The Ethics of Leadership

1. AUTHENTICITY, DAVID W. LEHMAN, KIERAN O’CONNOR,

University of Virginia, BALAZS KOVACS and GEORGE E.
NEWMAN, Yale University

In short, there indeed exists a general consensus among scholars in

the social and behavioural sciences that authentic entities—whether
they are individuals, collectives, or objects—“are what they appear
to be or are claimed to be” (Trilling, 1972: 92).
The first meaning is rooted in foundational philosophical works
ranging from the Ancient Greeks to the Existentialists, as well as
classic mid-century scholarship on impression management. It
interprets authenticity as consistency between an entity’s internal
values and its external expressions; the second meaning interprets
authenticity as conformity of an entity to the norms of its social
category; the third meaning interprets authenticity as connection
between an entity and a person, place, or time as claimed.
Consistency: For example, Socrates emphasized the importance of
self-understanding and reflection: “The unexamined life is not worth
living.” Aristotle, on the other hand, focused on the importance of
action but, even here, the emphasis was on living in accordance with
one’s daimon or “true self”. Indeed, achieving consistency between
one’s actions and true self was critical for achieving eudaimonia or
“happiness” and a virtuous life. Such ideas created ripples
throughout history in later philosophical works.
Whereas past societies lived according to a set of shared values, such
as religions or other traditions that guided individuals toward
appropriate action and a meaningful life, individuals in modern
societies with fewer commonly shared values have turned inward
toward themselves in search of meaning.
The common thread across each of the three themes discussed
below is a concern with consistency between the “front” and “back”
stages. Each assumes that the backstage represents the “true self,”
whereas the front stage may or may not be an accurate portrayal of
it.
Self-Concept: For example, authenticity has been defined as “the
unobstructed operation of one’s true, or core, self”, “behavior that is
phenomenally experienced as being authored by the self”, alignment
of “our internal experiences with our external expressions”, “act[ing]
in accordance with one’s own sense of self, emotions, and values”,
and, more simply, “that sense of ‘who we really are’”.
A number of different factors have been shown to give rise to the
feeling that one is acting in accordance with her true self. Most
commonly, scholars have considered how different psychological
states prompt such feelings; for example, high levels of nostalgia,
power, positive mood (the suppression of negative moods has the
opposite effect), autonomy and attachment security, among others,
all enhance feelings of authenticity.
However, one notable point of unsettled debate is the nature of the
true self over time: Is it constant or evolving? As reflected by the
measurement scales of authenticity most commonly used within this
theme, several scholars suggest that the true self is constant, akin to
a personality trait, whereas others would suggest that it is a state
that is prone to develop or change over time. The evidence is not
entirely clear on the issue. The dominant view, at least in Western
cultures, is that the true self is essentialized and, as such, to be
‘discovered’ rather than created through an effort of will.”
Self-Presentation: Research within this second theme focuses
primarily on the front stage of the self. Scholars within this theme
acknowledge the many apparent advantages of consistency be-
tween the front and backstages of the self; at the same time,
however, they also emphasize that social and organizational
pressures often compel individuals to present themselves in ways
that are misaligned with their true selves.
Although it has been defined in various subtly different ways, those
who developed the most commonly used measure (i.e., Authentic
Leadership Questionnaire) define it as “a pattern of leader behavior
that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities
and a positive ethical climate to foster greater self-awareness, an
internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information,
and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with
followers, fostering positive self-development.”
The vast majority of scholars have sought to demonstrate the range
of positive outcomes of it. Early studies focused on individual-level
benefits for followers, including both psychological outcomes such as
well-being, psychological capital, trust in and satisfaction with the
leader and even authentic followership and behavioral outcomes
such as increased job performance, helping and other extra-role
behaviors and ethical decision-making.
Responding to calls for multilevel research, more recent studies have
demonstrated team-level benefits such as productivity, commitment,
ethical climate and workplace inclusion. In short, leaders perceived
as authentic appear to engender a host of positive outcomes for
individuals and teams.
Although authentic leadership has enjoyed a great deal of positive
attention among leadership scholars over the past decade, it has also
faced two specific critiques. First, the conceptual and empirical
distinctions between it and other forms of positive leadership,
ethical, responsible and servant leadership, among others, have
been less than clear. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis concluded that
“the relationship between authentic and transformational leadership
is large in magnitude, suggesting construct redundancy.”
Second, the inherent ethical component of the construct has raised
concerns by some scholars. Although some would argue that this
ethical component is part of “the point” in studying positive
organizational behavior, others would argue that “authenticity is not
intrinsically ethical” and that the two have been confounded.
AUTHENTICITY AS CONFORMITY
According to this second meaning, an entity is authentic to the
extent that it conforms to the social category to which it has been
assigned or that it has claimed for itself. Returning again to the
questions posed earlier, deliberations about whether or not last
night’s symphonic orchestra was true to the genre of classical music,
if the hosts of your most recent dinner party poured real Barolo wine
or if your favourite eatery down the street really serves traditional
Thai cuisine would all be invoking this meaning of authenticity. In
short, the referent at the root of an authenticity attribution
according to this meaning can be found outside of the entity: Is it
acting in accordance with the norms and expectations of its social
category?
The most straightforward definition of authenticity as conformity:
“Authenticity reflects a concern with correct classification” and, as
such, an entity “is an authentic X if it is an instance or member of the
class of Xs.”
AUTHENTICITY AS CONNECTION
According to this third meaning, an entity is authentic to the extent
that it is connected to a person, place, or time as claimed. In short,
the referent at the root of an authenticity attribution according to
this meaning can also be found outside of the entity but, here, is a
specific person, place, or time: Is the entity connected to it as
claimed?
Consider, for example, a sweater worn by Hitler or a faux-pearl
necklace once belonging to Jaqueline Onassis. “One does not
become Hitler by wearing his sweater; one does not become Jackie
O. by wearing her pearls. Rather, you possess a bit of their being”,
perhaps like carrying strands of hair in a locket, or keeping fragments
of saints’ bones. Such matters of essence and contagion are
foundational for the notion of authenticity as connection.

2. TAKING STOCK OF MORAL APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP: AN

INTEGRATIVE REVIEW OF ETHICAL, AUTHENTIC AND SERVANT
LEADERSHIP, G. JAMES LEMOINE, University at Buffalo—The
State University of New York, CHAD A. HARTNELL, Georgia
State University. HANNES LEROY, Erasmus Universiteit
Rotterdam.
A vast focal shift has swept the field of leadership research in the
21st century. Whereas scholars had previously argued that
leadership could not or should not be concerned with issues of
ethics and morality, the moral nature of leaders is now seen by
many as not only necessary for the good of society but also
essential for sustainable organizational success.
These “moral contents” reflect the three major approaches to
normative morality proposed by the moral philosophy literature:
servant leadership’s emphasis on stakeholder outcomes is
congruent with moral consequentialist theory, ethical leadership’s
focus on norms and standards aligns with deontology’s core
precepts and authentic leadership’s foundation in the leader’s
self-awareness and moral courage is consonant with the most
critical elements of the virtue ethics approach.
We first review ethical, authentic, and servant leadership’s
conceptual foundations. Next, we review the empirical literature
to assess whether it corresponds with theoretical distinctions. We
then identify theoretical refinements through reviewing the moral
moorings that underpin each form of moral leadership. Drawing
on these three components of our review, we discuss the
implications of theoretical refinement for the future of ethical,
authentic, and servant leadership research as well as offer insight
into how all three moral forms of leadership can contribute
uniquely to our understanding of moral leadership in the
workplace.
Ethical Leadership—A Focus on Compliance with Normative
Standards
Ethical leadership is defined as “the demonstration of normatively
appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal
relationships and the promotion of such conduct to followers
through two-way communication, reinforcement and decision-
making”
An ethical leader acts both as a “moral person”, maintaining
fairness and honesty in relationships with subordinates, and as a
“moral manager,” demonstrating and reinforcing desired and
normatively appropriate behaviors. Predicated on these
conceptual foundations, the framers of ethical leadership posited
that ethical leaders are credible role models who emulate desired
ethical attitudes and behaviors for subordinates and provide
rewards for ethical conduct and consequences for “those who
don’t follow the standards”.
James Burke—classic example of ethical leadership: In 1982,
seven people died after taking cyanide-laced extra-strength
Tylenol capsules sold in five Chicago stores. Before that happened,
Tylenol, sold by J&J’s McNeil Consumer Products division, had
35% of the $1.2 billion analgesic market. After the deaths, J&J’s
market share dropped to 7%. Under Burke’s leadership, the
company spent $100 million to recall 31 million bottles of Tylenol
and re-launched the product two months later in tamper-proof
packaging. Burke not only saved the reputation of the company,
but he also saved the brand as well. By mid-1983, Tylenol’s share
of the analgesic market had climbed to 30%, reaching 35% by the
end of the year.
Burke emphasized the value of the J&J credo, dating back to the
company’s founding in 1887, which stated that the company is
responsible first to its customers, then to its employees, the
community and the stockholders, in that order. “The credo is all
about the consumer,” Burke said. When those seven deaths
occurred, “the credo made it very clear at that point exactly what
we were all about. It gave me the ammunition I needed to
persuade shareholders and others to spend the $100 million on
the recall. The credo helped sell it.”
Authentic Leadership—A Focus on Self-Awareness and Moral
Self-Concordance
Authentic leaders are described as individuals who value a
salience of self over role, persons who have achieved high levels
of authenticity in that they know who they are, what they believe
and value, and they act on those values and beliefs while
transparently interacting with others. Authentic leaders, thus,
make moral judgments freely and independently, without concern
for potentially opposing normative or external social pressures.
Authentic leadership is composed of four dimensions: self-
awareness (i.e. knowing oneself), balanced processing (i.e.,
objectively thinking through both sides of issues), relational
transparency (i.e., acting in accordance with one’s true nature
rather than contrived or fake manners), and an internalized moral
perspective (i.e., moral self-regulation and behaving in accordance
with these moral values). Howard Schultz-great example.
Servant Leadership—A Focus on Multiple Stakeholders
Robert Greenleaf defined servant leadership as: “The servant-
leader is servant first... the difference manifests itself in the care
taken... to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs
are being served... × Do those served grow as persons? Do they,
while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more
autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And,
what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they
benefit or at least not be further deprived?”
“A style of leadership which emphasizes leader behaviors that
focus on follower development, and de-emphasizing glorification
of the leader”, “a model that identifies serving others – including
employees, customers, and community – as the number-one
priority.”
Such similarity among the three constructs raises questions about
their distinctiveness: if all three predict similar outcomes via
similar mediators, to what degree are three separate constructs
necessary? Furthermore, if these outcomes and mediators are
similar to those found in research on more goal-focused and less
ethics-centric forms of leadership, what makes moral leadership
uniquely important?
Among the moral approaches to leadership, ethical leadership is
unique in its use of rewards and punishments to hold followers
accountable for organizational standards and values. Ethical
leadership’s novel focus on compliance with normative standards
is exemplified by the item “[my manager] disciplines employees
who violate ethical standards.”
Authentic leaders uniquely demonstrate self-awareness and
actively seek feedback for personal growth. These behaviors are
consistent with the theoretical importance of self-awareness and
self-regulation to authentic leadership and are evidenced by items
such as “[my manager] solicits views that challenge his or her
deeply held positions.”
A novel aspect of servant leadership is that it is attentive to and
creates valued outcomes for multiple stakeholders internal and
external to the organization. This focus is operationally
exemplified by dimensions that reference creating value for
others, and items such as “My manager is always interested in
helping people in our community.”
Authentic, ethical, and servant leadership are all, in general terms,
moral. Each, however, uses a markedly distinct theoretical
approach to normative morality (or the question of what is good
and right, and what is not.
Servant Leadership: A Consequentialist Focus on Multiple
Stakeholders
Servant leadership’s multiple stakeholder emphasis, thus, extends
a leader’s concern beyond the traditional focus on employees or
the organization to include the well-being of external stakeholders
such as customers and communities. Consequentialism, one of the
three major theories of normative philosophy (or perspectives on
how individuals choose what is right and what is wrong: it argues
that what makes an attitude or behavior moral is how it impacts
the good of the world (Moore, 1903). As the name suggests,
consequentialism mandates examining the consequences of
actions, and from there determining whether actions are morally
appropriate. It is these consequences, rather than expectations,
norms, standards, or personal benefit that determines morality.
The similarities between consequentialism and Greenleaf’s (1977)
conceptualization of servant leadership (“make sure that other
people’s highest priority needs are being served”) are striking.
Rather than prioritizing reciprocation and exchange, norms and
rules, or even the emergence of a shared vision, theory indicates
that servant leaders’ actions prioritize serving the good of multiple
stakeholders.
Servant leadership further aligns with consequentialism via its
acknowledgement that the organization itself is a valued
stakeholder.
Prominent servant leadership scholars have long argued that the
organization’s success is one of many valued ends for servant
leaders. Similar to stakeholder theory, servant leaders believe that
serving other stakeholders benefits the organization because it
leads to long-term organizational success. Reciprocally,
organizational success is beneficial to other stakeholders (e.g.,
employees) and affords the organization an opportunity to
continue to serve its community and society. This reasoning is
consistent with the consequentialist view that individual success
allows individuals and organizations to better position themselves
for future aid to others. After all, if an organization closed its
doors, it would be incapable of helping others and may endanger
the well-being of several other stakeholders, dependent on the
organization’s existence (e.g., employees). Therefore, servant
leadership’s explicit focus on performance (distinct among the
forms of moral leadership) is not only compatible with its moral
nature but also concordant with its broad stakeholder allegiances.
Ethical Leadership: A Deontological Focus on Compliance with
Normative Standards
“What does ethical leadership accomplish?” “The executives we
talked with said that ethical leadership was good for business,
particularly in the long term, and avoids legal problems. ‘It
probably determines the amount of money you’re spending in
lawsuits and with corporate attorneys... you save a lot of money in
regulatory fees and lawyer fees and settlement fees.’”
Ethical leadership theory maintains that alongside basic moral
elements such as fairness and honesty, the construct’s view of
morality is guided chiefly by the importance of compliance with
norms and standards.
Ethical leadership’s distinctions from servant leadership’s more
consequentialist emphasis are also empirically supported by
studies finding that subordinates of ethical leaders develop skills
at identifying legal, but not more generally moral, ramifications of
scenarios that the effect of ethical leadership on whistle-blowing
is suppressed when there is a stronger focus on negative societal
consequences of decisions and that ethical leadership is not
predicted by consequentialist ideology, but it develops more
frequently in those with deontological moral mind-sets.
Considering ethical leadership, if employees did not follow
organizational standards, the organization’s structure and
framework would fall apart and the organization could not exist;
therefore, standards and rules are moral. A related form of
deontology, the philosophy of law (Coleman,1989), argues that
laws, rules, and standards themselves create moral obligations:
they coordinate social activities (such as everyone driving in the
correct lane or forming orderly queues for service), and
individuals who act against these conventions may needlessly
endanger or frustrate others, causing moral harm.
Although the ethical leader encourages voice, as an extension of
the fairness exhibited by the moral manager the ethical leader is
less open to criticism of company standards and policies, and
certainly intolerant of non-compliance. Questioning of
organizational norms may, therefore, be frowned upon by ethical
leaders.
Another unique aspect of ethical leadership relative to the other
moral approaches to leadership is its reliance on transactional
influence as a method to compel followers to conform to
normative standards. This focus is clear in ethical leadership’s
seminal theoretical development and operationalization, and
congruent with deontology. Whereas a consequentialist might ask
whether society would benefit from punishing a rule breaker, the
deontologist argues that on principle, wrongdoers deserve
punishment. This is a notable distinction from servant leadership.
Greenleaf specifically argued against coercion in favor of
persuasion, even for the most heinous of acts such as slavery
(Greenleaf, 1970). Altogether, a deontological focus on
compliance to and enforcement of norms, rules, and laws
emerges as the most differentiating aspects of ethical leadership
relative to servant and authentic leadership.
Authentic Leadership: A Virtue Focus on Self-Awareness and
Moral Self-Concordance
The hallmark of authentic leaders is their authentic and
transparent expression, and action in concordance with their
beliefs. Authentic leaders’ morality is proposed to be independent
of external expectations, such that the authentic leader would
make decisions based on their own moral compass, rather than on
other people’s opinions of ethics. “The authentic leader does not
try to coerce or even rationally persuade associates, but rather
the leader’s authentic values, beliefs, and behaviors serve to
model the development of associates”. Authentic leaders model
authenticity to develop trust and serve as role models, passively
“projecting” their authentic self to followers.
For instance, research indicates that authentic leadership is
uniquely predicted by a leader’s strong physical enactment of
their true emotions and values and their tendency to tell stories
about their past, particularly stories of the more sensitive,
negative, and potentially embarrassing aspects of their past.
Followers of authentic leaders grow in their own self-concordance
and moral courage to stay true to their convictions. Authentic
leadership may be strongest when it is combined with authentic
followership, such that leaders and followers share their core
values in a psychologically safe environment, assess their
situations honestly and frankly, and work together to ensure
fulfilling and productive experiences. Indeed, theory suggests that
a core motivation of authentic leaders is to have authentic
followers who similarly feel free to express themselves
transparently and make their own moral judgments.
The virtue ethicist’s reliance on their own moral judgment raises
the possibility that they may change their mind as to what is
moral, as is argued for authentic leaders: “They have the
credibility to... seek alternative ways of approaching them without
being perceived as disingenuous or shifting with popular opinion.
They can change their mind and be seen to be acting consistent
with their end-values and therefore authentic”.
This philosophy supports authentic leadership’s unique approach
to what is moral: rather than focusing on standards or
stakeholders, authentic leaders view morality as that which aids
individuals in understanding themselves, acting in self-concordant
manners, and following their own moral compass regardless of
the expectations of society or others.
“A good theory articulates not only what a construct is, but also
what it is not”. Although ethical, authentic, and servant leadership
theory has done a respectable job defining what each leadership
approach is, their conceptual boundaries (i.e., what they are not)
are much more amorphous. Ambiguous conceptual boundaries
pose problems for differentiating among moral forms of
leadership (as well as other forms of leadership).
And because of this common moral nature, some overlap among
ethical, authentic, and servant leadership’s nomological networks
is inevitable. For instance, given that all three approaches feature
generally moral behaviors such as honest and fair subordinate
relations, it is not surprising that all three are related to outcomes
such as trust, justice perceptions, and relational quality.
Are moral philosophies underlying the three moral approaches to
leadership congruent such that they complement one another in
building a grander, more holistic morality, or are they
fundamentally opposed? Such questions are central to
understanding three relational contexts associated with moral
congruence: within-leader (with connections to leaders’ moral
identity), leader–environment, and leader–follower moral
congruence. Present the three leadership styles overlap model.
Within Leader moral congruence:
“Can leaders employ more than one moral philosophy
simultaneously?” It is logical to assume that a highly moral
individual might prioritize compliance with standards, self-
awareness and self-concordance, and stakeholders, but adhering
to all three moral moorings is not necessarily assured. Some
leaders might believe in following rules even if they do not believe
in them; others might advocate for bending or breaking
organizational norms in the service of stakeholder good; still
others could lack strong feelings for compliance or compassion for
stakeholders and, instead, be guided solely by their own instincts
or deeply held philosophies or religious convictions. It is not
difficult to imagine scenarios in which the three moral interests
would align. For instance, individuals follow norms and standards
in part because they honestly believe that they positively impact
the people affected by them.
Other cases may be less straightforward, and might involve
conflict. What does a moral leader do if telling the truth and
representing him- or herself authentically would have negative
implications for stakeholders, or result in his or her speaking
against company norms and culture?
Although it may be possible for leaders to switch between moral
philosophies over time and situations (e.g., using deontology in
one situation and consequentialism in another), moral dilemmas
may impede on their overall sense of moral coherence,
consistency, and integrity. Leaders who use different moral
principles in different situations—ethical in one situation and
servant or authentic in the next—may adversely affect followers
who seek behavioral consistency and predictability from their
leaders. Moral dilemmas may create weak situations in which
followers become confused by attempting to interpret the
leader’s inconsistent ethical principles. Exploring interactions
among different moral philosophies introduces interesting
questions about followers’ interpretation and response to ethical
behavior.
It has been assumed that moral leadership styles identify leaders
who make moral decisions, but exactly what is moral is often
subjective. For instance, in a case of declining profits, are layoffs
more moral when they affect the smallest number of employees,
or is an organization-wide pay decline more moral because no one
is laid off?
Leader–environment moral congruence:
Existing approaches to moral leadership are quite normative and
morally absolutist in that they suggest one optimal moral
behavioural pattern. However, a degree of relativity may exist
such that certain approaches fit better within certain contexts.
Different contexts differ in their emphasis on different moral
content, including national cultures, political or religious climate,
and industry or corporate cultures—all of which suggest a
contingency perspective to moral leadership.
Ethical leaders would be most sensitive to these contextual issues
because of their awareness and prioritization of cultural and
organizational norms. Authentic and servant leaders, though,
would be expected to be far less concerned with such norms.
Servant leaders would focus on stakeholder good regardless of
expectations. This perspective is congruent with stakeholder
theory (Freeman, 1984) in which organizational goals transcend
mere profitability, a viewpoint that may or may not align with a
company’s internal norms. Authentic leaders might be most
strongly opposed to prevailing norms, given their high moral
courage and belief in moral freedom; indeed, to more
deontological cultures and environments, the authentic leader
may well be viewed as an unpredictable “loose cannon.” Could
ethical leaders, then, be the most effective at navigating
differences among national and organizational cultures, whereas
authentic leaders would struggle the most? If ethical leaders are
open to different contextual demands and willing to switch to the
current moral standards, then the answer is yes. It is plausible,
however, that an ethical leader might be more absolutist and even
rigid in his or her adherence to one system of norms and
expectations over another. A cross-cultural management problem.
Leader–follower moral congruence:
For instance, a leader may explicitly buy into a philosophy in
thought or theory only to find him- or herself challenged in those
beliefs by followers because they contradict more implicit
 assumptions (e.g., religious or political beliefs). Furthermore, a
certain moral leadership approach may have little to no effect
because specific followers (or larger groups) have implicit beliefs
or schemas around what is right and wrong that are not easily
challenged or changed.
In sum, depending on the belief system and moral philosophy of
individual followers, the leader’s attempt to use one leadership style
over another may fail. In this manner, how would an authentic,
virtue ethics-oriented follower react to an ethical or servant leader?
Questions such as these demonstrate that moral leadership may
serve as a double-edged sword.

Trade-offs and negative effects associated with each moral

approach to leadership:
Similarly, studies of servant leadership should examine how and
whether it is possible for servant leaders to effectively balance
organizational concerns with the goods of stakeholders such as
customers, employees, and communities. Is such a balance among
multiple stakeholders’ concerns plausible? If so, is there an optimal
stakeholder balance that can be achieved for the overall good, such
as the controversial concept “effective altruism” which has been
proposed (but not empirically verified) as the most impactful form of
utilitarian consequentialism.
Do most managers make decisions based on norms and standards,
based on outcomes and stakeholders, or based on their own self-
concordant judgments? Of these three approaches, which is the
most effective in terms of organizational success, team development,
or more morally oriented outcomes? Our review suggests that the
organizational context is an environment where different moral
approaches can be present, even simultaneously, with distinct
outcomes for each approach to moral leadership.
 3. CEO ATTRIBUTES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: A SEQUENTIAL
MEDIATION PROCESS MODEL, DONG LIU, Scheller College of
Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, GREG FISHER,
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, GUOLI CHEN,
INSEAD
Hambrick and Mason (1984) laid out a linear model connecting the
situation facing an organization and the characteristics of the
executives in its upper echelons with the strategic choices made to
address the situation and ultimately the organization’s performance.
As they noted, “the heart of the theory is the portrayal of upper
echelon characteristics as determinants of strategic choices and
through these choices, of organizational performance”.
Research on the relationship between TMT attributes and firm
outcomes examines whether a TMT’s attributes, such as tenure,
team size, structure and diversity, social networks and functional
backgrounds are related to firm performance. This stream of
research has provided a great deal of insight into the relationship
between executives in the upper echelons and their firm’s
performance, in the form of explanatory constructs at the TMT level.
Research has investigated a variety of different individual attributes,
including the CEO’s background, such as functional experience,
education and international experience, along with the impact these
have on diversification, innovation, and strategic change.
Researchers have also considered CEO demographics, such as age
and gender, as well as personality attributes, such as core self-
evaluation (CSE), hubris, humility, narcissism and overconfidence.
This research stream has shed light on the influence CEOs have on
what happens in firms but has seldom directly linked CEO attributes
to firm performance, instead associating CEO attributes with specific
strategic choices and initiatives of TMTs, with the implicit assumption
that these strategic choices have implications for firm performance.
The third research stream accounts for the connection between the
individual CEO and the TMT’s processes. This perspective draws
mainly on leadership theory to assess how the attributes of a CEO
impact the group of executives he or she leads within a typical
organizational hierarchy. The essence of this research is that as CEOs
interact with TMT members, their individual attributes can have a
significant impact on TMT processes.
The starting point is CEO attributes, which in turn have an immediate
influence over the processes of the TMT that he or she establishes
and leads. TMT processes are related to strategic choices that
ultimately impact firm performance.
CEOs and other executives often need to make their most telling and
significant decisions when their firm is confronted with a novel,
disruptive, or critical event.
Third, the implementation of strategic choices within an organization
has a major impact on whether those choices translate into firm
performance, yet the aforementioned baseline model overlooks the
organizational processes through which executives’ strategic choices
are translated into organizational performance outcomes.
Because CEO attributes and their impact on outcomes at the firm
level have been extensively studied, it makes sense to categorize the
current literature according to their theoretical origins: (1) CEO
background features, (2) CEO personality characteristics and (3) CEO
leadership styles.
Background features:
Hambrick and Mason (1984) categorized functional experience based
on whether it is oriented toward output (marketing, sales, and
product development), throughput (production and ac-counting), or
peripheral activities (law, finance, and HR). A CEO’s prior output
experience is held to be positively associated with firm profitability in
turbulent industries, throughput experience is held to be positively
associated with firm profitability in stable industries, and peripheral
experience with unrelated diversification and administrative
complexity
CEO’s Personality Attributes and Firm Performance
The argument underpinning this research is that a CEO’s self-concept
as measured by personality characteristics: Hubris, humility,
narcissism and overconfidence—can impact his/her cognitive and
emotional states, which in turn affect firm performance.
More specifically, the upbeat emotions of CEOs with a positive self-
concept prompt them to process more information and attend to
more positive environmental cues (as opposed to CEOs with a lower
positive self-concept), which in turn allows them to identify more
opportunities, and view them more favourably. As such, a positive
self-concept is likely associated with strategic action in the pursuance
of opportunities: this may generate valuable returns, but may also be
risky and place the firm in a precarious position. CEOs with a positive
self-concept have favourable self-perceptions and are more likely to
view themselves as exceptional, potent, admirable, and important.
As a result, they are inclined to set more ambitious goals and pursue
grander initiatives with higher stakes attached.
Empirical research on CEO narcissism suggests that it is positively
related to the number and size of firm acquisitions, spending on
R&D, capital expenditure, and mergers and acquisitions.
Furthermore, narcissistic CEOs are more aggressive in their adoption
of technological discontinuities, especially when they anticipate
widespread admiration for their bold actions.
Empirical evidence on the relationship between CEO charismatic
leadership and firm performance is mixed.
Transactional leadership. This is largely oriented toward maintaining
existing systems and cultures. Transactional leaders operate within
an existing system or culture, as opposed to trying to change it. They
attempt to satisfy the needs of followers by focusing on exchange
and contingent reward/punishment; pay close attention to
deviations, mistakes or irregularities; and make corrections when
necessary. Empirical research provides no support for a significant
relationship between CEO transactional leadership and firm
Performance.
The CEOs Leadership style and TMT processes
Peterson et al. (2003) propose a number of TMT processes such as
TMT dynamics, flexibility, leader dominance, cohesiveness,
corruption and centralization, which may result from CEO
personality. TMT behavioural integration and risk-taking propensity
have been identified as key processes that underpin the relationship
between CEOs and firm performance. TMT behavioural integration
refers to members’ willingness to collaborate, share information,
make joint decisions, and develop a shared vision, thereby reflecting
the extent to which they engage in collective interaction.

4. Bill George, Harvard Business School professor and author of

True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership.

There was a lot of talk in the decade of the last century about
charismatic leadership. Does that category fall into the inauthentic
side of things?
BILL GEORGE: It sure does. Unfortunately, many boards of
directors were looking for a charismatic leader can who could
come in from the outside and save the company. Most of these
people, with two exceptions, destroyed much more value than
they ever created. And boards looked more for charisma than
character. They looked more for style than substance, and they
looked more for image than integrity. And if you choose charisma
and image and style instead of character, substance, and integrity,
you’re going to get a leader that does not do the job for the long
term.
In the 20th century, we had this idea, Jim, of following the great
leader over the hill. Well, this is a flawed notion. People today are
not interested in following– they want to step up and lead. And I
think leaders that can empower people to do that and to set the
context, to be sure– know the mission and purpose of the
company, know the values we hold dear– but then people can be
empowered all over the organization, even if they don’t have
direct reports, to step up and lead. And it’s the empowering
leader that’s going to get the most, if you will, out of people
today. Because people today know more than their bosses, they
don’t want to wait in line for 10 to 20 years, they don’t want to
live in a bureaucracy. They want to have the opportunity to lead,
and why shouldn’t they have that opportunity to find meaning
and significance in their work?
BILL GEORGE: I think that it starts with having self-awareness,
knowing yourself. But that’s hard to do unless you get feedback.
And so I think feedback, getting feedback from others about how
you’re seen– so you can see yourself as others see you– is very
important. Testing your values under pressure. Not standing on
the sidelines, but getting into the game and seeing, how are you
going to respond under pressure? And then finally, something that
doesn’t seem intuitive, is having a fully integrated life– your work
life, your home life, your personal life, and your community life.
That will make you a better leader if you can achieve an
equilibrium in your life and be the same person in all those
environments. Then becoming an empowering leader becomes
much easier.
Howard Shultz: Business Leadership ( Good for authentic
leadership, Trust and Human Dignity)
Jack Ma: I have had so many failures..
Indra Nooyi—Truth from the top
JRD TATA or Jamshetjee TATA for Servant Leadership
James Burke of J&J for Ethical leadership