Effective leadership is uncommon. It's not that the majority of leaders lack responsibility; rather, responsibility in leadership is usually characterised in a way that leaves out a crucial aspect of responsible leadership. This article links virtue with responsible leadership. By using this meaning, it is implied that three premises—eudaemonism, intrinsic worth, and amplification—underlie responsible leadership. Secondarily, this meaning has two significant effects: it provides a stable point for coping with change and advantages for constituents who may not otherwise be impacted. Discussed are the benefits and significance of responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. Effective leadership is uncommon. It's not that the majority of leaders lack responsibility; rather, responsibility in leadership is usually characterised in a way that leaves out a crucial aspect of responsible leadership. This article's goal is to draw attention to this frequently disregarded quality of responsible leadership, examine its definition, and pinpoint two benefits for businesses. Organizations frequently hold the belief that its leaders must be trustworthy. In corporate companies, boards of directors look to choose CEOs who they believe to be most accountable for the performance and capital of the corporation. Voters in political elections try to identify which candidate will really carry out campaign pledges. Responsibility has been a common theme in the research on effective leadership (Doh and Stumph 2005; Yukl et al. 2002). According to Bass and Bass (2008) and Meindl and Ehrlich (1987), responsibility in this context is most frequently equated with dependability and accountability (as in being dependable in delivering on promises). Indicating that responsible people have the required authority and freedom of action, the terms "responsibility" and "freedom of action" are frequently used interchangeably. When assigned responsibility at work or given control over an activity or result, they have the capacity and resources to accomplish the goal (Spreitzer 2007). These two meanings of leadership responsibility are interconnected because empowered and free-acting leaders are more likely to be trustworthy and accountable (Spreitzer et al. 1999; Salancik and Meindl 1984). Responsibility in these two terms refers to being "response-able," or having the ability and capacity to react. Pless and colleagues have proposed a third interpretation of responsible leadership, in which responsible leaders are described as having particular traits and playing specific roles. In these discussions, responsible leadership is based on the idea that leaders interact with and are accountable to a variety of stakeholders. "Architect, change agent, citizen, coach, networker, servant, storyteller, steward, and visionary" are among the positions connected to responsible leadership. (Maak and Pless 2006b, p. 107; Pless 2007, p. 439), and there is a long list of qualities that make a responsible leader. In these discussions, responsible leadership is defined as the art of establishing and upholding moral and ethical relationships between corporate leaders and various stakeholders (followers), predicated on a sense of righteousness, a sense of acknowledgement, a perception of care, and a feeling of responsibility for just a wide range of economic, ecological, social, and political commitments. (2007, p. 451). A wide range of responsibilities, traits, and connections are encouraged, and responsible leadership is seen as an ideal style that encompasses all main theories of leadership (such as transformational, charismatic, servant, and ethical). A fourth interpretation of the phrase "responsible leadership" is less common but just as significant. It is this quality that makes a specific kind of responsible leadership uncommon. It describes the capacity or propensity to behave appropriately (as when a person acts properly). The idea of appropriateness is essential to this m
Key words: Leadership , Moral , Responsible
|
