娀 The Academy of Management Perspectives

2014, Vol. 28, No. 3, 235–254.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0126

S Y M P O S I U M
ANTECEDENTS OF RESPONSIBLE LEADER BEHAVIOR:
A RESEARCH SYNTHESIS, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, AND
AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
GÜNTER K. STAHL
Vienna University of Business and Economics

MARY SULLY DE LUQUE

Thunderbird School of Global Management

Responsible leadership has emerged as a major theme in academic and practical

management discourse. In this paper we provide an overview and synthesis of existing
and emerging research on responsible leadership and propose a unifying framework
for explaining leaders’ propensity to engage in two types of socially responsible
behavior: “do good” and “avoid harm.” 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 leader’s decisions and actions. Our analysis suggests that “do good” 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 deci-
sions—situational strength—moderates the relationship between individual-level fac-
tors and a leader’s 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 socially responsible leaders.

As the world is recovering from a major eco- the United States and Europe (Edelman Trust Ba-
nomic crisis and, as some have argued, a crisis of rometer, 2012).1
management ethics (e.g., Ghoshal, 2005; Waldman Recent calls for more ethical managerial conduct
& Galvin, 2008), business leaders are under in- are a reaction to these scandals and crises. They are
creased scrutiny. Top executives in the West and also a result of changes and new demands in the
elsewhere have been exposed for dishonesty, greed, global marketplace, such as increased stakeholder
and unethical business practices. These highly activism and scrutiny (e.g., Aguilera, Rupp, Wil-
publicized instances of management misconduct liams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Doh & Guay, 2006; Hus-
have eroded public faith in business and brought to ted & Allen, 2006). As sociopolitical and environ-
the forefront the recognition that business leaders mental challenges intensify around the world there
may be acting irresponsibly more often than previ- is increasing pressure from stakeholders—among
ously thought. As a result, trust in business is at them governments, local communities, NGOs, and
one of the lowest levels on record, particularly in consumers— on corporations and their leaders to
engage in self-regulation and take more active roles
as global citizens (Stahl, Pless, & Maak, 2013;
We would like to thank Doris Friedrich, Dr. Christof
Miska, Laura Noval, Verena Patock, and Dr. Julia Puasc-
hunder of WU Vienna for helping us develop our ideas
1
for this paper. http://trust.edelman.com

235
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
236 The Academy of Management Perspectives
Voegtlin, Patzer, & Scherer, 2012). At the suprana-
tional level, the UN Global Compact has grown to
more than 10,000 members since its official launch
on July 26, 2000, including more than 7,000 busi-
nesses in 145 countries around the world (United
Nations Global Compact, 2013).2 As the growing
membership of companies in the UN Global Com-
pact and booming growth in corporate social re-
sponsibility (CSR) initiatives and social business
ventures such as Grameen Danone Foods or Hindu-
stan Lever, Ltd.’s Shakti program indicate, ever
more business leaders are committing their compa-
nies to contribute to the triple bottom line (Elking-
ton, 1997), which simultaneously considers social,
environmental, and economic sustainability (i.e.,
people, planet, profits).
Responsible leadership has thus emerged as a
major theme in academic and practical manage-
ment discourse. However, despite initiatives such
as the UN Global Compact and similar calls for
business leaders to “contribute to the creation of
economic and societal progress in a globally re-
sponsible and sustainable way” (European Founda-
tion for Management Development, 2005), scholars
debate whether corporations and their leaders have
social responsibilities that extend beyond generat-
ing wealth (e.g., Devinney, 2009; Margolis & Walsh,
2003; Waldman & Siegel, 2008). At one extreme,
classic economic constructs of the firm hold that
business has no responsibility beyond that of mak-
ing profit for its shareholders (Friedman, 1970); a
business leader thus acts responsibly if he or she
strives for maximum long-term value to owners
through ethical means (Sternberg, 2000). On the
other end of the spectrum are ethical frameworks
that assume that corporations and their leaders
have an obligation to make decisions that meet the
needs of a wide range of constituents, thereby “act-
ing in the service of the common good” (Crilly,
Schneider, & Zollo, 2008, p. 176) or even serving as
“agents of world benefit” (Pless & Maak, 2009,
p. 60). Clearly, as Waldman and Galvin (2008) have
noted, responsible leadership is not the same con-
cept in the minds of all.
The purpose of this paper is to review and syn-
thesize research on responsible leadership, provide
conceptual integration and a unifying framework,
and propose a research agenda that identifies key
areas that should be investigated to advance knowl-
edge on this critical leadership domain.
2
http://www.unglobalcompact.org
August
Research on the determinants of individual-level
ethical choices has grown dramatically over the last
two decades (for reviews, see Kish-Gephart, Harri-
son, & Treviño, 2010; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005;
and Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008), but these
studies have largely avoided managerial decision
making and behavior. Further, surprisingly little
attention has been devoted to how the environ-
ment in which executives operate may promote
or constrain responsible behavior. We still have a
limited understanding of a leader’s scope of re-
sponsibility, the ethical dilemmas and trade-offs
facing people in positions of organizational lead-
ership, and the contextual influences on respon-
sible leader behavior.
Also, previous research has been inconsistent
in its conceptualizations of responsible leader
behavior. While some authors have adopted an
ethics lens, focusing on the morality of managers’
actions (e.g., Jones, 1991; Treviño, Brown, & Hart-
man, 2003), others have taken a broader citizen-
ship perspective, looking at managers’ propen-
sity to engage in actions that enhance societal
well-being (e.g., Crilly et al., 2008; Maak & Pless,
2006). In terms of antecedents, some authors have
emphasized the psychological aspects of respon-
sible behavior (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De
Hoogh, 2010; Treviño, Weaver, & Brown, 2008),
while others focus on organizational factors
(Haines & Leonard, 2007; Jones, 1991) or aspects
of the broader national and institutional environ-
ment within which companies and their leaders
operate (Doh & Guay, 2006; Waldman, Sully de
Luque, Washburn, & House, 2006). These and
other studies suggest the need for conceptual in-
tegration and a unifying theory or framework of
responsible leader behavior.
WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE LEADER BEHAVIOR?
Despite a lack of consensus on the definition of
responsible leadership, there is overwhelming ev-
idence that the perceptions, decisions, and ac-
tions of individual managers—particularly those
at senior levels— have an impact on the social per-
formance and long-term viability of their organiza-
tions (Kakabadse, Rozuel, & Lee-Davis, 2005; Wald-
man & Galvin, 2008). Activities such as engaging in
community outreach programs, supporting social
causes, or seeking alternatives to large-scale layoffs
are the result of individual decisions of leaders—as
are activities that are widely considered unethical,
such as bribery, fraud, and employment discrimi-
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
nation. While executives are constrained in their
ability to engage in these activities by corporate
governance regulation, company policies, and the
law, they have some degree of discretion in their
choices.
Waldman and Galvin (2008) maintained that
responsible leaders embrace different mindsets,
which they classify according to two perspectives:
a limited economic view, emphasizing shareholder
primacy, and an extended stakeholder view. Propo-
nents of a shareholder primacy model (e.g., Levitt,
1958; McCloskey, 1998; Sundaram & Inkpen, 2004)
assert that executive decision making should be
focused exclusively on maximization of share-
holder value. The most prominent advocate of this
view was the late Milton Friedman (1970), who
argued that the only social responsibility of busi-
ness is “to use its resources and engage in activities
designed to increase profits so long as it stays
within the rules of the game” (p. 6). The limited
economic view suggests that a firm’s decision to
engage in CSR should be seen as an investment
decision, which should be assessed in a rational,
calculative manner, just like any other investment
opportunity (Waldman & Siegel, 2008). Unless
such activities enhance profitability, spending cor-
porate money for social purposes such as philan-
thropy or community development is considered a
misuse of corporate resources, because publicly
owned company profits are not seen as the manag-
ers’ to give away (Crook, 2005). This is not to sug-
gest that executives driven by this mindset must
behave irresponsibly; proponents of the economic
view concede that leaders must comply with min-
imal legal or moral standards, and they tend to
stress the social contributions of paying taxes and
creating jobs.
In contrast, the extended stakeholder perspective
acknowledges the normative drivers of CSR, in-
cluding the company’s mission, expectations about
corporate responsibilities to society, and execu-
tives’ own moral values, which may go beyond
economic interests. Stakeholder theory (Agle, Don-
aldson, Freeman, Jensen, Mitchell, & Wood,, 2008;
Freeman, 1994; Phillips, Freeman, & Wicks, 2003)
asks managers to make decisions that consider the
needs and demands of a broader set of constituen-
cies, including investors, employees, customers or
consumer groups, environmentalists, and the larger
society. Thus, the stakeholder perspective argues
that the needs of each of these constituencies
should be balanced in the decision making and
actions of people in positions of organizational
237
leadership (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Sully de
Luque, Washburn, Waldman, & House, 2008). Com-
panies that do this are more likely to generate moral
legitimacy and high levels of stakeholder trust than
companies that have adopted a limited economic
view (Chiu & Sharfman, 2011; Donaldson & Pres-
ton, 1995; Jones, 1995).
While the shareholder primacy and extended
stakeholder perspectives seem to represent polar
opposite ways of viewing the role of business in
society, various attempts have been made to recon-
cile the two. For example, Freeman, Wicks, and
Parmar (2004) argued that “[d]ividing the world
into ‘shareholder concerns’ and ‘stakeholder con-
cerns’ is roughly the logical equivalent of contrast-
ing ‘apples’ with ‘fruit’, [since] shareholders are
stakeholders” of the company (p. 365). They note
that in an era when firms are relying on committed
value-chain partners (e.g., employees and a whole
range of suppliers and business partners) to deliver
outstanding performance, the goal of creating value
for stakeholders is decidedly pro-shareholder.
In a similar vein, Waldman (Waldman & Siegel,
2008) has observed that shareholders of many firms
are increasingly demanding that their firms “do
well by doing good,” which involves developing
new business models that align social responsibil-
ity with profit maximization. The idea that organi-
zations can profit from maximizing the benefits of
multiple constituents concurrently is in line with
the theory of shared value (Porter & Kramer, 2011),
which holds that companies can use their core
competencies to provide solutions to social and
environmental problems. Although many leaders
believe there is an inherent trade-off between being
profitable and being socially responsible, research
has supported the idea of shared value creation,
indicating that corporate financial performance
and social performance can go hand in hand
(Margolis & Elfenbein, 2008; Orlitzky, Schmidt, &
Rynes, 2003).
Thus, while there is limited consensus on what
constitutes “responsible” behavior for managers,
there is little disagreement regarding the economic
and legal responsibilities of businesses. The notion
of economic responsibility in terms of delivering an
appropriate level of financial returns to sharehold-
ers is accepted by those espousing both stakeholder
and economic views, and both views accept the
requirement of adherence to the laws and regula-
tions of society (Schwartz & Carroll, 2003; Wald-
man & Siegel, 2008). From a leadership perspec-
tive, the more controversial aspects of CSR concern
238 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

TABLE 1
Examples of Responsible and Irresponsible Leader Behavior
Dimension of socially responsible behavior

Leader’s behavioral choice “Avoiding harm” (proscriptive morality) “Doing good” (prescriptive morality)

Socially responsible behavior
Socially irresponsible behavior
Refrains from activities that have harmful
consequences for others (e.g., strictly
enforces safety regulations)
Engages in activities that have harmful
consequences for others (e.g.,
participates in a price-fixing scheme)
Engages in activities that are aimed at enhancing
societal welfare (e.g., goes beyond minimum
legal requirements to provide employment
opportunities for disabled workers)
Refrains from engaging in activities that are
aimed at enhancing societal welfare (e.g.,
decides against supporting a community
development project)a

a
Because activities that fall into this category are discretionary, refraining from such activities does not violate generally accepted
ethical standards. Therefore, classifying these activities as “irresponsible” may be a misnomer, as discussed in the text.

the nature and extent of obligations that go beyond
the economic and legal responsibilities. These re-
sponsibilities are the expectations placed on busi-
ness leaders by corporate stakeholders and society
as a whole. According to Carroll and Shabana
(2010), they are based on the new, broader social
contract between business and society, and em-
brace activities that are either “expected” (ethical
responsibilities) or “desired” (discretionary or phil-
anthropic responsibilities) by societal members.
Ethical and discretionary responsibilities in this
sense are ill-defined, and their legitimacy is con-
tinuously debated, but they are at the heart of re-
sponsible leadership.
In this paper, we focus mainly on the ethical
responsibility domain but consider the economic
and legal responsibilities of business leaders where
necessary, based on the assumption that responsi-
ble leadership requires simultaneous consideration
of the ethical, economic, and legal dimensions of
business (Schwartz & Carroll, 2003). We define re-
sponsible leader behavior as intentional actions
taken by leaders3 to benefit the stakeholders of the
company and/or actions taken to avoid harmful
consequences for stakeholders and the larger soci-
ety. This definition is consistent with the Kantian
distinction between “duties of perfect and of im-
perfect obligation”—that is, duties to refrain from
harm and duties to advance the aims of others
3 CSR scholars to question this overwhelming em-
In this article, we are focusing on persons in leader-
ship positions through the organization. This includes
both senior leaders as well as employees serving in man-
agerial positions—the model applies equally to middle-
and lower-level managers. Therefore, we define “leader”
broadly to reflect the notion of leadership occurring
throughout the organization.
(Kant, 1797/1991). It corresponds to two major
themes in the CSR literature, namely concerns
about businesses’ detrimental effects on society
(avoiding “negatives”) and the goal of contributing
to society (creating “positives”) (Crilly et al., 2008;
Jones, 1991).
Accordingly, we distinguish between two types,
or dimensions, of responsible leader behavior.
“Avoid harm” behavior (proscriptive morality) in-
cludes decisions and actions taken by managers to
avoid harmful consequences for stakeholders and
the larger society, such as ensuring product safety,
avoiding discrimination in hiring practices, limit-
ing corruption, and avoiding environmental pollu-
tion. “Do good” behavior (prescriptive morality)
refers to activities aimed at enhancing societal wel-
fare, such as engaging in philanthropy, broadening
access to products, designing employee-friendly
workplaces, and supporting community develop-
ment. Table 1 illustrates the two dimensions of
responsible leadership, providing examples of so-
cially responsible and irresponsible behavior.
Most business ethics research has focused on the
“avoid harm” dimension, specifically the decision
processes that lead to or prevent irresponsible be-
havior. Yet the current pressures on managers to go
beyond actions that merely avoid harming others,
together with the surge of the positive organiza-
tional scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn,
2003; Luthans, 2002) movement, have prompted
phasis on the negative and call for greater attention
to positive CSR, which extends outside simple
compliance and involves actions that “further some
social good, beyond the interests of the firm and
that which is required by law” (McWilliams & Sie-
gel, 2001, p. 117). These “do good” activities are
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
voluntary or might-do actions that are not expected
in a moral sense but are desired by society, as
opposed to should-do actions that are expected
from or required by societal members (Carroll,
1991, 1998). As noted by Schwartz and Carroll
(2003), it may be a misnomer to call such activities
“responsibilities” due to their discretionary nature.
Since refraining from “do good” activities usually
does not violate widely accepted ethical standards,
there is little justification for classifying corporate
executives who decide not to engage in these dis-
cretionary CSR activities as irresponsible, as illus-
trated by Table 1.
ANTECEDENTS OF RESPONSIBLE
LEADER BEHAVIOR
In what follows we will adopt an empirical or
“descriptive ethics” lens, which is concerned with
explaining and predicting individuals’ actual be-
havior, as opposed to a “normative ethics” lens,
which focuses on how managers should behave
(O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). As Crilly and col-
leagues (2008) have noted, responsible leader be-
havior is rooted not in moral idealism, but in the
FIGURE 1
Model of the Antecedents of Responsible Leader Behavior
239
capacity to align the interests of various stakehold-
ers and to integrate ethical considerations into ef-
fective decision making under various situational
constraints.
Figure 1 presents the theoretical model devel-
oped in the following discussion. It focuses on
the individual, situational, organizational, institu-
tional, and supranational influences on responsible
leader behavior, defined in terms of “do good” and
“avoid harm.” The basic premise of the model is
that responsible leader behavior is a function of
both the person and the environment in which that
behavior takes place. Although this may sound ob-
vious, existing research in behavioral ethics has
tended to overemphasize personal characteristics,
such as character traits, cognitions, and values,
in predicting or explaining individuals’ ethical
choices, while largely discounting aspects of the
environment as possible influences on individuals’
ethical choices. O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005)
have observed that “to date, the ethical decision-
making literature has overwhelmingly examined
individual factors in relation to contextual influ-
ences” (p. 400). A similar emphasis on individual
characteristics is also prevalent in existing research
240 The Academy of Management Perspectives
on responsible leader behavior (e.g., Crilly et al.,
2008), which remains heavily influenced by trait
theory.
As illustrated by Figure 1, responsible leadership
does not occur in a vacuum; it is contingent on
aspects of the immediate situation and the organi-
zational context, the institutional and cultural en-
vironment, and supranational factors. The notion
that socially responsible behavior is contingent on
contextual factors is supported by a large body of
research in social psychology. Classic experiments
such as Milgram’s (1974) work on obedience to
authority and Zimbardo’s (1972) prison experiment
make a strong case for the “power of the situation”
(Mischel, 2004, p. 4) in influencing human behav-
ior. These experiments have demonstrated that
people who are not naturally predisposed to be
hostile or abusive may under some circumstances
(e.g., peer pressure or the influence of an authority
figure) act in an aggressive, unethical, or even de-
structive manner. Collectively, this research sug-
gests that to explain the causes of socially respon-
sible and irresponsible behavior one must take both
individual characteristics and situational or sys-
temic factors into account (see Ross & Nisbett,
1991; Zimbardo, 2007). For example, in the Enron
case top managers’ inflated egos and personal am-
bitions likely played an important role, but a lack of
proper internal control systems, poorly designed
stock option plans, and a “win-at-all-cost” corpo-
rate culture that encouraged executives to take ex-
cessive risks also contributed to the Enron collapse
(McLean & Elkind, 2003).
A key feature of our unifying framework is the
distinction between behavioral intention and ac-
tual behavior, which is consistent with Rest’s
(1986) influential framework of the ethical deci-
sion-making process. This framework views ethical
decision making as involving four basic compo-
nents or stages: (1) the moral awareness stage (rec-
ognizing the moral significance of an issue), (2) the
moral judgment stage (deciding which course of
action is ethically right), (3) the moral intent stage
(prioritizing moral values over other values, such
as maximizing profits), and (4) the moral behavior
stage (executing and implementing the moral inten-
tion). We have not included the moral awareness
and moral judgment stages in our model because
our primary focus is on the antecedents of manag-
ers’ responsible choices, not on the ethical deci-
sion-making process.
Making the distinction between intention and
actual behavior is important because these con-
August
cepts are not concomitant. The theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) pre-
dicts a close link between intent and action, and as
such (un)ethical intention has often been substi-
tuted for (un)ethical behavior in behavioral ethics
research (see Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O’Fallon &
Butterfield, 2005). It remains unclear, however, to
what extent this proxy logic is appropriate. Some
researchers have examined the links among ethical
beliefs, intentions, and behaviors and found signif-
icant differences between beliefs or intentions and
actual behaviors (Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds,
2006; Weber & Gillespie, 1998). Our everyday ex-
perience also clearly shows that good intentions
do not always translate into ethical decision-mak-
ing behavior.
Related to this point, we propose that intention
to engage in responsible behavior may be influ-
enced by factors different from those that affect
actual behavior. For example, transformational
leadership, in the form of CEO vision building and
role modeling, involves attempts by leaders to
move followers to higher standards of ethical re-
sponsibility by motivating them to transcend their
self-interest for the good of the team, organization,
or community. Transformational leadership “cre-
ates a connection that raises the level of motivation
and morality in both the leader and the follower”
(Northouse, 2004, p. 17). It is “morally uplifting”
(Avolio, 1999) and likely to affect followers’ moti-
vation and intention to engage in responsible be-
havior. By contrast, transactional leadership in-
volves an exchange process that may result in
follower compliance with leader requests but is not
likely to generate real commitment to engage in
responsible behavior (Yukl, 2013). While transfor-
mational leadership involves internalization, trans-
actional leadership leads to mere instrumental
compliance. Transactional leadership may be an
effective means of controlling followers’ behavior,
but less so for influencing their ethical intentions,
values, and motives. Leadership at the top may
thus have a differential effect on managers’ inten-
tions and their actual behavior, depending on the
leadership style employed by the CEO. We explore
these issues further as we discuss the five sets of
antecedents of responsible managerial behavior.
Individual-Level Influences on Responsible
Managerial Behavior
A review of the behavioral ethics and responsible
leadership literatures shows that most variables
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
identified as antecedents of socially responsible
choices are individual-level characteristics. They
include personality traits, such as the “Big Five”
factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Kalshoven
et al., 2010); values and beliefs (Crilly et al., 2008);
cognitive processes (Green & Weber, 1997); gener-
alized expectancies, such as locus-of-control orien-
tation (Shapeero, Koh, & Killough, 2003); and affec-
tive states (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006). Research on
other individual-level characteristics includes risk
perceptions (Fraedrich & Ferrell, 1992); stages of
cognitive moral development (Treviño, 1986); and
abilities, skills, and behavioral dispositions, such
as responsible leadership competencies (Cameron
& Caza, 2005), responsible leadership orientations
(Pless, Maak, & Waldman, 2012), and global lead-
ership skills (Miska, Stahl, & Mendenhall, 2013), as
well as demographics, including gender, age, and
education level (Franke, Crown, & Spake, 1997).
Although most of the studies reviewed do not
explicitly focus on leadership behavior, the factors
identified in empirical research as antecedents of
individuals’ ethical choices may be viewed as po-
tential influences on leaders’ propensity to engage
in socially responsible or irresponsible conduct.
These studies suggest, for example, that managers
with personality traits and values that emphasize
pursuit of one’s own interests, as opposed to the
greater common good, are more likely to engage in
activities that put stakeholders at risk or harm and
less likely to engage in activities that enhance so-
cietal welfare (Crilly et al., 2008). By contrast, man-
agers who embrace self-transcendent values are
more likely to make decisions and take actions that
benefit society and avoid harmful consequences for
others (Ashkanasy, Windsor, & Treviño, 2006;
Kalshoven et al., 2010).
Among the many individual-level factors that
have been studied in the organization are four key
factors that we review here: empathy, cognitive
moral development, Machiavellianism, and moral
philosophies. Empathy refers to another-oriented
emotional response congruent with the perceived
welfare of another (Batson, Duncan, Ackerman,
Buckey, & Birch, 1981) and reflects the ability of a
person to closely emulate another person’s emo-
tional state (Eisenberg, 2000). Empathy-related re-
sponding has been consistently found to be associ-
ated with prosocial behavior (Eisenberg, 1986).
Although empathy has been widely studied in ex-
perimental settings (see Batson, 1991, for a review),
management researchers are increasingly recogniz-
241
ing its importance for leadership in an organiza-
tional context (e.g., Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth,
2006; Sadri, Weber, & Gentry, 2011). Scholars have
proposed that empathy is a basis for connectedness
and altruism (Pavlovich & Krahnke, 2012) and
corporate philanthropy (Muller, Pfarrer, & Little,
2014). Finally, empathy has been empirically
shown to reduce a manager’s propensity to comply
with requests by authority figures to engage in be-
havior that has harmful consequences for employ-
ees (Dietz & Kleinlogel, 2013).
Cognitive moral development (CMD) theory re-
fers to the stages of cognitive complexity through
which individuals’ moral actions ascend (Kohl-
berg, 1984). CMD is composed of five sequential
levels that individuals theoretically advance
through in life, becoming relatively stable at
adulthood. The fifth or post-conventional level
shows a sophisticated degree of moral reasoning in
which individuals apply principles of justice and
rights and consider societal good in decision mak-
ing (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). Individuals who are
at the higher stages of CMD have been found to be
less prone to engage in unethical behavior (see
Treviño, 1992, for a review of CMD and unethical
behavior in the workplace) and to be more prone to
engage in ethical behavior, such as whistleblowing
(Street, 1995). CMD is thus likely to influence both
the “do good” and “avoid harm” dimensions of
responsible leader behavior.
Machiavellianism, commonly known as a politi-
cal theory, has been conceptualized in behavioral
ethics research as a personality construct or behav-
ioral disposition associated “with amoral action,
sharp dealing, hidden agendas, and unethical ex-
cess” (Nelson & Gilbertson, 1991, p. 633). Based on
a meta-analysis of the ethical decision-making lit-
erature, Kish-Gephart and colleagues (2010) found
support for the link between Machiavellianism and
unethical behavior. An in-depth case survey con-
ducted by Miska, Stahl, and Fuchs (2014) of 52
real-world cases of unethical managerial behavior
revealed that companies involved in major scan-
dals, such as Enron, WorldCom, and Salomon
Brothers, were more likely to have leaders who
exhibited Machiavellian character traits.
Finally, the fourth individual-level factor that
has been studied in the organization is moral phi-
losophies, which are rooted in normative philo-
sophical theories and refer to people’s preferences
and justifications for specific normative orienta-
tions. Prior research finds fairly consistent patterns
of relationships between moral philosophies and
242 The Academy of Management Perspectives
unethical choices. This is shown in positive link-
ages between teleological and relativistic orienta-
tions and negative links for deontological and
idealist ones (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). Teleo-
logical approaches are more consequence centered,
reflecting reasoning based on the end result of ac-
tions, which may justify unethical behavior. Deon-
tological approaches are more rule driven, empha-
sizing duties independent of consequences, which
may hold back individuals from engaging in uneth-
ical behavior. Correspondingly, relativism assumes
that normative beliefs are dependent on specific
contexts, while idealism implies universal ethical
rules. From research based on a sample of 25
high-profile business leaders, Pless, Maak, and
Waldman (2012) identified differences in lead-
ers’ responsibility orientations, referring to lead-
ers’ conceptualization of corporate responsibil-
ity. These orientations, which are rooted in and
driven by variances in personal values and moral
philosophies, are likely to affect both “do good”
and “avoid harm” behavior.
Interestingly, there is some empirical evidence
that the “do good” and “avoid harm” dimensions of
responsible leader behavior are predicted by differ-
ent individual-level antecedents. Crilly and col-
leagues (2008) found that self-transcendence val-
ues, benevolence, and positive affective states
influence managers’ propensity to engage in ac-
tivities that have a positive impact on society,
whereas decisions to avoid activities that might
inflict harm on others are governed largely by
more deliberative cognitive processes, such as
moral reasoning. These findings support the con-
clusion that “doing good” and “avoiding harm”
are conceptually distinct categories, with differ-
ent psychological bases and antecedents.
Aspects of the Proximal Context:
Situational Factors
While studies focusing on individual-level fac-
tors have provided valuable insights into the ante-
cedents of individuals’ responsible choices, they
have contributed relatively little to our understand-
ing of how the situational context within which
managers act and make decisions might promote or
hinder responsible conduct.
One widely researched situational factor that
likely affects managers’ propensity to engage in “do
good” and “avoid harm” behavior is moral inten-
sity. Jones (1991) developed an issue-contingent
model of ethical decision making in organizations
August
that suggests that every ethical issue can be repre-
sented in terms of its moral intensity, and that the
moral intensity of a situation is an important deter-
minant of individual-level ethical choices. Moral
intensity is conceptualized as a multidimensional
construct that “captures the extent of issue-related
moral imperative in a situation” (Jones, 1991,
p. 372). It includes six components: magnitude of
consequences, social consensus, probability of ef-
fect, temporal immediacy, proximity, and concen-
tration of effect. Thus, moral intensity can help
explain why managers may behave responsibly in
some situations and irresponsibly in others.
In research on ethical decision making (for re-
views, see O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005, and Ten-
brunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008), moral intensity has
been examined primarily with respect to unethical
choices (e.g., cheating, discriminating against mi-
nority job candidates, ignoring safety regulations,
etc.), emphasizing the “avoid harm” dimension.
However, our analysis suggests that moral intensity
variables, such as magnitude of consequences, so-
cial consensus, and proximity, may also affect the
“do good” dimension of socially responsible behav-
ior. For example, individuals may be more inclined
to contribute to the welfare of people or communi-
ties that are close to them than those with whom
they have little or no contact (Morris & McDonald,
1995). Conversely, individuals may be less inclined
to engage in “do good” behaviors if the potential
benefactor is physically, socially, culturally, or
psychologically distant. As such, perceived moral
intensity may be an important mediating factor in
the relationship between characteristics of the im-
mediate situation (e.g., proximity to the benefactor
or victim of an act) and managers’ propensity to
engage in “do good” or “avoid harm” behaviors.
Another potentially important factor related to the
moral intensity construct is social consensus, defined
as the degree of social agreement that a particular
course of action is ethically right or wrong (Jones,
1991). Prior research on ethical decision making has
predominantly focused on individual decisions;
however, decisions at top management levels are of-
ten made collectively (Treviño, 1986). As groups of-
ten exert a powerful impact on individuals and share
a common sense of what constitutes moral behavior
(Schminke & Wells, 1999), group processes such as
conformity and “groupthink” (Janis, 1972) are likely
influential.
Groupthink was identified as an antecedent to
unethical behavior (Sims, 1992) in cohesive groups
that lack in-group control mechanisms or clear in-
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
ternal rules, as well as those that support leaders
who allow questionable behavior. Past research has
described these group decision-making processes
and has shown how groupthink contributed to
unethical managerial behavior in organizations
(Scharff, 2005; Sims, 1992). Other determinants of
unethical team behavior include the prevailing eth-
ical orientation existing in groups (Brass, Butter-
field, & Skaggs, 1998; Schminke & Wells, 1999). For
example, Pearsall and Ellis (2011) found that collec-
tive unethical decisions were related to the presence
of utilitarian rather than formalistic orientation, or to
the types (strength, multiplexity, asymmetry, status)
and structures (structural holes, centrality, density) of
relationships among actors.
Characteristics of the Organization
In addition to characteristics such as social con-
sensus, a host of organizational-level factors appear
to facilitate or constrain leaders’ ability to engage in
“do good” and “avoid harm” behavior. These in-
clude corporate culture (e.g., Chen, Sawyers, & Wil-
liams, 1997), ethical climate (e.g., Martin & Cullen,
2006), the existence or enforcement of a code of
conduct (Treviño & Weaver, 2001), CEO role mod-
eling (Fry & Slocum, 2008), and aspects of the per-
formance management and reward systems (Ashka-
nasy et al., 2006). For example, in the behavioral
ethics literature several scholars have drawn
on perspectives such as social learning theory
(Treviño & Youngblood, 1990) and deterrence
theory (Treviño, 1992) to predict that reward and
sanctioning systems affect ethical behavior in or-
ganizations. A number of authors (e.g., Hegarty &
Sims, 1978; Tenbrunsel, 1998; Tenbrunsel & Mes-
sick, 1999; Treviño & Youngblood, 1990) have
found that surveillance and sanctioning systems
represent important determinants of individuals’
ethical choices. Most of these insights, however,
were gleaned from laboratory experiments, so the
extent to which these insights apply to real-world
contexts is less clear.
One factor of particular importance to the chal-
lenges facing global executives is the strategy or-
ganizations employ to adopt CSR. Building on
Bartlett and Ghoshal’s typology (1998), several
scholars have shown that multinational enterprises
operating in multiple markets tend to follow three
prototypical CSR strategies: globally standardized,
locally adapted, and transnational (Husted & Allen,
2006; Miska et al., 2013; Stahl et al., 2013). The
globally standardized CSR approach emphasizes
243
global integration and standardization, with the
headquarters’ perspective and demands for global
consistency prevailing over local concerns. In con-
trast, the locally oriented CSR approach emphasizes
the need for sensitivity to local conditions and stake-
holder expectations when conducting business in dif-
ferent contexts.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that both ap-
proaches can be disadvantageous when coordi-
nating worldwide CSR activities. While the local
approach may promote a naive form of ethical rel-
ativism (“when in Rome, do as the Romans do”),
the global CSR approach may lead to cultural arro-
gance and ethical imperialism, directing executives
to enact global activities exactly as things are done
at headquarters (Donaldson, 1996). The transna-
tional CSR approach avoids some of these problems
by adopting a hybrid strategy aimed at balancing
global and local demands. In essence, a transna-
tional CSR strategy provides a global template to
guide leader decisions, ensuring consistency with
respect to CSR and ethical decision making while
allowing executives of foreign subsidiaries to adapt
that template according to their specific needs and
circumstances.
Aspects of the Institutional and
Cultural Environment
Managers’ approaches and orientations to re-
sponsible leadership are likely to vary across insti-
tutional and cultural contexts. Because corpora-
tions and their leaders are embedded in different
national systems, they will experience different de-
grees of internal and external pressures to engage in
corporate responsibility (Aguilera et al., 2007; Doh
& Guay, 2006) and embrace different societal values
related to CSR and ethics (Schneider, Barsoux, &
Stahl, 2014; Waldman et al., 2006).
For instance, Waldman and colleagues (2006)
demonstrated that differences in cultural values
and beliefs create expectations of acceptable and
unacceptable leader behavior, placing constraints
on the types of leader behavior and characteristics
endorsed in a society. In a study of 561 firms based
in 15 countries on five continents, they examined
the relationship between CSR orientations of top
management and two country-level cultural dimen-
sions, institutional collectivism and power dis-
tance. They found that CEOs in countries with high
institutional collectivism and low power distance
were more likely to manifest behaviors associated
with three responsibility orientations: concern for
244 The Academy of Management Perspectives
shareholders, concern for stakeholders, and con-
cern for community/state welfare. Importantly,
their findings suggest that cultures valuing institu-
tional collectivism motivate managers to think
about how their actions affect a wider range of
stakeholders and wider society, whereas cultures
with strong power distance values may impede
managers’ concern for such stakeholders as em-
ployees, environmentalists, and customers. Collec-
tively, these findings suggest that cultural values
related to institutional collectivism and power dis-
tance affect managers’ propensity to engage in both
“do good” and “avoid harm” behavior.
In addition to cultural value orientations, aspects
of the institutional context within which compa-
nies and their managers operate are likely to play
an important role in determining executives’ re-
sponsible choices. Differences in business systems,
legal context, the nature of regulation, and the like-
lihood of enforcement all play a role in shaping the
dominant approach to business ethics in a country,
as do expectations of what is considered good gov-
ernance and ethical conduct (Husted & Allen, 2006;
Matten & Moon, 2008; Witt & Redding, 2012). For
example, Martin, Cullen, Johnson, and Parboteeah
(2007) have shown that in addition to cultural val-
ues, institutional factors such as the extent of wel-
fare socialism and competitive intensity perceived
by firms’ managers explain a predisposition to en-
gage in corrupt practices. These conditions pose
specific constraints and opportunities that either
promote or hinder responsible leader behavior.
Spencer and Gomez (2011) reasoned that if man-
agers perceive that corrupt procedures such as brib-
ery are institutionalized within the society where
they operate, they are more likely to adopt such
practices. They found a positive link between the
level of corruption in the host country and the
pressures on foreign subsidiaries of multinational
enterprises to engage in bribery. Other empirical
evidence provided by Collins, Uhlenbruck, and Ro-
driguez (2009) suggests that executives in India
were more likely to engage in corruption if it was
perceived as “the way things get done in India”
(p. 104), even if they personally disagreed. Not
even severe sanctions seemed effective in changing
such behavior.
Thus, the institutional environment affects man-
agerial behavior such that it tends to increase man-
agers’ propensity to engage in unethical or harmful
behavior. The same is likely true for the “do good”
dimension of responsible leader behavior. For ex-
ample, Vogel (1992) argued that the prevalence of
August
private rather than state-owned companies in the
United States makes CSR and philanthropy primar-
ily an American phenomenon. Until the 1990s,
businesses in most European countries were com-
monly state owned and composed mostly of small
rather than large organizations. Hence, the respon-
sibility of business was more narrowly specified,
and the onus for social welfare was more on the
government. Matten and Moon (2008) concurred
that compared to Europeans, Americans have a
much stronger ethic of stewardship and of giving
back to society. This is due primarily to different
institutional influences and culture-based assump-
tions about society, business, and government.
However, Schneider and colleagues (2014) argued
that the American penchant for philanthropy and
CSR may be explained not so much by deeply in-
grained values of business civilization but by a
history of questionable business practices and cor-
porate scandals, which turned some business lead-
ers into philanthropists, social investors, and pro-
ponents of corporate social responsibility.
Supranational Context
The role of supranational factors that influence
responsible leader behavior provide further insight
into the propensity to engage in “do good” and
“avoid harm” behavior. Greater transparency of or-
ganizational practices has been made possible
through the accessibility and participation of social
media, which keeps stakeholders well informed
about corporate practices. Indeed, companies that
engage in corporate social reporting are increas-
ingly respected for their accountability and respon-
sibility (Dickson & Eckman, 2008). Accordingly,
with many globally successful companies like Ap-
ple coming under scrutiny for their labor practices,
expectations of responsible leader behavior have
become focal.
One aspect of the supranational context that has
a major influence on responsible leader behavior is
the enactment of the UN Global Compact (UNGC).
In surveys of 400 firms that were members of the
UNGC (Woo, 2010), respondents showed signifi-
cant increases in the use of risk assessments of HR
issues, in multistakeholder dialogs, and in the
availability of complaint mechanisms. Although
Baumann-Pauly, Wickert, Spence, and Scherer
(2013) found the adoption of the stages of the
UNGC to be uneven depending on the company
and Kell (2005) suggested that UNGC success is far
from assured, there is little doubt that the Compact
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
will remain an ongoing experiment, testing the lim-
its of self-enlightened engagement and the bound-
aries of the organization’s political and operational
spheres.
Further, the supranational context affects global
and local governance issues for leaders and the
companies in which they operate. Though the
UNGC holds leaders and organizations more re-
sponsible, there is a need for global governance and
norms to level the global playing field, and there is
nascent evidence that this is occurring (Cetindamar
& Husoy, 2007). Corporate social reporting, while
not mandatory in most countries, has been adopted
by many large companies around the world, and
there are now a variety of competing global stan-
dards for nonfinancial reporting, such as the Global
Reporting Initiative and the UNGC. Chen and Bou-
vain (2009) found that UNGC membership was hav-
ing an impact in specific areas of CSR reporting,
related to the environment and workers, although
Kelly (2013) noted that the issue of accountability
continues to remain a work in progress as the
UNGC continues to grow.
In addition to the passage of the UNGC and the
role of global and local governance, a third aspect
of the supranational context that has a major
influence on responsible leader behavior is the
role of NGO activism, which has substantially
changed company and managerial behavior. Es-
pecially involving international investment proj-
ects, NGOs have played a conspicuous role in
influencing the interaction between governments
and business regarding international business
practices, rules, and norms (Doh & Teegen, 2002).
These NGO influences extend beyond traditional
institutional structures and infuse the attitudes of
corporate executives. For example, many manag-
ing directors and CEOs of European corporations
frequently use the term “stakeholder” to refer to
their principal constituencies, a large number of
European corporations now issue corporate re-
sponsibility reports (sometimes voluntarily and
sometimes to comply with new corporate report-
ing regulations) and participate in international
codes and standards related to CSR (Doh & Guay,
2004), and many European firms include NGO
and union representatives on their management
and executive boards. Together, these findings
suggest that the influence of NGOs in the supra-
national context affects managers’ propensity to
refrain from harmful behavior.
A final aspect of the supranational context that
has an increasingly important influence on man-
245
agers and the companies in which they operate is
the role of the media. Public scrutiny of ethical
behavior in organizations has been accelerated
through media attention. Past ethical breaches
have become infamous: Enron and Arthur Ander-
sen’s dubious accounting practices; Nike’s use of
child labor in Pakistan and Cambodia; improper
trading and other unscrupulous activities at
Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers,
and many others (Schneider et al., 2014). With
the increased use of social media and availability
of up-to-the-moment Web information, ethical
breaches are reported with more frequency, trans-
parency, and precision (Carroll & Buchholtz,
2011). Thus, companies are finding it more diffi-
cult to discount negative press and occurrences
of unethical conduct.
As access to information continues to grow,
many companies have chosen to embrace it by con-
veying the message of integrity through their com-
munications media (Islam & Deegan, 2010). The
corporate scandals that have pervaded our collec-
tive attention have led to an increase in the social
and ethical commitments of society. Moreover, this
obliges companies to develop and publicize infor-
mation related to CSR. Arvidsson (2010) analyzed
the views of managers on communication of CSR
and found that although such communication be-
gan as a reactive response to many corporate scan-
dals, it is now thought to be a more proactive way
to mitigate CSR legitimacy concerns.
The mass media can exert a great deal of influ-
ence on corporate behavior in general and on CSR
in particular (Dickson & Eckman, 2008). Zyglido-
poulos, Georgiadis, Carroll, and Siegel (2012) in-
vestigated the impact of media attention on the CSR
behavior of firms. Drawing on stakeholder theory
(Freeman, 1994), the findings indicate that an in-
crease in media attention is positively associated
with increased CSR by firms. Tang (2011) found
that the media are major stakeholders in defining
and promoting CSR. The way the media conveys
stories regarding CSR has substantial influence on
the expectations of both policy makers and the
public involving these companies, and this will
affect whether or not companies conduct their busi-
ness in a socially responsible manner (Tang, 2011).
These findings collectively show a compelling re-
lationship between the role of the media and the
propensity of managers and companies to enact “do
good” and “avoid harm” behaviors.
246 The Academy of Management Perspectives
The Moderating Role of Situational Strength
The lack of attention to contextual influences in
existing behavioral ethics research has led Kish-
Gephart and colleagues (2010, p. 23) to conclude
that “there is a need for broader band research that
investigates more complex configurations of indi-
vidual, moral issue, and organizational environ-
ment variables.” This requires greater clarity con-
cerning how contextual conditions might moderate
individual difference effects. We propose that the
situational, organizational, institutional, and su-
pranational influences discussed above promote or
hinder responsible leader behavior by increasing
the psychological strength of the situations facing
managers in their work environments.
Mischel (1973) suggested that the psychological
features of situations influence the behavioral ex-
pression of personality traits. He argued that the
behavioral expression of dispositions is likely to be
suppressed by highly constraining “strong” situa-
tions, but that these dispositions will likely be en-
acted in “weak” situations. Psychologically strong
situations are those in which there are strong be-
havioral norms, strong incentives for specific types
of behaviors, and clear expectations about what
behaviors are rewarded and punished. Thus, in
organizations that are highly formalized and gov-
erned by well-established role expectations, rules,
policies, and procedures, there is less opportunity
for managers to behaviorally express their disposi-
tional tendencies (House & Aditya, 1997). Such
psychologically strong situations are characterized
not only by restricted decision-making capacity
and scope of action, but also by limited ability to
influence behavioral outcomes. By contrast, in or-
ganizations where managers are less constrained by
rules, policies, and regulations and have greater
discretion over their activities, there is more oppor-
tunity for them to express their dispositions and to
influence organizational outcomes. Such weak sit-
uations allow a wider range of behaviors and hence
permit expression of individual differences by
managers.
Thus, we propose that situational strength mod-
erates the relationship between leader characteris-
tics and leaders’ propensity to engage in responsi-
ble behavior (see Figure 1). For example, in the
proximal context at the organization level, clear-cut
standards for ethical conduct and stringent control
systems, supported by performance management
and reward systems that hold managers account-
able for their decisions and actions, are likely to
August
create a psychologically “strong” situation. In such
an environment, managers who are motivated pri-
marily by self-interest and personal gain are likely
to refrain from engaging in irresponsible behavior
for fear of sanctions. Similarly, top management
teams may be able to promote “do good” and
“avoid harm” behavior by making implicit behav-
ioral norms more prominent and clearly defined—
for instance, by visibly modeling responsible con-
duct and rewarding employees for behavior that is
consistent with values such as integrity, account-
ability, and fairness (e.g., Chatman & Cha, 2003). By
contrast, in organizations that lack clear norms,
policies, and guidelines for ethical conduct, and
where managers have greater leeway of action (i.e.,
psychologically “weak” situations), managers must
rely on their own standards and follow self-chosen
ethical principles. A lack of organizational guid-
ance and control does not automatically imply that
managers will engage in irresponsible practices;
however, it increases the likelihood that managers’
dispositions— good and bad—will be expressed in
actual behavior.
Thus, somewhat paradoxically, our analysis sug-
gests that in psychologically strong environments,
there may be not only less opportunity for manag-
ers to do harm, but also less opportunity to do good.
For example, in organizations that have clear poli-
cies and guidelines to prevent discrimination, the
role of individual managers in ensuring fair and
equitable treatment of all employees is likely to be
less important than in organizations that lack clear
policies and effective processes and programs per-
taining to equal opportunity. In organizations that
are highly formalized and governed by well-estab-
lished rules, policies, and role expectations, there
may be not only less opportunity, but also less
need, for managers to do good. Creating psycholog-
ically strong situations through clear policies, cod-
ified norms, and standardized practices can thus
function as a substitute for responsible managerial
behavior.
In addition to aspects of the organizational con-
text, characteristics of the broader national and su-
pranational context also matter. In the distal con-
text at the institutional level, the national culture
and legal system within which managers operate
will likely affect the psychological strength of the
situation and, consequently, managers’ propensity
to engage in responsible and irresponsible behav-
ior. For example, an environment where stake-
holder rights are not legislated, law enforcement is
lax, corporate governance structures are weak, and
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
the role of the media is restricted creates a weak
situation that would likely not promote responsible
managerial behavior. Conversely, when managers
operate in environments where stakeholder rights are
protected through mechanisms like the UNGC, robust
corporate governance structures exist, and laws and
regulations are stringently enforced (thereby creating
a psychologically strong situation), there is both less
opportunity and less need for managers to behavior-
ally express their dispositions, good or bad.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this paper was to develop a better
understanding of the individual, situational, organ-
izational, societal, and supranational influences on
responsible leader behavior. To this end, we pro-
vided a synthesis of existing and emerging research
on responsible leadership and proposed a unifying
framework for explaining leaders’ propensity to en-
gage in two types of socially responsible behavior:
“doing good” (prescriptive morality) and “avoiding
harm” (proscriptive morality).
Theoretical Implications and Future Directions
Our analysis suggests that “doing good” and
“avoiding harm” are two conceptually distinct cat-
egories or types of leader behavior, with different
psychological bases and different antecedents that
predict them. However, there is little theoretical
and empirical clarity concerning how the factors
identified as antecedents of socially responsible
behavior might differentially affect the “do good”
and “avoid harm” dimensions of responsible lead-
ership. Although the goals of enhancing societal
well-being and avoiding harmful consequences for
society represent recurring themes in the CSR and
behavioral ethics literatures (e.g., Aguilera et al.,
2007; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Jones, 1991), few
studies have explicitly addressed the implications
of these dual roles for managers. A notable excep-
tion is a study by Crilly and colleagues (2008),
whose findings suggest that decisions made in “do
good” scenarios reflect both cognition and affect
(e.g., self-transcendent values and positive emo-
tions), whereas decisions to avoid activities that
might inflict harm on stakeholders are governed
largely by more deliberative cognitive processes
(e.g., moral reasoning).
Several authors have noted that individuals’ eth-
ical choices are likely to be affected by influences at
multiple levels and have stressed the need for an
247
interactionist perspective on ethical decision mak-
ing and behavior (Bommer, Gratto, Gravander, &
Tuttle, 1987; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Treviño &
Youngblood, 1990), but few studies have investi-
gated multiple influences across different levels of
analysis and categories of predictor variables. For
example, Kish-Gephart and colleagues (2010, p. 23)
noted that most of the studies included in their meta-
analysis “investigated only direct relationships be-
tween a proposed determinant and unethical
choices,” and O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005) found
that only 20 (out of 384) studies included in their
review of the ethical decision-making literature ex-
amined moderators. Consequently, there is a need for
more empirical research that explores the contextual
conditions that moderate individual difference ef-
fects, particularly the role of situational strength.
Our analysis suggests that, in addition to acting
as a moderator variable, situational strength may
mediate the relationships between the contextual
influences and leaders’ propensity to engage in re-
sponsible behavior. For example, an institutional
environment where stakeholder rights are pro-
tected, robust corporate governance structures ex-
ist, and laws and regulations are stringently en-
forced creates a psychologically strong situation
that likely promotes responsible leadership behav-
ior. This is true especially when leaders operate
within the constraints imposed by an organization
with clear-cut standards for ethical conduct, have a
corporate culture that promotes and encourages re-
sponsible behavior, and enact performance man-
agement and reward systems that hold managers
accountable for their decisions and actions. In such
situations, leaders do not only have less opportu-
nity to “do harm,” but they also have more incen-
tives to “do good.” Paradoxically, though, our anal-
ysis suggests that in such an environment, there
may also be less need for leaders to do good or to
avoid harm, because well-established role expecta-
tions, rules, policies, and procedures can function
as a substitute for responsible leader behavior.
Future research should test the organizing
framework advanced in this paper and establish
its applicability to the international context. Glo-
balization has brought social and environmental
concerns to management’s agenda, and more and
more managers operate in a global environment. It
is well established that when international manag-
ers engage in unethical or illegal activities outside
their home countries it is often because they adhere
to a naive form of cultural relativism of the “when
in Rome . . .” kind (Stahl et al., 2013). The danger is
248 The Academy of Management Perspectives
particularly acute in cases where local standards
(e.g., environmental and safety standards) are con-
siderably less stringent than the standards in the
home country. Such an environment, combined
with an incomplete and inaccurate understanding
of the local context, creates a psychologically weak
situation that likely promotes irresponsible behav-
ior. We propose that the construct of situational
strength is of considerable heuristic value in under-
standing the ethical dilemmas facing managers in
the global arena and how they cope with those
dilemmas.
Related to the previous point, with a few notable
exceptions, existing research on behavioral ethics
has been culturally blind, in that studies have
largely ignored the influence of the national cul-
tural environment on socially responsible behav-
ior. As noted by Vickers (2005), “global corpora-
tions operate in nations where bribery, sexual
harassment, racial discrimination, and a variety of
other issues are not uniformly viewed as illegal or
even unethical” (p. 30). This not only implies that
it is difficult to clearly and unambiguously define
responsible behavior for a manager in a given cul-
tural context, but also means that managers operat-
ing in the global arena need to take these differ-
ences into account and balance global and local
considerations in making responsible decisions
(Donaldson, 1996). To further advance our under-
standing of the leadership challenges facing managers
of global companies, we need a more sophisticated
conceptualization of “responsible leadership” that is
applicable to all cultural groups and a wide range of
stakeholders, as well as research designs that allow
researchers to study the antecedents of responsible
and irresponsible leader behavior across different na-
tional contexts.
Practical Implications
Many of the organizational-, situational-, soci-
etal-, and supranational-level determinants of re-
sponsible managerial behavior identified in this pa-
per can be influenced by top management teams,
policy makers, educators, and external regulators.
Our findings can thus enhance our understanding of
how companies and other stakeholders can effec-
tively prevent, manage, and control the corporate
risks associated with unethical conduct and promote
socially responsible behavior on the part of leaders.
At the organizational level, when recruiting, se-
lecting, and promoting managers, it is essential for
organizations to understand how individual-level
August
variables such as personality traits, motives, and
values may predict managers’ propensity to engage
in harmful behavior. For example, firms can use
personality tests and integrity tests (Munchus,
1989; Scroggins, Thomas, & Morris, 2009), along
with interviews and assessment centers, to help
determine which employees might be more likely
to act irresponsibly. They can also assess appli-
cants’ attitudes and values to determine whether
they will match the corporate culture, with the
assumption that candidates’ formal qualifications
and job-related skills may not be the best predictors
of responsible behavior on the job. In terms of com-
munication and control systems, top management
teams can actively promote responsible behavior
and discourage irresponsible behavior by commu-
nicating an ethics and integrity message, by creat-
ing and enforcing company policies and codes of
conduct, by supporting training and develop-
ment initiatives that are aimed at increasing
moral awareness, and by implementing perfor-
mance management and reward systems to hold
managers accountable for irresponsible behavior
(Crane & Matten, 2007), thereby creating a psy-
chologically strong environment.
An area that is of particular importance in pre-
venting unethical behavior and promoting socially
responsible behavior is training and education.
Noted management scholars and educators (Gho-
shal, 2005; Khurana, 2007; Mintzberg, 2004) have
questioned the assumptions underlying traditional
management education, which, in their view, not
only contributed to a moral vacuum and promoted
a dysfunctional picture of the “ruthlessly hard-
driving, strictly top-down, command-and-control
focused, shareholder-value obsessed, win-at-any-
cost business leader” (Ghoshal, 2005, p. 85), but
also failed to prepare students for coping with the
ethical dilemmas and leadership challenges facing
managers in contemporary corporations. Although
many of the personality traits, attitudes, and values
associated with responsible managerial behavior
are likely to be relatively fixed and thus hard to
change or develop, training and development activ-
ities can play an important role in ensuring that
managers, especially those that are more junior, act
responsibly. Once an individual has joined the or-
ganization, participation in induction programs, in-
dividual coaching by a supervisor, training and
development programs, and other socialization
practices ensure that the newcomer learns the val-
ues, expected behaviors, and social knowledge nec-
essary to become an effective and responsible
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
member of the organization. Future studies can
contribute to best practice in this area by shedding
light on how companies can systematically design
and utilize human resource management practices
and leadership development programs to promote
responsible managerial behavior.
A promising recent trend in management educa-
tion is the use of service learning programs and
consciousness-raising experiences to prepare man-
agers for the social, ecologic, and ethical issues
facing today’s business leaders (Caligiuri, Mencin,
& Jiang, 2013; Mirvis, 2008; Pless, Maak, & Stahl,
2011). An example of such a program is Pricewa-
terhouseCoopers’s (PwC) Project Ulysses, which in-
volves sending teams from PwC’s operations
around the world to developing countries to work
with a host organization (usually a nonprofit organ-
ization) on predefined service projects in areas
such as health, poverty alleviation, sustainability,
and rural development. In evaluating the program,
Pless and colleagues (2011) found that the program
was effective in developing competencies that are
critical for responsible global leadership, including
intercultural sensitivity and a global mindset; self-
management and community-building skills; and
“ethical literacy” that encompasses responsible
mindset, ethical decision making, and service
orientation. A growing number of companies, in-
cluding IBM, Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline,
and Unilever, have implemented similar pro-
grams to support their global CSR and sustain-
ability strategies and promote responsible leader-
ship in their organizations (Caligiuri et al., 2013;
Googins, Mirvis, & Rochlin, 2007).
CONCLUSION
The benefits of responsible leadership to soci-
ety, and the damage incurred by management
misconduct, make it essential to establish frame-
works for future research. Our arguments that
individual-level and contextual factors combine
and interact to influence responsible leader be-
havior are key components of our proposed
framework. Most notably, the important aspect of
the leadership decision-making environment—
situational strength—moderates the relationship
between individual-level factors and a leader’s
propensity to engage in “do good” and “avoid
harm” behavior. It is our intention that this
framework will assist others to further investigate
the mechanisms influencing responsible leader-
ship, which in turn may cultivate leaders with an
orientation toward responsibility.
249
REFERENCES
Agle, B. R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., Jensen, M. C.,
Mitchell, R. K., & Wood, D. J. (2008). Dialogue: To-
ward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 18(2), 153–190.
Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J.
(2007). Putting the S back in corporate social respon-
sibility: A multilevel theory of social change in or-
ganizations. Academy of Management Review, 3,
836 – 863.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Orga-
nizational 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., & Treviño, 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: Build-
ing the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managing across
borders: The transnational solution (2nd ed.). Bos-
ton: 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 So-
cial Psychology, 40, 290 –302.
Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L., & Scherer,
A. G. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsi-
bility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal
of Business Ethics, 115(4), 693–705.
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 net-
work perspective. Academy of Management Review,
23(1), 14 –31.
Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win–win–
win: The influence of company-sponsored volun-
teerism 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.
250 The Academy of Management Perspectives
Stumpf (Eds.), Handbook on responsible leadership
and governance in global business (pp. 87–111).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive
organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: Toward the moral management of or-
ganizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),
39 – 48.
Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizen-
ship. Business and Society Review, 100/101, 1–7.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. (2011). Business and so-
ciety: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder man-
agement (8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western/Cen-
gage Learning.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case
for corporate social responsibility: A review of con-
cepts, research and practice. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.
Cetindamar, D., & Husoy, K. (2007). Corporate social
responsibility practices and environmentally re-
sponsible behavior: The case of the United Nations
Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2),
163–176.
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 corpo-
rate culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 855–
865.
Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility
converging? A comparison of corporate responsibil-
ity reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Ger-
many. 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. Jour-
nal 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). Psycho-
logical antecedents to socially responsible behavior.
European Management Review, 5, 175–190.
Crook, C. (2005, January 22). The good company—a sur-
vey of corporate social responsibility. Economist,
August
1–14. Available at http://www.economist.com/
node/3577141
Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible cor-
poration a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Manage-
ment Perspectives, 23(2), 44 –56.
Dickson, M. A., & Eckman, M. (2008). Media portrayal of
voluntary public reporting about corporate social re-
sponsibility performance: Does coverage encourage
or discourage ethical management? Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 83, 725–743.
Dietz, J., & Kleinlogel, E. P. (2013). Wage cuts and man-
agers’ empathy: How a positive emotion can contrib-
ute to positive organizational ethics in difficult
times. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 283–299.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2004). Globalization and corpo-
rate social responsibility: How nongovernmental
organizations influence labor and environmental
codes of conduct. Management International Re-
view, 44(3), 7–30.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social respon-
sibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe
and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder
perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1),
47–73.
Doh, J. P., & Teegen, H. (2002). Nongovernmental organ-
izations as institutional actors in international busi-
ness: Theory and implications. International Busi-
ness 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 the-
ory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and im-
plications. 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 de-
velopment. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–
697.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bot-
tom line of 21st-century business. Oxford, UK: Cap-
stone.
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, inten-
tion, 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
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
decision-making in business organizations. Journal
of Business Research, 24, 283–295.
Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender
differences in ethical perceptions of business prac-
tices: 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). Stake-
holder theory and “The corporate objective revis-
ited.” Organization Science, 15(3), 364 –369.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social respon-
sibility 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. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 37(1), 86 –96.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are de-
stroying good management practices. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 4, 75–91.
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 devel-
opment: Exposing students to the AICPA code of
conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 777–790.
Haines, R., & Leonard, L. N. K. (2007). Situational influ-
ences on ethical decision making in an IT context.
Information Management, 44, 313–320.
Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1978). Some determi-
nants of unethical decision behavior: An experi-
ment. 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 Manage-
ment, 23(3), 409 – 473.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social
responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Stra-
tegic and institutional approaches. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 37(6), 838 – 849.
Islam, M. A., & Deegan, C. (2010). Media pressures and
corporate disclosure of social responsibility perfor-
mance information: A study of two global clothing
and sports retail companies. Accounting and Busi-
ness Research, 40(2), 131–148.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individ-
uals in organizations: An issue-contingent model.
Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366 –395.
251
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A
synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 20, 404 – 437.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job
attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multi-
level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1),
126 –138.
Kakabadse, N., Rozuel, C., & Lee-Davis, L. (2005). Corpo-
rate social responsibility and stakeholder approach:
A conceptual review. International Journal of Busi-
ness Governance and Ethics, 1(4), 277–302.
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(1–2),
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), 31–52.
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., & Treviño, L. K.
(2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-
analytic evidence about sources of unethical deci-
sions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1),
1–31.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral develop-
ment: Essays on moral development. San Francisco:
Harper & Row.
Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility.
Harvard Business Review, 41–50.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive
organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 6, 695–706.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership
in a stakeholder society—a relational perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99 –115.
Margolis, J. D., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Do well by
doing good? Don’t count on it. Harvard Business
Review, 86, 19 –20.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves com-
252 The Academy of Management Perspectives
panies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Ad-
ministrative 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, 175–194.
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 ac-
tivity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6),
1401–1422.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit”
CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative un-
derstanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 33(2), 404 – 424.
McCloskey, D. (1998). The rhetoric of economics. Madi-
son, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). Smartest guys in the
room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of En-
ron. New York: Portfolio/Penguin.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social
responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.
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 de-
velopment. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Mirvis, P. (2008). Executive development through con-
sciousness-raising experiences. Academy of Man-
agement Learning and Education, 7, 173–188.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning
reconceptualization of personality. Psychological
Review, 80(4), 252–283.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the
person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.
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 Manage-
ment, August 1–5, Philadelphia.
Miska, C., Stahl, G. K., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2013).
Intercultural competencies as antecedents of respon-
sible global leadership. European Journal of Interna-
tional Management, 7(5), 550 –569.
Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The role of moral
intensity in moral judgments: An empirical investi-
gation. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 715–726.
Muller, A. R., Pfarrer, M. D., & Little, L. M. (2014). A
theory of collective empathy in corporate philan-
thropy decisions. Academy of Management Review,
39, 1–21.
Munchus, G. (1989). Testing as a selection tool: Another
August
old and sticky managerial human rights issue. Jour-
nal 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.
O’Fallon, 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). Cor-
porate social and financial performance: A meta-
analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403– 441.
Pavlovich, K., & Krahnke, K. (2012). Empathy, connect-
edness, and organization. Journal of Business Ethics,
105, 131–137.
Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. (2011). Thick as thieves: The
effects of ethical orientation and psychological
safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Ap-
plied 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 ser-
vice learning programs: The Ulysses experience.
Academy of Management Learning and Education,
10(2), 237–260.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2012). Promoting
corporate social responsibility and sustainable de-
velopment 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). Differ-
ent approaches toward doing the right thing: Map-
ping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Acad-
emy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 51– 65.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value.
Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
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 WorldCom’s ac-
2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque
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, 367–381.
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), 503–530.
Scroggins, W. A., Thomas, S. L., & Morris, J. A. (2009).
Psychological testing in personnel selection, part III:
The resurgence of personality testing. Public Person-
nel Management, 38(1), 67–77.
Shapeero, M. P., Koh, H. C., & Killough, L. N. (2003).
Underreporting and premature sign-off in public ac-
counting. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(6/7),
478 – 489.
Sims, R. R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethical be-
havior 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 develop-
ment (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 predic-
tors 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 stake-
holder and economic values relate to subordinates’
perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Ad-
ministrative 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 re-
sponsibility in China: A content analysis of newspa-
pers. Asian Journal of Communication, 22(3), 270 –
288.
Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expec-
tations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma:
253
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. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 684 –707.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical
decision-making: Where we’ve been and where
we’re going. Academy of Management Annals, 2,
545– 607.
Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organ-
izations: A person-situation interactionist model.
Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601– 617.
Treviño, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in
organizations: A justice perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 17(4), 647– 676.
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A
qualitative investigation of perceived executive eth-
ical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside
the executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 5–37.
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational
justice and ethics program “follow-through”: Influ-
ences on employees’ harmful and helpful behavior.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4), 651– 671.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Brown, M. E. (2008). It’s
lovely at the top: Hierarchical levels, identities, and
perceptions of organizational ethics. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 18(2), 233–253.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006).
Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal
of Management, 32, 951–990.
Treviño, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in
bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-
making 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). Respon-
sible leadership in global business: A new approach
to leadership and its multi-level outcomes. Journal
of Business Ethics, 105(1), 1–16.
Vogel, D. (1992). The globalizations of business ethics:
Why America remains distinctive. California Man-
agement Review, Fall, 30 – 49.
Waldman, D. A., Sully de Luque, M. F., Washburn, N., &
House, R. J. (2006). Cultural and leadership predic-
tors of corporate social responsibility values of top
management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Jour-
nal of International Business Studies, 37, 823– 837.
Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative
perspectives of responsible leadership. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 37(4), 327–341.
254 The Academy of Management Perspectives
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-Eco-
nomic 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. 115–143). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1972). The psychology of imprisonment:
Privation, power and pathology. Palo Alto, CA: Stan-
ford University Press.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding
how good people turn evil. New York: Random
House.
August
Zyglidopoulos, S. C., Georgiadis, A. P., Carroll, C. E., &
Siegel, D. S. (2012). Does media attention drive cor-
porate social responsibility? Journal of Business Re-
search, 65(11), 1622–1627.
Günter K. Stahl (guenter.stahl@wu.ac.at) is a professor of
international management at the Vienna University of
Business and Economics (WU Vienna), and was formerly
a professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD. Stahl’s
areas of interest include leadership, corporate social re-
sponsibility, and the sociocultural processes in interna-
tional teams, alliances, and mergers and acquisitions,
and how to manage people and culture effectively in
those contexts.
Mary Sully de Luque (mary.sullydeluque@thunderbird.
edu) is an associate professor of management at the
Thunderbird School of Global Management. Sully de
Luque’s research interests include the influences of cul-
ture on organizational effectiveness, leadership, CSR,
stakeholder decision making, and training. She also stud-
ies women, leadership, and culture in emerging markets.
Copyright of Academy of Management Perspectives is the property of Academy of
Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.