Arthur J. Schwartz
Rare is the student leader who has not had to make an ethical decision. Sometimes the situation will involve a close friend who has suddenly asked the student leader to look the other way. Other times the situation focuses squarely on the resolve and willpower of the student leader to do the right thing even if no one else is involved. Yet what do we know about how best to equip our student leaders to be ethical?
In recent years, there has been a verifiable explosion of attention given to the topic of ethical leadership. Scholars across many disciplines are beginning to conceptually map and empirically study the antecedents and outcomes of the ethical leader. Much has been discovered. Regrettably, and as I argue in the final section, most of what scholars have learned has yet to inform the thousands of educators who work with college or high school student leaders.
This chapter has five purposes. First, drawing on almost 2 decades of scholarship, I identify the core behaviors of the ethical leader. Second, I highlight what empirical data suggest are the benefits and positive outcomes associated with being an ethical leader. Third, I examine the multiplicity of reasons why leaders do not always act ethically. Fourth, I strive to answer the question: What motivates or inspires someone to be an ethical leader? Finally, I offer five recommendations to help college and high school educators integrate the practices of ethical leadership into their work with student leaders.
The Behaviors of the Ethical Leader
Based on nearly 2 decades of research, Linda Trevino and her colleagues have identified five core behaviors of the ethical leader (Brown & Trevino, 2006; Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005; Trevino, Hartman, & Brown, 2000):
- Integrityāthe ethical leader is honest and trustworthy (āwalks the talkā).
- Fairnessāthe ethical leader is transparent and does not play favorites.
- Communicates ethical standardsāthe ethical leader finds ways to explain and promote the ethical standards of the group as well as holds others in the group accountable for their own ethical behavior.
- Care and concern for othersāthe ethical leader treats everyone with respect and dignity (see also Resick, Hanges, Dickson, & Mitchelson, 2006).
- Shares powerāthe ethical leader listens to everyone's ideas and offers members a real voice (see also De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008).
It is critical to underscore the importance of individual differences when it comes to these five dimensions of the ethical leader. For example, student leaders may show a tremendous level of care and concern for all the members in their organization, but they may lack the highest levels of reliability and trustworthiness, because they overcommit and overpromise. Other student leaders may be exceedingly fair and principled when it comes to decision making, but they may have difficulty sharing power and giving others in their group a real voice.
Most significantly, student leaders may have difficulty holding others in the group accountable for their own ethical behavior. For a variety of reasons, many of which are discussed later in this chapter, it may be far easier for student leaders to personally model honesty and fairness than for them to proactively and consistently communicate (and defend) the ethical standards of their team or organization.
The five behaviors of ethical leadership are easier to practice in the professional context. For example, leaders in businesses and nonprofits can make ethics an explicit part of their leadership style and agenda (Trevino, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). They can experiment with the most effective ways to communicate and reinforce how essential it is for everyone in the organization to be honest, fair, and respectful. Business and nonprofit leaders can develop and implement tangible initiatives to reward positive ethical behavior, sharing power, or consistently showing care and concern for others (such as linking promotions to these core behaviors of ethical leadership). Moreover, leaders in the professional world can demonstrate to followers their willingness to discipline individuals who have failed to follow or abide by the clear and explicit ethical standards of the organization. Each of these concrete practices and steps may be difficult for a student leader to implement or embody, even if they are in positions of responsibility (such as a sports captain or the president of a fraternity or sorority).
Along an ethical continuum, Trevino and Brown (2004) identified four types of leaders. Some leaders are simply unethical. These leaders practice none of the behaviors described previously. Other leaders are hypocritical; although they may talk a good game (ethically speaking), the words of these leaders serve only to mask their self-interest and narcissism. Probably the most common type is the ethically silent leader. These leaders are fiercely honest and principled; however, they find it difficultāif not impossibleāto communicate or defend their ethical standards to others in the group or organization. Finally, there is the ethical leader, the individual who consistently practices all five of the positive behaviors.
The Benefits of Ethical Leadership
Over the past decade researchers have identified an impressive range of empirical outcomes associated with the behaviors and practices of ethical leaders. The bottom line is unmistakably clear: the ethical leader is a more effective leader. When leaders are honest, fair, principled, and trustworthy there are real and tangible benefits for their group, team, or organization. Consider the following benefits of becoming an ethical leader. Your team members will:
- trust more,
- be more committed and exert extra effort,
- be less cynical,
- exhibit less counterproductive behavior,
- be more willing to report problems, and
- bully less.
Much of the research on the benefits of ethical leadership is grounded in social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), which suggests that followers learn what to do (or not to do) by modeling the behaviors of those in positions of responsibility, authority, or leadership. In short, we learn what is ethical by listening to and observing othersāwhether it's our parents and siblings, peers and friends, teachers in our schools, or supervisors in an organizational setting. Social learning theory helps us to understand why it is so critical for ethical leaders, including student leaders on our college campuses, to model ethical behaviors and reinforce the ethical standards of their group, team, or organization.
Why Leaders Do Not Always Act Ethically
At one time or another, all of us have fallen down the āethical slippery slope.ā No one is an ethical saint. Researchers have recently been investigating the reasons why we are not always ethical (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Trevino, 2010). In some cases, it is nothing more than having insufficient knowledge or a lack of awareness (e.g., I didn't know personal calls were not allowed). There are those times, of course, when our self-interest overpowers or trumps our ethical standards (e.g., I cheated on the test because I was afraid of failing). Research suggests, however, that peer pressure is the most significant reason why college students do not always act in an ethical manner (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001).
Historically, colleges and universities have sought to increase the ethical reasoning skills of students as a way to increase the studentsā ethical behavior (Kiss & Euben, 2010). Recent research, however, has shown that there is only a modest correlation between ethical reasoning and ethical behavior (Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008). The problem is not that we cannot make an ethical distinction; it is that we do not have the courage or inner strength to act on what we know is the right course of action (Gentile, 2010).
The research also suggests that context is critical to ethical decisions and actions. Not all ethical situations are created equal. Some situations may evoke a strong ethical response (e.g., I could never steal from a member of my family), whereas other situations will fail to elicit such a visceral reaction. In 1991, Thomas Jones examined the āmoral intensityā we give (or do not give) to any ethical sit...
