.68
SGF3					−.67
SGF5					−.65
sl1	.77		−.11
sl2	.76
sl3	.75	−0.12			.11
sl4	.73
sl5	.76
sl6	.70
sl7	.77

Note. Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization, All items loaded on their proposed factors. MP = moral person; MM = moral manager; MSC = multistakeholder consideration; SGF = sustainable growth focus; SL = servant leadership.

Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

The CFA model of the eight-factor model consisting of the four-factor RL and four-factor authentic leadership generates adequate fit, with the overall chi-square statistically significant, χ²(499, N = 230) = 783.50, p < .001, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.05 (please refer to Study 3 for criteria of goodness of fit indices; a small reduction in the fit indices is considered as adequate). The CFA model of the five-factor model consisting of the four-factor RL and one-factor servant leadership also has good fit indices, with the overall chi-square statistically significant, χ²(265, N = 230) = 362.61, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.04. Therefore, in line with H1, we find support for the convergent and discriminant validity of RL with the comparative measures of servant and authentic leadership. Consistent with other leadership scales (e.g., Brown et al., 2005), RL subscales also are not correlated with followers’ age (r = .01 ns to r = .11 ns) and gender (r = .03 ns to r = .07 ns).

All RL dimensions are found to be positively and significantly correlated to followers’ citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders (r = .23–.48) and moral courage (r = .47–.76). To further test H2 and H3, we also conduct regression analyses to determine whether the RL subscales had any effect on citizenship behaviors and moral courage. The fit indices for the structural model of H2 are: as follows: χ²(265, N = 230) = 383.56, p < .001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.04. In the model, the RL dimensions are covaried to each other. We find statistically significant and positive beta coefficients from the RL dimensions of MM and MSC to followers’ citizenship behaviors. The fit indices for the structural model of H3 are as follows: χ²(199, N = 230) = 312.56, p < .001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.05. We find statistically significant and positive coefficients from the RL dimensions of MM and MSC to followers’ moral courage. Figure 1 shows the results of H2 and H3 testing.

Figure 1.

Relationships between RL dimensions and individual follower outcomes such as moral courage and citizenship behavior toward stakeholders.

Overall, the findings are broadly consistent with research that connects positive leadership styles with successful outcomes. For example, Brown et al. (2005) empirically established a positive connection between ethical leadership and behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Similarly, D. Lee et al. (2017) empirically demonstrated that the presence of ethical leaders motivates followers to disclose unethical issues. As found in Study 4 and shown in Figure 1, the positive impact of leaders’ MSC on followers’ citizenship behaviors shows that when leaders treat stakeholders in a caring, respectful, and trustful manner on a day-to day-basis, followers are likely to emulate that behavior and be more participative and inclusive toward stakeholders. The positive impact of the MM dimension on citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders demonstrates that when leaders display ethical behaviors and employ disciplinary actions to correct unethical behaviors, followers will also display positive extra role behaviors to increase a team’s effectiveness and improve the organization at large (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2002).

We also find a strong, positive, and significant impact of leaders’ MM dimension on followers’ moral courage, meaning that when leaders use visible means of communication and discipline, followers believe in their leaders’ willingness to support ethical behaviors and thus have the courage to be open about unethical issues without fear of retaliation (Maak & Pless, 2006). Moreover, the positive impact of leaders’ MSC dimension on followers’ moral courage indicates that placing importance on stakeholder well-being signifies that leaders have moved beyond self-interest to ethically achieve goals in the interest of a larger group (Pless et al., 2012). Thus, followers are likely to proactively raise unethical issues to further promote stakeholder welfare.

It should be noted that positive correlations of MP and SGF to citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders and moral courage indicate the impact of these predictors on outcomes. However, both dimensions did not add unique variance to the outcomes in the presence of the MM and MSC dimensions. This is because the MM and MSC dimensions illustrate leaders’ transparent and encouraging stance on organizational ethics and stakeholder inclusion practices compared with the MP dimension that works at a personal level of interactions and SGF that is connected to goal setting.

Theoretical Contribution, Future Research, and Implications for Practitioners

Theoretical Contribution

Our work theoretically refines the RL construct and develops a unifying definition of RL. It also contributes methodologically by creating a scale to assess RL, providing insights into its preliminary model testing, and consequently offering future researchers with one method for assessing RL. We also take the first step of integrating ethics and strategy to create a hybrid framework of RL, and further propose that ethical leadership as being subsumed in RL. Both these aspects are important to leadership research as authors increasingly recommend converging overlapping and complementary conceptualizations and creating new leadership theories by employing past knowledge of leader behaviors (Day, 2012). The preliminary findings of our study also reflect that it is possible to differentiate RL from other similar leadership styles such as servant and authentic leadership. Considering the similarities that RL shares with these leadership styles, establishing this differentiation was one of the primary agendas of this research. Apart from this, the positive correlations between RL dimensions, servant, and authentic leadership also demonstrate that the pattern of relationships of RL dimensions with these leadership styles adhere to theoretical explanations (Hinkin, 1995).

However, scale development and validation processes require continued research for evolving concepts such as RL. In research, the theoretical model for RL draws predominately on theories such as social cognitive theory, social learning theory, and stakeholder theory. Responsible leaders influence moral behaviors and act as credible and ethical role models for their followers. They also evolve from being follower centric to becoming stakeholder centric and from focusing only on short-term goals to including long-term goals. As research extends beyond RL measurement to consider antecedents, boundary conditions, and effects of RL, additional theoretical perspectives are needed to substantiate our proposed framework. In the next section, we propose key theoretical avenues for future research in the form of constructive/developmental theory, goal-setting processes, and shared leadership theory that provide some of the potential antecedents, mediators, and moderators of RL.

More research is also needed to validate the results of this study. This could be done through use of different respondent samples, newer research design procedures, and suggestions around other variables as outcomes in the construct’s nomological network. We discuss these research avenues and later explore implications of this study for practitioners.

Recommendations and Avenues for Future Research

Constructive/developmental theory

In our model, we propose that responsible leaders are ones who are accountable for their actions and objective in their decisions, specify what is ethical and what is not, enable information flow through stakeholder networks, and assess the long-term consequences of decisions. Authors note that leaders’ effectiveness in meeting such dynamic, complex, and competing demands is possible only at higher stages of cognitive development (also termed as leadership development levels; e.g., Valcea et al., 2011). For example, Helsing and Howell (2014) note that at higher stages of development, individuals take responsibility even when things do not go well, can arrive at logical conclusions using a multitude of opinions, or make difficult decisions that benefit the broader community of stakeholders without being captive to emotions. The authors further point out that when leaders are presented with contradictory and complex demands, they can utilize these challenges to fuel their development toward higher levels.

We encourage the understanding of the psychological processes of RL via cognitive theories, such as constructive/developmental theory. Constructive/developmental theory brings into focus the variations and growth in leaders’ perspective-taking abilities to understand the changes that take place around them and to interpret their intrapersonal and interpersonal selves (Harris & Kuhnert, 2008). Hence, it would be interesting to note whether at higher stages of cognitive development, individuals display attributes such as open-mindedness, creativity, effective assessment of complexity, and tolerance to ambiguity (Zhang, 2005). These attributes are further likely to contribute to responsible leaders’ effectiveness.

Goal-setting theory

RL has been characterized by long-term and complex goals such as organizational sustainability, ethical performance, and stakeholder welfare. However, Stazyk and Davis (2020) noted that for followers, such high-end goals often seem far-fetched and ambiguous with little relevance to immediate tasks and personal interests. This can lead to a disconnect with leaders’ goals that can spiral into a series of negative consequences among followers such as poor goal commitment, cynicism, and burnout (Marginson & McAulay, 2008). Therefore, it is important for leaders to bridge the distance between high-end goals and more easily achievable goals to keep followers’ motivated and committed.

We recommend implementing goal-setting processes to increase followers’ trust, motivation, and positive perceptions of long-term goals such as organizational sustainability and social welfare. For example, Latham and Yukl (1975) noted that when leaders involve followers in setting goals, explain how organizational goals add to their personal worth, and help them develop needed skills, followers are more committed to goal achievement. In addition, the authors noted that when followers view goals as learning opportunities, their perception of goal importance increases, as does their engagement in goal achievement. Therefore, goal-setting processes involving followers have a moderating influence between RL behaviors and followers’ performance-related outcomes.

Shared leadership theory

To make RL widespread across organizational structures, the current mode of hierarchical leadership that operates through one appointed leader setting the tone from above is not entirely effective (Maak & Pless, 2006). To address this limitation of hierarchical leadership, Pearce et al. (2014) noted that shared leadership can provide checks and balances on leadership, results in greater transparency, and uses the different cognitive resources to develop positive networks that extend beyond a limited number of stakeholders. Yukl (2010) also pointed that shared leadership takes place when team members interact in ways involving the sharing of responsibilities that further increase the directional sense of individual members as well as the team. He further argued that shared leadership leads to positive collaborations with stakeholders, team cohesiveness, and promotes creativity and innovation. Therefore, shared leadership processes are likely to have a significant mediating influence on impact of RL behaviors on team-related outcomes.

Exploring the factor structure

In relating the RL construct to its four dimensions, we find that a first-order four-factor model fits the data better than a higher order model. Analyzing RL as represented by its four dimensions provides a more comprehensive representation of leader behaviors and allows us to match dimensions to unique outcomes, thus increasing the explained variance (Edwards, 2001). However, the positive and significant correlations among dimensions and adequate fit indices for a second-order factor structure (there is only a slight drop in fit measures) show that the four dimensions are different manifestations of a latent superordinate construct of RL. Research should be conducted to check whether RL is better established as a latent construct because such models are generally more parsimonious (Edwards, 2001).

Advancing the measurement of RL through experimental designs, longitudinal studies, and case studies

As this was an initial attempt toward scale development, survey design is a plausible strategy to follow. However, there are other means of measurements that can offer valuable insights. For example, laboratory experiments offer unique opportunities to provide evidence for the validity of the leadership measures (P. M. Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019). N. P. Podsakoff et al. (2013) argued that a more effective way of testing what a scale is intended to measure is through manipulation of the construct of interest (such as RL dimensions) and observation of the effect it has on items that reflect the underlying construct. If variations in the manipulated construct cause variations in the items, one can infer that the scale is valid. In addition, the use of surveys could benefit from designing data collection at multiple time points (Eva et al., 2019), which would be useful to assess the impact of RL behaviors on stakeholder relationships and whether the development of these relationships over time leads to the achievement of long-term goals.

We also recommend that further studies include various leadership formats (distributed leadership, empowering leadership, relational leadership), organizational values, and human resources practices (e.g., ethics training) within their study design to demonstrate criterion validity of RL above and beyond the current organizational ethos. Owing to the interpersonal nature of RL, we operationalized RL and its effects at an individual level. However, RL can also have aggregated effects for higher level outcomes such as stakeholder’ trust, organization’s ethical culture, and support for environment-related strategies (Voegtlin et al., 2012). Therefore, in future studies, a multilevel analysis is a plausible strategy to follow. Moreover, RL research has matured to the point that case studies highlighting RL in practice can also be used (e.g., Pless, 2007).

Using varying respondent samples

Our proposed model suggests RL behaviors that should apply at all leadership levels. However, one of the limitations of our study is that the maximum number of managers (for whom the respondents in Studies 3 and 4 marked the RL behaviors) were at higher management levels. Although leaders at these levels have financial and reputational reasons to display RL behaviors, leaders at middle and lower levels may want to achieve quick and short-term profit for career advancements (Marginson & McAulay, 2008). To achieve such quick and short-term profits, managers sometimes resort to unethical means (Eisenbeiß & Brodbeck, 2014). Therefore, it would be important to conduct research on various leadership levels to determine whether managerial values, hierarchy, and organization type are variables that affect the interpretation of overall RL.

More so, all the respondent samples in our study were from organizations in India. Research however highlights that cultural values affect leaders’ ethical ideologies and strategic decision making (Schraa-Liu & Trompenaars, 2006). Schneider (1989) also noted that national culture influences leaders’ viewpoints on stakeholder relationships and temporal nature of goals. Therefore, future research should be conducted to analyze whether the RL dimensions are invariant in varying cultural contexts.

Studying newer outcomes

Over the past decade, studies have established the impact of RL on outcomes for organizations as well as stakeholders. For example, Székely and Knirsch (2005) argued that embedding RL within an organization has a positive impact on successful implementation of sustainability initiatives. Doh et al. (2011) also noted that practicing RL positively affected employees’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) intentions and pride in the organization that led to weakened employee turnover intentions. Moreover, Voegtlin (2011) tested a positive impact of RL on job satisfaction, trust in leader, and reduction of employees’ unethical behaviors. Voegtlin et al. (2012) also suggested that RL increases perceived importance of CSR and ethical culture, and employees’ intention to indulge in social entrepreneurship. In our study as well, we provide initial theoretical and empirical evidence that RL positively affects the outcomes of moral courage and citizenship behaviors toward stakeholders.

Overall, we suggest that due to the ethical and strategic behaviors of RL, it is likely to encompass a broader range of outcomes. For example, owing to the ethical nature of RL, it can influence psychological outcomes such as relational identification, work engagement, OCB, and organizational commitment (Doh & Quigley, 2014). Parallelly, due to its strategic nature, RL can also influence rational outcomes such as employees’ proenvironmental behaviors, voluntary participation in CSR, service orientation toward customers, positive orientation toward long-term profitability, and innovative work behaviors. Future research should delve into theoretical perspectives to develop and empirically test these multilevel hypotheses.

Implications for Practitioners

Structuring performance metrics and feedback mechanisms

Voegtlin et al. (2012) noted that incorporating RL behaviors can be a mechanism to curb unethical and opportunistic behaviors. Waldman and Balven (2014) also argued that RL is effective for organizational sustainability as it places emphasis on long-term decisions and actions oriented to internal organization as well as external constituents. However, the current metrics used to assess leaders’ performance such as balance sheets, market shares, and quarterly reports are based on short-term evaluation aimed only at shareholders’ profitability (Svensson & Wood, 2006). However, given the present context, performance metrics need to be associated with RL behaviors and account for long-term perspectives on achieving performance as well as a broader outlook toward stakeholder networks (Svensson & Wood, 2006). Developing metrics based on RL behaviors also resonates with Gatewood and Carroll’s (1991) suggestion to assess leaders’ adherence to ethical standards in their behaviors with stakeholders as well as by the means used to achieve results.

Nevertheless, managers at lower levels will adopt these assessments only when they are convinced about RL behaviors being practiced and supported at the top level as well (Székely & Knirsch, 2005). Moreover, such assessments are considered as procedurally and interactionally fair if there are appropriate management control systems for employees to call out issues, voice their opinions, as well as provide feedback information on potential environmental and social impacts, stakeholder reactions, and financial performance (Epstein & Roy, 2001).

Improving recruitment, training, and development of RL

RL is especially well suited to organizations aspiring for long-term growth designed to benefit all stakeholders (as opposed to short-term shareholder profits) and requires leaders to take on multiple roles including ethical role models, effective strategists, and collaborators. Creating such expertise among leaders requires continued development and experiential interventions that focus on honing the ethical, social, relational, and strategic perspectives of leadership (Waldman & Balven, 2014). An example of such an intervention is the service-learning programs (see Pless et al., 2011, for details). Pless et al. (2011) noted some of the successful outcomes of such programs as developing ethical and relational sensitivity toward stakeholders and dealing with complexity of long-term issues such as sustainability. Waldman and Balven (2014) further noted that participants of these programs generally help by sharing their stories and inspiring others to inculcate RL behaviors. Parallelly, action learning–driven interventions such as formal mentoring, lateral movements, “stretch assignments,” and opportunities with higher responsibilities help managers develop awareness of the multiple roles of a leader as peer, follower, and stakeholder (Hirst et al., 2004).

However, Eva et al. (2019) suggested that although training and development is important, it can only change stable characteristics to a certain extent. For example, it is difficult for human resources to influence individuals who are unintelligent, dogmatic, narcissistic, unethical, or impassive toward others. Therefore, we concur with Eva et al., and suggest that along with extensive leadership training and development, it is crucial for human resources to recruit individuals who show moral traits and have attributes such as cognitive and emotional intelligence, perseverance, humility, and empathy that further contribute to and facilitate RL behaviors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage () for English language editing.

Authors’ Note

A draft version of this article was presented at Academy of Management Conference 2019 at Boston, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Swati Agarwal

Associate Editor: Rebecca Reichard

Author Biographies

Swati Agarwal is a research scholar at IIT Delhi with interest in Leadership Ethics and OB. She is an MBA from MICA, Ahmedabad and B.E. from Punjab University, India.

Kanika T. Bhal is dean (Planning) and professor (HR/OB) at IIT Delhi. A PhD from IIT Kanpur, she has been a visiting fellow at the Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, USA. Her research interests have been in the areas of leadership, culture, and ethics. She has published over 70 articles in refereed international and national journals, and has authored one and co-authored two books (published by Sage), besides having supervised several doctoral and Masters’ level theses in these areas. Her research has found financial support from the government as well as the industry and she has done sponsored research for Dalmia Group, MHRD, and GLOBE project with the Fordham University (and Wharton Business School) and the US Air Force. She has been providing consulting expertise both to the government as well the business on various policy and strategy-related issues. She has been a consultant to organizations like Fifth Central Pay Commission of India, First National Judicial Pay Commission of India, DRDO, Tibetan Govt., UPSC, DGS&D, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, National Institute of Communicable Diseases and many private organizations including Hewlett Packard (USA).

References

Banks

G. C.

McCauley

K. D.

Gardner

W. L.

Guler

C. E.

(2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 634–652.

Brown

M. E.

Trevino

L. K.

Harrison

D. A.

(2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

Butler

J. K.

Jr. Cantrell

R. S.

(1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19–28.

Byrne

B. M.

(2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cameron

(2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25–35.

Ciulla

J. B.

(1991). Why is business talking about ethics? Reflections on foreign conversations. California Management Review, 34, 67–86.

Coyle-Shapiro

J. A. M.

Kessler

Purcell

(2002). Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the psychological contract: Employee and employer perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 69–86.

Day

D. V.

(2012). Leadership. In Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 696–729). Oxford University Press.

Dimitriades

Z. S.

(2007). The influence of service climate and job involvement on customer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in Greek service organizations: A survey. Employee Relations, 29, 469–491.

10.

Doh

J. P.

Quigley

N. R.

(2014). Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 255–274.

11.

Doh

J. P.

Stumpf

S. A.

Tymon

W. G.

(2011). Responsible leadership helps retain talent in India. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 85–100.

12.

Edwards

J. R.

(2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192.

13.

Eisenbeiß

S. A.

Brodbeck

(2014). Ethical and unethical leadership: A cross-cultural and cross-sectoral analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 343–359.

14.

Elms

Brammer

Harris

J. D.

Phillips

R. A.

(2010). New directions in strategic management and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 401–425.

15.

Epstein

M. J.

Roy

M. J.

(2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34, 585–604.

16.

Eva

Robin

Sendjaya

van Dierendonck

Liden

R. C.

(2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 111–132.

17.

Fiske

D. W.

(1971). Measuring the concepts of personality. Aldine.

18.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

19.

Freeman

R. E.

Auster

E. R.

(2011). Values, authenticity, and responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 15–23.

20.

Gatewood

R. D.

Carroll

A. B.

(1991). Assessment of ethical performance of organization members: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 16, 667–690.

21.

Hamel

Prahalad

C. K.

(1994). Competing for the future. Harvard Business School Press.

22.

Hannah

S. T.

Avolio

B. J.

(2010). Moral potency: Building the capacity for character-based leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal, 62, 291–310.

23.

Harris

L. S.

Kuhnert

K. W.

(2008). Looking through the lens of leadership: A constructive developmental approach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 47–67.

24.

Helsing

Howell

(2014). Understanding leadership from the inside out: Assessing leadership potential using constructive-developmental theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23, 186–204.

25.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.

26.

Hirst

Mann

Bain

Pirola-Merlo

Richver

(2004). Learning to lead: The development and testing of a model of leadership learning. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 311–327

27.

Hitt

M. A.

Keats

B. W.

DeMarie

S. M.

(1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12, 22–42.

28.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

29.

Kanungo

R. N.

(2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’administration, 18, 257–265.

30.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

31.

Latham

G. P.

Yukl

G. A.

(1975). A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824–845.

32.

Leavy

(1996). On studying leadership in the strategy field. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 435–454.

33.

Lee

Choi

Youn

Chun

J. U.

(2017). Ethical leadership and employee moral voice: The mediating role of moral efficacy and the moderating role of leader–follower value congruence. Journal of Business Ethics, 141, 47–57.

34.

Lee

Cadogan

J. W.

(2013). Problems with formative and higher-order reflective variables. Journal of Business Research, 66, 242–247.

35.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Meuser

J. D.

Liao

(2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 254–269.

36.

Lynham

S. A.

Chermack

T. J.

(2006). Responsible leadership for performance: A theoretical model and hypotheses. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 73–88.

37.

Maak

(2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.

38.

Maak

Pless

N. M.

(2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society–a relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99–115.

39.

Maak

Pless

N. M.

Voegtlin

(2016). Business statesman or shareholder advocate? CEO responsible leadership styles and the micro-foundations of political CSR. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 463–493.

40.

Marginson

McAulay

(2008). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 273–292.

41.

Maritz

Pretorius

Plant

(2011). Exploring the interface between strategy–making and responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 101–113.

42.

Miska

Hilbe

Mayer

(2014). Reconciling different views on responsible leadership: A rationality-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 349–360.

43.

Nahapiet

Ghoshal

(1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.

44.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

45.

Patzer

Voegtlin

Scherer

A. G.

(2018). The normative justification of integrative stakeholder engagement: A Habermasian view on responsible leadership. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28, 325–354.

46.

Pearce

C. L.

Wassenaar

C. L.

Manz

C. C.

(2014). Is shared leadership the key to responsible leadership? Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 275–288.

47.

Pless

N. M.

(2007). Understanding responsible leadership: Role identity and motivational drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 437–456.

48.

Pless

N. M.

Maak

(2005). Relational intelligence for leading responsibly in a connected world. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 11–16). Academy of Management.

49.

Pless

N. M.

Maak

Stahl

G. K.

(2011). Developing responsible global leaders through international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 237–260.

50.

Pless

N. M.

Maak

Waldman

D. A.

(2012). Different approaches toward doing the right thing: Mapping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 51–65.

51.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Klinger

R. L.

(2013). Are we really measuring what we say we’re measuring? Using video techniques to supplement traditional construct validation procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 99–113.

52.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

53.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2019). Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 11–33.

54.

Schneider

S. C.

(1989). Strategy formulation: The impact of national culture. Organization Studies, 10, 149–168.

55.

Schraa-Liu

Trompenaars

(2006). Towards responsible leadership through reconciling dilemmas. In Maak

Pless

N. M.

(Eds.), Responsible leadership (pp. 138–154). Routledge.

56.

Sekerka

L. E.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(2007). Moral courage in the workplace: Moving to and from the desire and decision to act. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16, 132–149.

57.

Smith

A. M.

(2007). On being responsible and holding responsible. The Journal of Ethics, 11, 465–484.

58.

Stahl

G. K.

Sully de Luque

(2014). Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: A research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 235–254.

59.

Stazyk

E. C.

Davis

R. S.

(2020). Transformational leaders: Bridging the gap between goal ambiguity and public value involvement. Public Management Review, 22, 364–385.

60.

Sturt

Nordstrom

(2016, January). True or false? “Employees today stay only for one or two years.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsturt/2016/01/13/true-or-false-employees-today-only-stay-one-or-two-years/#2e53e2216b4c

61.

Svensson

Wood

(2006). Sustainable components of leadership effectiveness in organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 25, 522–534.

62.

Székely

Knirsch

(2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23, 628–647.

63.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon.

64.

Tracey

J. B.

Tews

M. J.

(2005). Construct validity of a general training climate scale. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 353–374.

65.

Trevino

L. K.

Brown

M. E.

(2007). Ethical leadership. In Nelson

D. L.

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Positive organizational behavior: Accentuating the positive at work (pp. 101–116). SAGE.

66.

Trevino

L. K.

Hartman

L. P.

Brown

(2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142.

67.

Valcea

Hamdani

M. R.

Buckley

M. R.

Novicevic

M. M.

(2011). Exploring the developmental potential of leader–follower interactions: A constructive-developmental approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 604–615.

68.

Van Dierendonck

Nuijten

(2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249–267.

69.

Voegtlin

(2011). Development of a scale measuring discursive responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 57–73.

70.

Voegtlin

(2016). What does it mean to be responsible? Addressing the missing responsibility dimension in ethical leadership research. Leadership, 12, 581–608.

71.

Voegtlin

Patzer

Scherer

A. G.

(2012). Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership and its multi-level outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 1–16.

72.

Waldman

D. A.

Balven

R. M.

(2014). Responsible leadership: Theoretical issues and research directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 224–234.

73.

Waldman

D. A.

Galvin

B. M.

(2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 327–341.

74.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

Wernsing

T. S.

Peterson

S. J.

(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126.

75.

Wang

Bansal

(2012). Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1135–1153.

76.

Yukl

G. A.

(2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

77.

Yukl

G. A.

Mahsud

Hassan

Prussia

G. E.

(2013). An improved measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 38–48.

78.

Zhang

L. F.

(2005). Predicting cognitive development, intellectual styles, and personality traits from self-rated abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 67–88.