MUHAMMAD UMER

01-111122-238
BBA 6 A
ADVANCED METHOD AND TECHNIQUES
FINAL PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO: SIR ATIF BILAL
DATED: 3-06-2015

ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this study is to know that how a leader can transform it into a
responsible leader, the variables used in the research paper are leadership
characteristics as an independent leader, behavioral intention as an
mediating variable, moderator used is organizational support and the
dependent variable is responsible leader, this is the thing which we are
finding out in the current research paper. The sample size of the study is of
300 people and the sector selected was the banking industry mainly Faysal
and AL Barakah bank. The survey was carried out in Islamabad, sector F 10
markaz.

KEYWORDS:
Leadership Characteristics, Behavioral Intention, Organizational support and
Responsible leader.

INTRODUCTION:
Responsible leadership has emerged as a major theme in academic and practical
management discourse. We see that a leader can make or break any organization, it
is just a leader who can take the organization up and bring the organization down,
leadership characteristics are important for any individual. In this paper we provide
an overview and synthesis of existing and emerging research on responsible

leadership that who actually are responsible leader, how they can take the
organization to upper limits and come up as a motivation for their staff and people
working under them moreover we would see that how any individual can be a good
leader and propose a unifying framework for explaining leaders, there can be a
mediating thing as well which has an impact on responsible leader that can be the
behavioral intention of an individual, it is understood that behaviors decide every
certain thing likewise the behavior of a person decides or indicates that if someone
wants to be a good leader or he doesnt wants to be a leader. A person not
particular about time and takes his decision without knowing the situation, is pretty
causal about its work can never be a good leader because it is understood that he
doesnt want to be a leader or a person of dignity. Propensity to engage in two
types of socially responsible behavior: do well do well is a very broad terminology
this word says that if a leader can do well in a certain area, not just this but the real
meaning of this word is that a person as leader has to do well if he is a leader then
and only then he can be called as an effective leader if someone is not able to do so
he is unfortunately an ordinary leader and can never be a good leader and avoid
harm is another terminology the second trait of a leader it says everything this
means that the leader not just has to do well but he has to avoid harm too, if he is
giving company a profit of 50M and doing this there are a lot of causalities for no
reason this is not a good leadership habit this is a poor display of work a leader has
to avoid harm, or maybe you can say that there are two types of leader one who try
to do good and take positive steps and the others just avoid harm and take baby
steps to the success they both are getting success in other way. The framework
models the linkages among individual, situational, organizational, institutional, and
supranational influences on responsible leader behavior and describes the
mechanisms by which these factors may affect a leaders decisions and actions. Our
analysis suggests that do well and avoid harm behaviors are conceptually
distinct categories, with different psychological bases and different antecedents
that predict them. Further, we find that individual level and contextual factors
combine and interact to influence responsible leader behavior, and a key aspect of
the environment in which leaders act and make decisionssituational strength
moderates the relationship between individual-level factors and a leaders
propensity to engage in do good and avoid harm behavior. In addition to
providing directions for future research on responsible leader behavior, this article
has several implications for practice, specifically how to select, train and develop
social leaders. Moderator can be a key factor in deciding the leadership traits

moderator can be the organization support in it, this means that the
organization has an important role in defining a leader, if a person is backed
by the organization therefore he would take positive steps and take
initiatives thus he would come out as a motivational leader for its staff. On
the other hand if organization support is not enough then he would be
careful while taking decisions and doing anything. A leader would not come
out as a motivation for his staff.

As the world is recovering from a major economic crisis and, as some have argued,
a crisis of management ethics (e.g., Ghoshal, 2005; Waldman & Galvin, 2008),
business leaders are under increased scrutiny. Top executives in the West and
elsewhere have been exposed for dishonesty, greed, and unethical business
practices. These highly publicized instances of management misconduct have
eroded public faith in business and brought to the forefront the recognition that
business leaders may be acting irresponsibly more often than previously thought. As
a result, trust in business is at one of the lowest levels on record, particularly in the
United States and Europe (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2012).1 recent calls for more
ethical managerial conduct are a reaction to these scandals and crises. They are
also a result of changes and new demands in the global marketplace, such as
increased stakeholder activism and scrutiny (e.g., Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, &
Ganapathi, 2007; Doh & Guay, 2006; Husted & Allen, 2006). As sociopolitical and
environmental challenges intensify around the world there is increasing pressure
from stakeholdersamong them governments, local communities, NGOs, and
consumers on corporations and their leaders to engage in self-regulation and take
more active roles as global citizens (Stahl, Pless, & Maak, 2013).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:
MEWORK:

Leadership
Characteristics

Personality Traits
Affective Thinking
Values/Moral

Responsible Leader
Behavioral
Intention

Doing Good
Avoiding Harm

GAP ANALYSIS:
Talking about the responsible leader, there are two basic terms that an
Organizational
individual should have one is that they should do good
to the firm or they
Support
come out beneficial to the sector and they would be an outstanding team
member by doing this, there is another type of leader considered responsible
and that is which does not do actually any good to the firm but they focus on
avoiding harm and damages which can occur in the sector they tend them to
keep away from them. This is the pervious study done by the authors
references are enlisted below. The study was carried out in England and
Ireland.

We conducted a survey in Government sector considering these two

variables and checking their position and knowing their responsibility level.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
This is to check the relationship of Leadership Characteristics and
Responsible leader keeping the mediator as Behavioral Intention
The relationship of Leadership Characteristics and Responsible leader
keeping the mediator as Behavioral Intention

RESEARCH QUESTION:

What is the relationship of Leadership Characteristics and Responsible

leader keeping the mediator as Behavioral Intention?
To investigate the relationship of Leadership Characteristics and
Responsible leader keeping the mediator as Behavioral Intention?

HYPO THESIS:

LEADERSHIP CHARCTERSTICS:These pioneers are

sure however humble and their beingwho they areis charming to others
as in they have a trademark region that unites with others and addresses
others at a more significant enthusiastic level. "This is taking into account a
certified perception and affirmation of one's uniquenesspersonality,
motivations, qualities and weaknesses and an assurance that connotes 'I
don't need to claim to be someone I am definitely not.'" This is moreover
displayed in unsurprising behavior. "An unmistakable and developed qualities
and conviction system also serves to smooth out senseless swings of
behavior." "Current pioneers ought to be more insightful than essentially
being gotten up to speed in the event." We must be OK with not knowing and
living with problems. This suggests we must have a willingness to listen and
learneven from the generally fantastical sources. When we "know"
something we tend to need to hear just from people like uspeople who

channel the world through the same eyes we do. Additionally, when we do,
we miss an impressive measure. "We get the chance to be judgmental and
evaluative instead of inquisitive." We similarly ought to make certain and
humble. Exactly when an inner assurance "is not modify with quiet selfassessment or full developed enthusiastic learning, it gets the chance to be
skewed and egocentric." This is more than insightful understanding, this is
behavioral learning. We ought to have the ability to interface what we (and
others) are experiencing and go along with it to what we know. When it
doesn't relate we need to tunnel more significant and increase from it.
Shockingly, "individuals may deny that the situation is any particular and
disregard to notice that their customary illustrations are showing unhelpful.
They may succumb to an individual blind spot and disregard to learn." This is
a vital development for most pioneers. We tend to grow up considering
pioneers independent of as opposed to related with different people. More
tyrannical than co-creators. Careful pioneers view themselves in association
with others. "Those whose perspective of accomplishment relies on upon
others' success are transforming into a more grounded force than possibly
various make sense of it." Careful pioneers have a controlling reason that
enables them to focus their imperativeness and development. "Pioneers with
an in number driving reason that answers the 'why am I doing this?' request
need tantamount levels of focus to ensure that their dreams and dreams
don't stay out of compass. The request is: "The spot do I need to focus my
thought and my essentialness and in this way what are redirections to be
avoided?" Skilled activity requires an "other" focus, quietude and care. "To be
a competent pioneer is to wander forward into the space and the moment
with an 'I can and I will' disposition to impact circumstances and structures
for more traits.

LEADERSHIP CHARCTERSTICS:
Organizational Support is the support given by the organization, how and
what organization provides you. Organizational support is for the leader
especially and it is to ensure that if a leader willing to work or he is interested to
make new steps in any organization. Organizational support is important what
actually is organizational support now, it is the support given by the organization to
their employees and leaders moreover it is the trust that organizational has on his
own employees. Likewise people who are from any organization and then they do

anything or take any step the organization backs them and supports them in what
so ever way it may be. If any organization fails to do it, the organization has to bear
its consiquenceses, the people wont have the comfort working there, people would
be afraid to taking any positive or good steps, they would rather just do their job
and kill time for no reason, another thing which can turn out as a threat for any
company that is that people could leave their company and jump on to another
company

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT:
The absence of regard for relevant impacts in existing behavioral morals
exploration has driven KishGephart also, associates (2010, p. 23) to finish up
that "there is a requirement for more extensive band inquire about that
researches more perplexing designs of person, good issue, and hierarchical
environment variables." This requires more noteworthy clarity concerning
how relevant conditions may direct singular distinction impacts. We
recommend that the situational, authoritative, institutional, and
supranational impacts talked about above advance or thwart dependable
pioneer conduct by expanding the mental quality of the circumstances
confronting supervisors in their workplaces. Mischel (1973) recommended
that the mental elements of circumstances impact the behavioral expression
of identity characteristics. He contended that the behavioral articulation of
attitudes is liable to be stifled by exceptionally compelling "solid"
circumstances, however, that these airs will probably be authorized in
"feeble" circumstances. Mentally solid circumstances are those in which
there are solid behavioral standards, solid motivations for particular sorts of
practices, and clear assumptions about what practices are remunerated and
rebuffed. Along these lines, in associations that are very formalized and
represented by settled part desires, rules, strategies, and methodology,
there is less open door for directors to behaviorally express their
dispositional inclinations (House & Aditya, 1997). Such mentally solid
circumstances are described not just by confined choice making limit
furthermore, extent of activity, additionally by constrained capacity to
impact behavioral results. By complexity, in associations where directors are
less obliged by guidelines, strategies, and regulations and have more
noteworthy circumspection over their exercises, there is more open door for
them to express their airs and to impact hierarchical results. Such powerless
circumstances permit a more extensive scope of practices and thus grant
articulation of individual contrasts by directors. Along these lines, we

recommend that situational quality conservatives the relationship between

pioneer qualities what's more, pioneers' affinity to take part in dependable
conduct (see Figure 1). For instance, in the proximal setting at the
association level, obvious measures for moral behavior and stringent control
frameworks, upheld by execution administration also, remunerate
frameworks that consider supervisors responsible for their choices and
activities, are prone to make a mentally "solid" circumstance. In such a
situation, supervisors who are inspired fundamentally without anyone else
interest and individual addition are likely to abstain from taking part in
reckless conduct inspired by a paranoid fear of assents. Correspondingly,
beat administration groups may have the capacity to advance "do great" and
"maintain a strategic distance from damage" conduct by making implied
behavioral standards more unmistakable and plainly characterized for
example, by obviously demonstrating dependable behavior furthermore,
remunerating workers for conduct that is predictable with qualities, for
example, honesty, responsibility, furthermore, reasonableness (e.g.,
Chatman & Cha, 2003). By difference, in associations that need clear
standards, arrangements, and rules for moral behavior, and where directors
have more prominent room of activity (i.e., mentally "frail" circumstances),
administrators must depend all alone benchmarks and take after self-picked
moral standards. An absence of hierarchical direction what's more, control
does not naturally infer that directors will take part in untrustworthy
practices; nonetheless, it improves the probability that administrators' airs
great and terrible will be communicated in genuine conduct. Subsequently,
to some degree incomprehensibly, our examination recommends that in
mentally solid situations, there may be not just less open door for
administrators to do hurt, additionally less chance to do great. For instance,
in associations that have clear strategies furthermore, rules to forestall
segregation, the part of individual chiefs in guaranteeing reasonable and
evenhanded treatment of all representatives is liable to be less vital than in
associations that need clear strategies and powerful procedures and projects
relating to equivalent open door. In associations that are exceedingly
formalized and represented by entrenched tenets, strategies, and part
desires, there may be less open door, as well as less need, for administrators
to do great. Making mentally solid circumstances through clear
arrangements, systematized standards, and institutionalized practices can
consequently capacity as a substitute for dependable administrative
conduct. Notwithstanding parts of the authoritative setting, attributes of the
more extensive national and supranational connection additionally matter. In
the distal setting at the institutional level, the national society what's more,

lawful framework inside which directors work will probably influence the
mental quality of the circumstance and, subsequently, directors' penchant to
take part in dependable and unreliable conduct. Case in point, a domain
where partner rights are not administered, law implementation is remiss,
corporate administration structures are frail, and 246 The Academy of
Management Perspectives August the part of the media is limited makes a
frail circumstance that would likely not advance mindful administrative
conduct. Then again, when directors work in situations where partner rights
are secured through instruments like the UNGC, hearty corporate
administration structures exist, and laws and regulations are stringently
upheld (consequently making a mentally solid circumstance), there is both
less opportunity and less requirement for supervisors to behaviorally express
their attitudes, great or awful.

RESPONSIBLE LEADER
An audit of the behavioral morals and dependable administration writings
demonstrates that most variables 240 The Academy of Management
Perspectives August distinguished as predecessors of socially dependable
decisions are individual-level qualities. They incorporate identity qualities, for
example, the "Huge Five" components of neuroticism, extraversion,
openness, appropriateness, and principles (Kalshoven et al., 2010); qualities
and convictions (Crilly et al., 2008); psychological procedures (Green &
Weber, 1997); summed up hopes, for example, locus-of-control introduction
(Shapeero, Koh, & Killough, 2003); and emotional states (Judge, Scott, & Ilies,
2006). Research on other individual-level attributes incorporates hazard
observations (Fraedrich & Ferrell, 1992); phases of intellectual good
advancement (Trevio, 1986); and capacities, abilities, and behavioral
manners, such as dependable administration skills (Cameron & Caza, 2005),
dependable administration introductions (Pless, Maak, & Waldman, 2012),
and worldwide administration abilities (Miska, Stahl, & Mendenhall, 2013), as
well as demographics, including sex, age, and instruction level (Franke,
Crown, & Spake, 1997). Albeit the majority of the studies explored don't
expressly concentrate on administration conduct, the elements recognized in
observational research as precursors of people's moral decisions may be
seen as potential impacts on pioneers' inclination to lock in in socially
mindful or flighty behavior. These studies propose, for instance, that
directors with identity qualities and qualities that stress quest for one's own

advantage, rather than the more noteworthy normal great, are more prone
to take part in exercises that put partners at danger or hurt and less inclined
to take part in exercises that upgrade societal welfare (Crilly et al., 2008). By
difference, supervisors who grasp self-extraordinary qualities are more prone
to settle on choices and take activities that advantage society and maintain
a strategic distance from destructive results for others (Ashkanasy, Windsor,
& Trevio, 2006; Kalshoven et al., 2010). Among the numerous individuallevel elements that have been mulled over in the association are four key
elements that we audit here: sympathy, subjective moral advancement,
Machiavellianism, and good theories. Compassion alludes to another-situated
passionate reaction consistent with the apparent welfare of another (Batson,
Duncan, Ackerman, Buckey, & Birch, 1981) and mirrors the capacity of a
individual to nearly imitate someone else's enthusiastic state (Eisenberg,
2000). Sympathy related reacting has been reliably discovered to be related
with prosocial conduct (Eisenberg, 1986). In spite of the fact that compassion
has been generally considered in test settings (see Batson, 1991, for a
survey), administration analysts are progressively perceiving its significance
for administration in a hierarchical connection (e.g., Kellett, Humphrey, &
Sleeth, 2006; Sadri, Weber, & Gentry, 2011). Researchers have
recommended that compassion is a premise for connectedness what's more,
charitableness (Pavlovich & Krahnke, 2012) and corporate altruism (Muller,
Pfarrer, & Little, 2014). At long last, compassion has been experimentally
demonstrated to diminish an administrator's inclination to go along with
solicitations by power figures to participate in conduct that has destructive
outcomes for workers (Dietz & Kleinlogel, 2013). Intellectual good
improvement (CMD) hypothesis alludes to the phases of intellectual manysided quality through which people's ethical activities climb (Kohlberg, 1984).
CMD is made out of five successive levels that people hypothetically
progress through in life, turning out to be generally steady at adulthood. The
fifth or post-traditional level demonstrates an advanced level of good
thinking in which people apply standards of equity and rights and consider
societal great in choice making (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). People who are at
the higher phases of CMD have been discovered to be less inclined to
participate in dishonest conduct (see Trevio, 1992, for an audit of CMD and
dishonest conduct in the work environment) and to be more inclined to
participate in moral conduct, for example, whistleblowing (Road, 1995). CMD
is therefore prone to impact both the "do great" and "maintain a strategic
distance from damage" measurements of capable pioneer conduct.
Machiavellianism, usually known as a political hypothesis, has been
conceptualized in behavioral morals examine as an identity build or

behavioral aura related "with irreverent activity, sharp managing, concealed

plans, and dishonest overabundance" (Nelson & Gilbertson, 1991, p. 633).
Taking into account a meta-investigation of the moral choice making writing,
Kish-Gephart and associates (2010) found support for the connection in the
middle of Machiavellianism and dishonest conduct. An inside and out case
review led by Miska, Stahl, and Fuchs (2014) of 52 true instances of
unscrupulous administrative conduct uncovered that organizations included
in major outrages, for example, Enron, WorldCom, and Salomon Siblings,
were more inclined to have pioneers who displayed Machiavellian character
attributes. At last, the fourth individual-level element that has been
concentrated on in the association is moral methods of insight, which are
established in standardizing philosophical hypotheses and allude to
individuals' inclinations furthermore, legitimizations for particular regulating
introductions. Earlier research finds genuinely reliable examples of
connections between good theories and 2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 241
untrustworthy decisions. This is indicated in positive linkages in the middle of
teleological and relativistic introductions what's more, negative connections
for deontological and optimist ones (O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).
Teleological methodologies are more result focused, considering thinking
based the final aftereffect of activities, which may legitimize untrustworthy
conduct. Deontological methodologies are more administer driven,
underlining obligations free of outcomes, which may keep down people from
participating in exploitative conduct. Correspondingly, relativism expect that
regulating convictions are reliant on particular settings, while vision suggests
all inclusive moral rules. From examination taking into account an example of
25 prominent business pioneers, Pless, Maak, and Waldman (2012)
distinguished contrasts in pioneers' obligation introductions, alluding to
pioneers' conceptualization of corporate obligation. These introductions,
which are established in and driven by fluctuations in individual qualities and
good rationalities, are prone to influence both "do great" also, "evade hurt"
conduct. Interestingly, there is some exact proof that the "do great" and
"keep away from damage" measurements of mindful pioneer conduct are
anticipated by distinctive individual-level forerunners. Crilly and partners
(2008) found that self-greatness values, generosity, and positive full of
feeling states impact administrators' affinity to take part in exercises that
have a positive effect on society, though choices to maintain a strategic
distance from exercises that may incur hurt on others are represented to a
great extent by more deliberative psychological procedures, for example,
good thinking. These discoveries support the conclusion that "doing great"

and "evading mischief" are thoughtfully unmistakable classes, with diverse

mental bases.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
Research Methodology This section provides insights about the methodology
used to conduct this research. The discussion describes the methodology
used for this study under the headings of research approach and design,
instrument development, population, sample, unit of analysis, time horizon,
pilot testing, data collection procedure, data analysis technique, tests for
data analysis and software used. The present research is quantitative in its
approach. The research design of the present study is hypothesis testing,
type of investigation is causal and cross sectional. The instrument used for
the data collection was a survey questionnaire containing structured closeended questions. The questionnaire had two sections. Section A comprised
of demographic information such as sector (public or private) with gender,
age, experience, education and managerial tier, section B comprised the
questions which enclosed of different items to measure responses on the
variables. All questions were adapted using the five likert scale (Likert,
1967), form ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1
Measures Variable Population of the study was the employees from banking
sector of Pakistan. The sample size of the study included workers of Telecom
industry from IslamabadThe sampling strategy used for this study is
convenience sampling technique. Unit of analysis for this study is individual
analysis that includes the employees of telecom sector. A pilot test of 30-50
respondents was conducted from the employees. The result of pilot test
indicated that all the items of the instrument were reliable with ( > 0.600)
showing high level of internal consistency for all variables (Nunnally, 1978).
Structured questionnaire was used as an instrument for data collection. The
questionnaire was distributed to the employees of banking sector (faysal
bank) in Islamabad. A total number of 356 questionnaires were distributed
out of which 300 were returned back with a response rate of 75%. The tests
used in this study were descriptive, correlation and regression analysis.
Baron and Kenny (1986) discussed a four step regression analysis to
determine the mediating and moderating effect of variables, these steps
have been undertaken in order to find the mediating and moderating role of
the variable. SPSS version 20 is used to perform these tests. It had been
ensured that the respect and dignity of all research respondents must be

maintained. It was highly guaranteed to protect the privacy of research

subjects, ensuring the confidentiality of research data and also protecting the
anonymity of individuals who participated. Participants were provided with
an information sheet outlining the purpose of the study and given
assurances that their data would be treated confidentially. Complete honesty
and transparency has been maintained while communicating about the
research. The content and face validity is assured for a reliable and validate
scale. Content and face validity was done with the help of professional
experts in the field, instrument was modified according to the
recommendations made by them. The purpose of content validity is to
examine that up to what extent items are addressing all dimensions of a
particular construct and to ensure that items constructed in a way that all
respondents can read them conveniently (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). Based
on feedback certain items were deleted. The revised questionnaire was than
distributed among the respondents for pilot testing with covering letter
explaining academic purpose of the research.

COMBINATION OF ALL THE FOUR

VARIABLES:
All the four variables are related to each other that independent variable and
the moderator or mediating variable rely on each other to make the
responsible leader, leadership characteristics are not just enough there has
to be something else in it as well like behavior of the individual thus the
leader and the organizational all come up to make responsible leader.

Results:-

300

N
Gender

Frequency
222

Male
Female

78
Age

20-30 years old

156
31-35years old
96
36+ years old
42
Experience (Working in teams)
1-5 years
114
6-10 years
126
11-20years
60

The sample size is of 300 people from banking sector in which 222
were male and 78 were female, from 25 to 36 or more. Their
experience lies from 1 year to 20 years.

Variable
Leadership
characteristics
Behavioral
intention
Organizational
support
Responsible
leader

Number of items
5

Behavioral Intention: 0.743

Organizational Support: 0.832
Responsible leader: 0.732
Correlation Matrix

0.64

0.743

0.832

Chornbach Alpha of the variables are as follows.

Responsible leader: 0.64

Cronbachs Alpha

0.732

Variables
Mean
S.D
LC
3.93
.5832
BI
3.62
0.4734
OS
3.24
.5654
RL
3.57
.6534
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Hypothesis+37:437:40

R Square

1:A positive relationship

exists between leadership
characteristics and
responsible leaders.
2:A positive relationship
exists between leadership
characteristics and
organizational support
3: A positive relationships
exists between
organizational support and
responsible leader.

Steps

IV

DV

LC

RL

LC

BI

BI

RL

1
1
.370**
.551**
.380**

S.E

2
.380**
1
.432**
.510**

t-test

3
.542**
..488**
1
.448 **

F-test

4
.389**
.506**
..568**
1.00

Sig.

0.160

0.411

0.51

8.36

70.36

0.00

0.155

0.21

0.035

8.22

70.2

0.00

0.256

0.699

.062

11.55
5

133.3
33

0.00

F-test

t- stat

Sig.

70.36

8.36

70.2

8.22

R2

0.381 0.160 0.411

0.155 0.155 0.21
0.604 0.325 0.674

133.333
11.547
.671 85.02
4
LC+BI
RL
0.456 0.256 0.699
8.964, 10.012
2
H4 : Creativity has negative mediating relationship between Motivation and Innovation.

Steps

IV

DV

LC

RL

0.381

LC

BI

BI

RL

Moderator

RL

0.15
5
0.60
4
0.785

R2
0.16
0
0.15
5
0.32
5
0.732

0
0

0.41
1

F-test

t- stat

Sig.

70.36

8.36

0.21
0.67
4
0.138

70.2

8.22

133.34
11.547
1205.522
32.49

0
0

H5 : Empowerment has positive moderating relationship between Creativity and Innovation.

DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS:

The motivation behind this paper was to add to a superior comprehension of
the individual, situational, authoritative, societal, and supranational impacts
on capable pioneer conduct. To this end, we gave a union of existing and
developing exploration on capable initiative and proposed a bringing
together system for disclosing pioneers' affinity to lock in in two sorts of
socially capable conduct: "doing great" (prescriptive profound quality) and
"maintaining a strategic distance from hurt" (proscriptive profound quality).
Hypothetical Implications and Future Directions Our investigation proposes
that "doing great" and "maintaining a strategic distance from mischief" are
two thoughtfully unmistakable classes then again sorts of pioneer conduct,
with diverse mental bases and diverse precursors that foresee them. On the
other hand, there is minimal hypothetical furthermore, observational clarity
concerning how the variables recognized as predecessors of socially capable
conduct may differentially influence the "do great" also, "dodge mischief"
measurements of dependable administration. Despite the fact that the
objectives of upgrading societal prosperity and maintaining a strategic
distance from destructive results for society speak to repeating topics in the
CSR and behavioral morals literary works (e.g., Aguilera et al., 2007; Carroll
& Shabana, 2010; Jones, 1991), few studies have unequivocally tended to
the suggestions of these double parts for directors. A striking exemption is a
study by Crilly and associates (2008), whose discoveries propose that
choices made in "do great" situations reflect both comprehension and
influence (e.g., self-extraordinary qualities and positive feelings), though
choices to keep away from exercises that power incur hurt on partners are
administered to a great extent by more deliberative psychological
procedures (e.g., good thinking). A few creators have noticed that people's
moral decisions are prone to be influenced by impacts at numerous levels
and have focused on the requirement for an interactionist point of view on
moral choice making what's more, conduct (Bommer, Gratto, Gravander, &
Tuttle, 1987; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Trevio & Youngblood, 1990),
however few studies have researched different impacts crosswise over
distinctive levels of investigation and classes of indicator variables. For

sample, Kish-Gephart and partners (2010, p. 23) noticed that the vast
majority of the studies included in their metaanalysis "researched just direct
connections between a proposed determinant and unscrupulous decisions,"
and O'Fallon and Butterfield (2005) found that just 20 (out of 384) studies
included in their audit of the moral choice making writing inspected
mediators. Hence, there is a requirement for more experimental exploration
that investigates the relevant conditions that direct individual distinction
impacts, especially the part of situational quality. Our investigation
recommends that, notwithstanding acting as a mediator variable, situational
quality may intercede the connections between the relevant impacts and
pioneers' affinity to participate in dependable conduct. For instance, an
institutional environment where partner rights are ensured, vigorous
corporate administration structures exist, furthermore, laws and regulations
are stringently implemented makes a mentally solid circumstance that
possible advances capable administration conduct. This is genuine
particularly when pioneers work inside of the imperatives forced by an
association with obvious models for moral behavior, have a corporate society
that advances and supports capable conduct, and establish execution
administration furthermore, compensate frameworks that hold
administrators responsible for their choices and activities. In such
circumstances, pioneers don't just have less open door to "do hurt," yet they
additionally have more motivations to "do great." Paradoxically, however, our
examination recommends that in such a situation, there may additionally be
less requirement for pioneers to do great or to dodge hurt, on the grounds
that settled part desires, principles, approaches, and techniques can work as
a substitute for mindful pioneer conduct. Future exploration ought to test the
arranging structure propelled in this paper and set up its relevance to the
universal connection. Globalization has brought social and natural concerns
to administration's plan, and more and more supervisors work in a worldwide
domain. It is settled that when universal supervisors take part in deceptive or
illicit exercises outside their nations of origin it is regularly on the grounds
that they follow to an innocent type of social relativism of the "when in Rome
. . ." kind (Stahl et al., 2013). The peril is 2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 247
especially intense in situations where nearby guidelines (e.g., natural and
wellbeing measures) are extensively less stringent than the principles in the
home nation. Such a situation, consolidated with a deficient and wrong
comprehension of the nearby connection, makes a mentally frail
circumstance that conceivable advances flippant conduct. We suggest that
the build of situational quality is of significant heuristic esteem in
comprehension the moral problems confronting supervisors in the worldwide

enclosure and how they adapt to those problems. Identified with the past
point, with a couple of remarkable special cases, existing research on
behavioral morals has been socially visually impaired, in that studies have
generally disregarded the impact of the national social environment on
socially capable conduct. As noted by Vickers (2005), "worldwide
partnerships work in countries where renumeration, sexual provocation,
racial separation, and a mixture of different issues are not consistently seen
as unlawful or indeed, even exploitative" (p. 30). This not just infers that it is
hard to unmistakably and unambiguously characterize dependable conduct
for a director in a given social setting, additionally implies that supervisors
workingin the worldwide coliseum need to take these distinctions into record
and parity worldwide and neighborhood contemplations in settling on
dependable choices (Donaldson, 1996). To further propel our
comprehensionof the initiative difficulties confronting administrators of
worldwide organizations, we require a more modernconceptualization of
"capable authority" that is pertinent to every social gathering and an
extensive variety of partners, and also research plans that permit scientists
to study the predecessors of dependable also, flighty pioneer conduct
crosswise over diverse nature.

CONCLUSION:
The advantages of mindful initiative to society, also, the harm caused by
administration unfortunate behavior, make it vital to build up structures for
future exploration. Our contentions that individual-level and context oriented
elements consolidate what's more, cooperate to impact capable pioneer
conduct are key segments of our proposed system. Most outstandingly, the
vital part of the administration choice making environment situational
quality conservatives the relationship between individual-level components
and a pioneer's affinity to take part in "do great" and "evadehurt" conduct. It
is our aim that this system will help others to further examinethe systems
impacting dependable administration,which thusly may develop pioneers
with an introduction toward obligation.

REFERENCES
Agle, B. R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., Jensen, M. C.,
Mitchell, R. K., & Wood, D. J. (2008). Dialogue: Toward

superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 18(2), 153190.
Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J.
(2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility:
A multilevel theory of social change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 3,
836 863.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50, 179 211.
Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social
responsibility: A study of the views of management
teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics,
96(3), 339 354.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Windsor, C. A., & Trevio, L. K.
(2006). Bad apples in bad barrels revisited: Cognitive
moral development, just world beliefs, rewards, and
ethical decision-making. Business Ethics Quarterly,
16(4), 449 473.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building
the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managing across
borders: The transnational solution (2nd ed.). Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Towards a

social psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B., Ackerman, P., Buckey, T., &
Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of
altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 290 302.
Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L., & Scherer,
A. G. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility
in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal
of Business Ethics, 115(4), 693705.
Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravander, J., & Tuttle, M.
(1987). A behavioral model of ethical and unethical
decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 265
280.
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998).
Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network
perspective. Academy of Management Review,
23(1), 14 31.
Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Winwin
win: The influence of company-sponsored volunteerism
programs on employees, NGOs, and business
units. Personnel Psychology, 66, 825 860.
Cameron, K., & Caza, A. (2005). Developing strategies and
skills for responsible leadership. In J. P. Doh & S. A.
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 249

Stumpf (Eds.), Handbook on responsible leadership

and governance in global business (pp. 87111).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive
organizational scholarship. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler
Publishers.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational
stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),
39 48.
Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship.
Business and Society Review, 100/101, 17.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. (2011). Business and society:
Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management
(8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage
Learning.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case
for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts,
research and practice. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 85105.
Cetindamar, D., & Husoy, K. (2007). Corporate social
responsibility practices and environmentally responsible
behavior: The case of the United Nations
Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2),
163176.

Chatman, J., & Cha, S. (2003). Leading by leveraging

culture. California Management Review, 45(4), 20
34.
Chen, A. Y. S., Sawyers, R. B., & Williams, P. F. (1997).
Reinforcing ethical decision-making through corporate
culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 855
865.
Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility
converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility
reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany.
Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 299 317.
Chiu, S., & Sharfman, M. P. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility,
and the antecedents of corporate social performance:
An investigation of instrumental perspective. Journal
of Management, 37(6), 1558 1585.
Collins, J. D., Uhlenbruck, K., & Rodriguez, P. (2009).
Why firms engage in corruption: A top management
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 89
108.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007). Business ethics: Managing
corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of
globalization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Crilly, D., Schneider, S. C., & Zollo, M. (2008). Psychological
antecedents to socially responsible behavior.
European Management Review, 5, 175190.

Crook, C. (2005, January 22). The good companya survey

of corporate social responsibility. Economist,
114. Available at http://www.economist.com/
node/3577141
Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation
a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 23(2), 44 56.
Dickson, M. A., & Eckman, M. (2008). Media portrayal of
voluntary public reporting about corporate social responsibility
performance: Does coverage encourage
or discourage ethical management? Journal of Business
Ethics, 83, 725743.
Dietz, J., & Kleinlogel, E. P. (2013). Wage cuts and managers
empathy: How a positive emotion can contribute
to positive organizational ethics in difficult
times. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 283299.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2004). Globalization and corporate
social responsibility: How nongovernmental
organizations influence labor and environmental
codes of conduct. Management International Review,
44(3), 730.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility,
public policy, and NGO activism in Europe
and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder

perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1),

4773.
Doh, J. P., & Teegen, H. (2002). Nongovernmental organizations
as institutional actors in international business:
Theory and implications. International Business
Review, 11(6), 665 684.
Donaldson, T. (1996). Values in tension: Ethics away
from home. Harvard Business Review, 74, 48 62.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory
of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 65
91.
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and
behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665
697.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom
line of 21st-century business. Oxford, UK: Capstone.
European Foundation for Management Development
(2005). Globally responsible leadership: A call for
engagement. Available at http://www.grli.org/index.
php/resources
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior: An introduction to theory and

research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fraedrich, J. P., & Ferrell, O. C. (1992). The impact of
perceived risk and moral philosophy type on ethical
250 The Academy of Management Perspectives August
decision-making in business organizations. Journal
of Business Research, 24, 283295.
Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender
differences in ethical perceptions of business practices:
A social role theory perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(6), 920 934.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409 421.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder
theory and The corporate objective revisited.
Organization Science, 15(3), 364 369.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility
of business is to increase its profits. New
York Times Magazine. Available at http://www.
colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/
friedman-soc-resp-business.html
Fry, L. W., & Slocum, J. W. (2008). Maximizing the triple
bottom line through spiritual leadership. Organizational
Dynamics, 37(1), 86 96.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying
good management practices. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 4, 7591.

Googins, B. K., Mirvis, P. H., & Rochlin, S. A. (2007).
Beyond good company: Next generation corporate
citizenship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Green, S., & Weber, J. (1997). Influencing ethical development:
Exposing students to the AICPA code of
conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 777790.
Haines, R., & Leonard, L. N. K. (2007). Situational influences
on ethical decision making in an IT context.
Information Management, 44, 313320.
Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1978). Some determinants
of unethical decision behavior: An experiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 451
457.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific
study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management,
23(3), 409 473.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social
responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic
and institutional approaches. Journal of International
Business Studies, 37(6), 838 849.
Islam, M. A., & Deegan, C. (2010). Media pressures and
corporate disclosure of social responsibility performance
information: A study of two global clothing
and sports retail companies. Accounting and Business

Research, 40(2), 131148.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals
in organizations: An issue-contingent model.
Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366 395.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A
synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management
Review, 20, 404 437.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job
attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1),
126 138.
Kakabadse, N., Rozuel, C., & Lee-Davis, L. (2005). Corporate
social responsibility and stakeholder approach:
A conceptual review. International Journal of Business
Governance and Ethics, 1(4), 277302.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B.
(2010). Ethical leader behavior and Big Five factors
of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2),
349 366.
Kant, I. (1991). The metaphysics of morals. In M. Gregor
(Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. (Original work published 1797).
Kell, G. (2005). The Global Compact selected experiences

and reflections. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(12),

69 79.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006).
Empathy and the emergence of task and relation
leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 146 162.
Kelly, G. (2013). 12 years later: Reflections on the growth
of the UN Global Compact. Business and Society,
52(1), 3152.
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands:
The social transformation of American business
schools and the unfulfilled promise of management
as a profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevio, L. K.
(2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Metaanalytic
evidence about sources of unethical decisions
at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1),
131.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development:
Essays on moral development. San Francisco:
Harper & Row.
Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility.
Harvard Business Review, 4150.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive
organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 6, 695706.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership
in a stakeholder societya relational perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99 115.
Margolis, J. D., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Do well by
doing good? Dont count on it. Harvard Business
Review, 86, 19 20.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves com2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 251
panies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 48, 268 305.
Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and
extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175194.
Martin, K. D., Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Parboteeah,
K. P. (2007). Deciding to bribe: A cross-level analysis
of firm and home country influences on bribery activity.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(6),
14011422.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit
CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding
of corporate social responsibility. Academy
of Management Review, 33(2), 404 424.
McCloskey, D. (1998). The rhetoric of economics. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). Smartest guys in the

room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron.
New York: Portfolio/Penguin.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social
responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 26, 117127.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York:
Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at
the soft practice of managing and management development.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Mirvis, P. (2008). Executive development through consciousness-raising
experiences. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 7, 173188.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning
reconceptualization of personality. Psychological
Review, 80(4), 252283.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the
person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 122.
Miska, C., Stahl, G. K., & Fuchs, M. (2014). Unethical
managerial behavior: The moderating roles of moral
intensity and situational strength. Presented at the
74th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
August 15, Philadelphia.
Miska, C., Stahl, G. K., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2013).

Intercultural competencies as antecedents of responsible

global leadership. European Journal of International
Management, 7(5), 550 569.
Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The role of moral
intensity in moral judgments: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 715726.
Muller, A. R., Pfarrer, M. D., & Little, L. M. (2014). A
theory of collective empathy in corporate philanthropy
decisions. Academy of Management Review,
39, 121.
Munchus, G. (1989). Testing as a selection tool: Another
old and sticky managerial human rights issue. Journal
of Business Ethics, 8(10), 817 820.
Nelson, G., & Gilbertson, D. (1991). Machiavellianism
revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(8), 633 639.
Northouse, P. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OFallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of
the empirical ethical decision-making literature:
1996 2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375 413.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate
social and financial performance: A metaanalysis.
Organization Studies, 24(3), 403 441.
Pavlovich, K., & Krahnke, K. (2012). Empathy, connectedness,
and organization. Journal of Business Ethics,

105, 131137.
Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. (2011). Thick as thieves: The
effects of ethical orientation and psychological
safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(2), 401 411.
Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. (2003). What
stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly,
13(4), 479 502.
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2009). Responsible leaders as
agents of world benefit: Learnings from Project
Ulysses. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 59 71.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing
responsible global leaders through international service
learning programs: The Ulysses experience.
Academy of Management Learning and Education,
10(2), 237260.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2012). Promoting
corporate social responsibility and sustainable development
through management development: What
can be learned from international service learning
programs? Human Resource Management, 51, 873
903.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Waldman, D. A. (2012). Different
approaches toward doing the right thing: Mapping
the responsibility orientations of leaders. Academy

of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 51 65.

Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value.
Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 6277.
Rest, J. (1986). Development in judging moral issues.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the
situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Sadri, G., Weber, T. J., & Gentry, W. A. (2011). Empathic
emotion and leadership performance: An empirical
analysis across 38 countries. Leadership Quarterly,
22, 818 830.
Scharff, M. M. (2005). Understanding WorldComs ac252 The Academy of Management Perspectives August
counting fraud: Did groupthink play a role? Journal
of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 109
118.
Schminke, M., & Wells, D. (1999). Group processes and
performance and their effects on individuals ethical
framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 367381.
Schneider, S. C., Barsoux, J.-L., & Stahl, G. K. (2014).
Managing across cultures. Essex, UK: Pearson/
Financial Times.
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social
responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503530.

Scroggins, W. A., Thomas, S. L., & Morris, J. A. (2009).
Psychological testing in personnel selection, part III:
The resurgence of personality testing. Public Personnel
Management, 38(1), 6777.
Shapeero, M. P., Koh, H. C., & Killough, L. N. (2003).
Underreporting and premature sign-off in public accounting.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(6/7),
478 489.
Sims, R. R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethical behavior
in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics,
11(9), 651 662.
Spencer, J., & Gomez, C. (2011). MNEs and corruption:
The impact of national institutions and subsidiary
strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 280
300.
Stahl, G. K., Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2013). Responsible
global leadership. In M. Mendenhall, J. Osland, A.
Bird, G. Oddou, M. Maznevski, & G. K. Stahl (Eds.),
Global leadership: Research, practice and development
(2nd ed.) (pp. 240 259). London: Routledge.
Sternberg, E. (2000). Just business. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Street, M. D. (1995). Cognitive moral development and
organizational commitment: Two potential predictors

of whistle-blowing. Journal of Applied Business

Research, 11(4), 104 110.
Sully de Luque, M. F., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A.,
& House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder
and economic values relate to subordinates
perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 53, 626 654.
Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate
objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3),
350 363.
Tang, L. (2011). Media discourse of corporate social responsibility
in China: A content analysis of newspapers.
Asian Journal of Communication, 22(3), 270
288.
Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations
of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma:
The role of incentives and temptation. Academy of
Management Journal, 41(3), 330.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning
systems, decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(4), 684 707.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical
decision-making: Where weve been and where
were going. Academy of Management Annals, 2,
545 607.

Trevio, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations:

A person-situation interactionist model.
Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601 617.
Trevio, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in
organizations: A justice perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 17(4), 647 676.
Trevio, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A
qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical
leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside
the executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 537.
Trevio, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational
justice and ethics program follow-through: Influences
on employees harmful and helpful behavior.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4), 651 671.
Trevio, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Brown, M. E. (2008). Its
lovely at the top: Hierarchical levels, identities, and
perceptions of organizational ethics. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 18(2), 233253.
Trevio, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006).
Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal
of Management, 32, 951990.
Trevio, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in
bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decisionmaking
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75(4), 378 385.

Vickers, M. R. (2005). Business ethics and the HR role:

Past, present, and future. Human Resource Planning,
28, 26 32.
Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M., & 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), 116.
Vogel, D. (1992). The globalizations of business ethics:
Why America remains distinctive. California Management
Review, Fall, 30 49.
Waldman, D. A., Sully de Luque, M. F., Washburn, N., &
House, R. J. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors
of corporate social responsibility values of top
management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal
of International Business Studies, 37, 823 837.
Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative
perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational
Dynamics, 37(4), 327341.
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 253
Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially
responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117
131.
Weber, J., & Gillespie, J. (1998). Differences in ethical
beliefs, intentions, and behaviors: The role of beliefs
and intentions in ethics research revisited. Business

and Society, 37(4), 447 467.

Witt, M. A., & Redding, G. (2012). The spirits of corporate
social responsibility: Senior executive perceptions
of the role of the firm in society in Germany, Hong
Kong, Japan, South Korea and the USA. Socio-Economic
Review, 10(1), 109 134.
Woo, C. Y. (2010). Implementing the United Nations
Global Compact. In A. Rasche & G. Kell (Eds.), The
United Nations Global Compact: Achievements,
trends and challenges (pp. 115143). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations