Advertisement

Theoretical Development and Empirical Examination of a Three-Roles Model of Responsible Leadership

  • Christian VoegtlinEmail author
  • Colina Frisch
  • Andreas Walther
  • Pascale Schwab
Original Paper

Abstract

This article develops theory on responsible leadership based on a model involving three leadership roles: an expert who displays organizational expertise, a facilitator who cares for and motivates employees and a citizen who considers the consequences of her or his decisions for society. It draws on previous responsible leadership research, stakeholder theory and theories of behavioral complexity to conceptualize the roles model of responsible leadership. Responsible leadership is positioned as a concept that requires leaders to show behavioral complexity in addressing all three roles. In three studies, we provide a first empirical test of antecedents and outcomes of the roles model of responsible leadership. The results of the studies indicate that responsible leadership is positively related to the leader’s perceived effectiveness, favorable stakeholder evaluations and employee engagement with the organization and society. Responsible leadership behavior, in turn, seems to be facilitated by leader empathy, positive affect and universal value orientation.

Keywords

Responsible leadership Stakeholder engagement Leadership complexity Micro-foundation of CSR Leader effectiveness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Yehuda Baruch and William McKinley for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper and Daniella Laureiro-Martinez for helpful insights into the think aloud method.

Funding

We acknowledge the financial support by the Swiss National Science Foundation for the projects “Making Responsible Leadership Relevant: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure” (100018_149937) and “When individuals become social innovators: Investigating social innovative behavior and its individual and contextual preconditions” (100010_165699).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10551_2019_4155_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, J., & Wilson, M. (2005). Foundations of responsible leadership: From self-insight to integrity and altruism. In J. P. Doh & S. A. Stumpf (Eds.), Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global business (pp. 137–156). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  4. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.Google Scholar
  6. Barbuto, J., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326.Google Scholar
  7. Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F. O. P., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 101–122.Google Scholar
  8. Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1), 67–92.Google Scholar
  9. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Bobko, P., & Schwartz, J. P. (1984). A metric for integrating theoretically related but statistically uncorrelated constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(1), 11–16.Google Scholar
  11. Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: Cross-cultural research and methodology series, 8 (pp. 137–164). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. 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(2), 117–134.Google Scholar
  14. Bzdok, D., Schilbach, L., Vogeley, K., Schneider, K., Laird, A. R., Langner, R., et al. (2012). Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality, theory of mind, and empathy. Brain Structure & Function, 217(4), 783–796.Google Scholar
  15. Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315–344.Google Scholar
  16. Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267–277.Google Scholar
  17. Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Trevino, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232.Google Scholar
  18. Choi, I., Koo, M., & Jong, A. C. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691–705.Google Scholar
  19. Ciulla, J. B. (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport: Quorum.Google Scholar
  20. Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  21. Coates, J. M., Gurnell, M., & Rustichini, A. (2009). Second-to-fourth digit ratio predicts success among high-frequency financial traders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(2), 623–628.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.Google Scholar
  23. De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311.Google Scholar
  24. Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540.Google Scholar
  25. Doh, J. P., & Quigley, N. R. (2014). Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 255–274.Google Scholar
  26. Doh, J. P., Stumpf, S. A., & Tymon, W. G. (2011). Responsible leadership helps retain talent in India. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 85–100.Google Scholar
  27. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  28. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.Google Scholar
  29. Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Ericsson, A. (2003). Valid and non-reactive verbalization of thoughts during performance of tasks towards a solution to the central problems of introspection as a source of scientific data. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 1–18.Google Scholar
  31. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, revised. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  33. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970. Google Scholar
  34. Frisch, C., & Huppenbauer, M. (2014). New insights into ethical leadership: A qualitative investigation of the experiences of executive ethical leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 23–43.Google Scholar
  35. Frith, C. D., & Singer, T. (2008). The role of social cognition in decision making. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 363(1511), 3875–3886.Google Scholar
  36. Green, M. C., Visser, P. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Coping with accountability cross-pressures: Low-effort evasive tactics and high-effort quests for complex compromises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1380–1391.Google Scholar
  37. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2016). Ambidexterity for corporate social performance. Organization Studies, 37(2), 213–235.Google Scholar
  38. Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Peng, A. C., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 220–238.Google Scholar
  39. Haque, A., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2017). The relationship between responsible leadership and organisational commitment and the mediating effect of employee turnover intentions: An empirical study with Australian employees. Journal of Business Ethics, online first.Google Scholar
  40. Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 264–280.Google Scholar
  41. He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.Google Scholar
  42. Hernandez, M. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 172–193.Google Scholar
  43. Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23(3), 375–408.Google Scholar
  44. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal rheory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–339.Google Scholar
  45. Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Thinking and managing: A verbal protocol analysis of managerial problem solving. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 775–788.Google Scholar
  46. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.Google Scholar
  47. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.Google Scholar
  48. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51.Google Scholar
  49. Kaiser, R. B., Lindberg, J. T., & Craig, S. B. (2007). Assessing the flexibility of managers: A comparison of methods. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 40–55.Google Scholar
  50. Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der “Positive and Negative Affect Schedule” (PANAS). Diagnostica, 42(2), 139–156.Google Scholar
  51. Laureiro-Martínez, D., & Brusoni, S. (2016). Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision-making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Working Paper, ETH Zurich, Zurich.Google Scholar
  52. Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P., & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 87–102.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, K. and Ashton, M. C. (2015). The HEXACO personality inventoryRevised. Retrieved January 23, 2018, from http://hexaco.org/scaledescriptions.
  54. Liden, R., Wayne, S., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. (2013). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452.Google Scholar
  55. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.Google Scholar
  56. Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99–115.Google Scholar
  57. Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2009). Business leaders as citizens of the world. Advancing humanism on a global scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 537–550.Google Scholar
  58. Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Voegtlin, C. (2016). Business statesman or shareholder advocate? CEO responsible leadership styles and the micro-foundations of political CSR. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 463–493.Google Scholar
  59. Merton, R. K. (1957). The role-set: Problems in sociological theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 8(2), 106–120.Google Scholar
  60. Miska, C., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2018). Responsible leadership: A mapping of extant research and future directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 117–134.Google Scholar
  61. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–301.Google Scholar
  62. Patzer, M., Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2018). The normative justification of integrative stakeholder engagement: A Habermasian view on responsible leadership. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(3), 325–354.Google Scholar
  63. Paulus, C. (2009). Der Saarbrücker Persönlichkeitsfragebogen SPF (IRI) zur Messung von Empathie: Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschen Version des Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
  64. 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 & Education, 10(2), 237–260.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Rahman, A., Lophatananon, A., Stewart-Brown, S., Harriss, D., Anderson, J., Parker, T., et al. (2011). Hand pattern indicates prostate cancer risk. British Journal of Cancer, 104(1), 175–177.Google Scholar
  67. Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974.Google Scholar
  68. Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 389–400.Google Scholar
  69. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 259–284.Google Scholar
  70. Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016). Managing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 273–298.Google Scholar
  71. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101(4), 632–652.Google Scholar
  72. Schneider, A., Wickert, C., & Marti, E. (2017). Reducing complexity by creating complexity: A systems theory perspective on how organizations respond to their environments. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 182–208.Google Scholar
  73. Schultheiss, O. C., Wirth, M. M., & Stanton, S. J. (2004). Effects of affiliation and power motivation arousal on salivary progesterone and testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 46(5), 592–599.Google Scholar
  74. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–891.Google Scholar
  76. Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424.Google Scholar
  77. Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research (English). Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(6), 855–863.Google Scholar
  78. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  79. Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., & Hobfoll, S. E. (1986). Effects of social support and battle intensity on loneliness and breakdown during combat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1269–1276.Google Scholar
  80. Stahl, G. K., & Sully de Luque, M. (2014). Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: A research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 235–254.Google Scholar
  81. Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire, form XII. Columbus: Fischer College of Business: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  82. Sully de Luque, M., 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(4), 626–654.Google Scholar
  83. Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accountability theory: Mixing properties of human agents with properties of social systems. In J. Levine, L. Thompson, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 117–137). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  84. Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B., & Burton, R. M. (2017). Research design for mixed methods: A Triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 243–267.Google Scholar
  85. Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249–267.Google Scholar
  86. Voegtlin, C. (2011). Development of a scale measuring discursive responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(Sup. 1), 57–73.Google Scholar
  87. Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M., & Scherer, A. G. (2012). Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership an its multi-level outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  88. Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 327–341.Google Scholar
  89. Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 117–131.Google Scholar
  90. Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1703–1725.Google Scholar
  91. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.Google Scholar
  92. Witt, M. A., & Stahl, G. K. (2016). Foundations of responsible leadership: Asian versus Western executive responsibility orientations toward key stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 623–638.Google Scholar
  93. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Voegtlin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Colina Frisch
    • 2
  • Andreas Walther
    • 3
    • 4
  • Pascale Schwab
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Business & SocietyAudencia Business SchoolNantesFrance
  2. 2.Institute for Business EthicsUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Biological PsychologyTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Clinical Psychology and PsychotherapyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations