MUHAMMAD UMER

01-111122-238

BBA 6 A

ADVANCED METHOD AND TECHNIQUES

FINAL PROJECT

SUBMITTED TO: SIR ATIF BILAL

DATED: 3-06-2015

ABSTRACT:The purpose of this study is to know that how a leader can transform it into a responsible leader, the variables used in the research paper are leadership characteristics as an independent leader, behavioral intention as an mediating variable, moderator used is organizational support and the dependent variable is responsible leader, this is the thing which we are finding out in the current research paper. The sample size of the study is of 300 people and the sector selected was the banking industry mainly Faysal and AL Barakah bank. The survey was carried out in Islamabad, sector F 10 markaz.

KEYWORDS:Leadership Characteristics, Behavioral Intention, Organizational support and Responsible leader.

INTRODUCTION:Responsible leadership has emerged as a major theme in academic and practical management discourse. We see that a leader can make or break any organization, it is just a leader who can take the organization up and bring the organization down, leadership characteristics are important for any individual. In this paper we provide an overview and synthesis of existing and emerging research on responsible leadership that who actually are responsible leader, how they can take the organization to upper limits and come up as a motivation for their staff and people working under them moreover we

would see that how any individual can be a good leader and propose a unifying framework for explaining leaders, there can be a mediating thing as well which has an impact on responsible leader that can be the behavioral intention of an individual, it is understood that behaviors decide every certain thing likewise the behavior of a person decides or indicates that if someone wants to be a good leader or he doesn’t wants to be a leader. A person not particular about time and takes his decision without knowing the situation, is pretty causal about its work can never be a good leader because it is understood that he doesn’t want to be a leader or a person of dignity. Propensity to engage in two types of socially responsible behavior: “do well” do well is a very broad terminology this word says that if a leader can do well in a certain area, not just this but the real meaning of this word is that a person as leader has to do well if he is a leader then and only then he can be called as an effective leader if someone is not able to do so he is unfortunately an ordinary leader and can never be a good leader and “avoid harm” is another terminology the second trait of a leader it says everything this means that the leader not just has to do well but he has to avoid harm too, if he is giving company a profit of 50M and doing this there are a lot of causalities for no reason this is not a good leadership habit this is a poor display of work a leader has to avoid harm, or maybe you can say that there are two types of leader one who try to do good and take positive steps and the others just avoid harm and take baby steps to the success they both are getting success in other way. 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 well” 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 decisions—situational strength—moderates the relationship between individual-level factors 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 social leaders. Moderator can be a key factor in deciding the leadership traits moderator can be the organization support in it, this means that the organization has an important role in defining a leader, if a person is backed by the organization therefore he would take positive steps and take initiatives thus he would come out as a motivational leader for its staff. On the other hand if organization support is not enough then he would be careful while taking decisions and doing anything. A leader would not come out as a motivation for his staff.

As the world is recovering from a major economic crisis and, as some have argued, a crisis of management ethics (e.g., Ghoshal, 2005; Waldman & Galvin, 2008), business leaders are under increased scrutiny. Top executives in the West and elsewhere have been exposed for dishonesty, greed, and unethical business practices. These highly publicized instances of management misconduct have eroded public faith in business and brought to the forefront the recognition that business leaders may be acting irresponsibly more often than previously thought. As a result, trust in business is at one of the lowest levels on record, particularly in the United States and Europe (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2012).1 recent calls for more ethical managerial conduct are a reaction to these scandals and crises. They are

also a result of changes and new demands in the global marketplace, such as increased stakeholder activism and scrutiny (e.g., Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Doh & Guay, 2006; Husted & Allen, 2006). As sociopolitical and environmental challenges intensify around the world there is increasing pressure from stakeholders—among them governments, local communities, NGOs, and consumers— on corporations and their leaders to engage in self-regulation and take more active roles as global citizens (Stahl, Pless, & Maak, 2013).

THEORETICAL FRA MEWORK:

MEWORK:

GAP ANALYSIS:Talking about the responsible leader, there are two basic terms that an individual should have one is that they should do good to the firm or they come out beneficial to the sector and they would be an outstanding team member by doing this, there is another type of leader considered responsible and that is which does not do actually any good to the firm but they focus on avoiding harm and damages which can occur in the sector they tend them to keep away from them. This is the pervious study done by the authors references are enlisted below. The study was carried out in England and Ireland.

We conducted a survey in Government sector considering these two variables and checking their position and knowing their responsibility level.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:This is to check the relationship of Leadership Characteristics and Responsible leader keeping the mediator as Behavioral Intention

The relationship of Leadership Characteristics and Responsible leader keeping the mediator as Behavioral Intention

Leadership Characteristics

Personality Traits Affective Thinking Values/Moral philosophies

Responsible Leader

Doing Good Avoiding Harm

Behavioral Intention

Organizational Support

RESEARCH QUESTION:

What is the relationship of Leadership Characteristics and Responsible leader keeping the mediator as Behavioral Intention?

To investigate the relationship of Leadership Characteristics and Responsible leader keeping the mediator as Behavioral Intention?

HYPO THESIS:

LEADERSHIP CHARCTERSTICS:These pioneers are sure however humble and their being—who they are—is charming to others as in they have a trademark region that unites with others and addresses others at a more significant enthusiastic level. "This is taking into account a certified perception and affirmation of one's uniqueness—personality, motivations, qualities and weaknesses and an assurance that connotes 'I don't need to claim to be someone I am definitely not.'" This is moreover displayed in unsurprising behavior. "An unmistakable and developed qualities and conviction system also serves to smooth out senseless swings of behavior." "Current pioneers ought to be more insightful than essentially being gotten up to speed in the event." We must be OK with not knowing and living with problems. This suggests we must have a willingness to listen and learn—even from the generally fantastical sources. When we "know" something we tend to need to hear just from people like us—people who channel the world through the same eyes we do. Additionally, when we do, we miss an impressive measure. "We get the chance to be judgmental and evaluative instead of inquisitive." We similarly ought to make certain and humble. Exactly when an inner assurance "is not modify with quiet self-assessment or full developed enthusiastic learning, it gets the chance to be skewed and egocentric." This is more than insightful understanding, this is behavioral learning. We ought to have the ability to interface what we (and others) are experiencing and go along with it to what we know. When it doesn't relate we need to tunnel more significant and increase from it. Shockingly, "individuals may deny that the situation is any particular and disregard to notice that their customary illustrations are showing unhelpful. They may succumb to an individual blind spot and disregard to learn." This is a vital development for most pioneers. We tend to grow up considering pioneers independent of as opposed to related with different people. More tyrannical than co-creators. Careful pioneers view themselves in association with others. "Those whose perspective of accomplishment relies on upon others' success are transforming into a more grounded force than possibly various

make sense of it." Careful pioneers have a controlling reason that enables them to focus their imperativeness and development. "Pioneers with an in number driving reason that answers the 'why am I doing this?' request need tantamount levels of focus to ensure that their dreams and dreams don't stay out of compass. The request is: "The spot do I need to focus my thought and my essentialness and in this way what are redirections to be avoided?" Skilled activity requires an "other" focus, quietude and care. "To be a competent pioneer is to wander forward into the space and the moment with an 'I can and I will' disposition to impact circumstances and structures for more traits.

LEADERSHIP CHARCTERSTICS:Organizational Support is the support given by the organization, how and what organization provides you. Organizational support is for the leader especially and it is to ensure that if a leader willing to work or he is interested to make new steps in any organization. Organizational support is important what actually is organizational support now, it is the support given by the organization to their employees and leaders moreover it is the trust that organizational has on his own employees. Likewise people who are from any organization and then they do anything or take any step the organization backs them and supports them in what so ever way it may be. If any organization fails to do it, the organization has to bear its consiquenceses, the people won’t have the comfort working there, people would be afraid to taking any positive or good steps, they would rather just do their job and kill time for no reason, another thing which can turn out as a threat for any company that is that people could leave their company and jump on to another company

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT:The absence of regard for relevant impacts in existing behavioral morals exploration has driven KishGephart also, associates (2010, p. 23) to finish up that "there is a requirement for more extensive band inquire about that researches more perplexing designs of person, good issue, and hierarchical environment variables." This requires more noteworthy clarity concerning how relevant conditions may direct singular distinction impacts. We recommend that the situational, authoritative, institutional, and supranational impacts talked about above advance or thwart dependable pioneer conduct by expanding the mental quality of the circumstances confronting supervisors in their workplaces. Mischel (1973) recommended that the mental elements of circumstances impact the behavioral expression of identity characteristics. He contended that the behavioral articulation of attitudes is liable to be stifled by exceptionally compelling "solid"

circumstances, however, that these airs will probably be authorized in "feeble" circumstances. Mentally solid circumstances are those in which there are solid behavioral standards, solid motivations for particular sorts of practices, and clear assumptions about what practices are remunerated and rebuffed. Along these lines, in associations that are very formalized and represented by settled part desires, rules, strategies, and methodology, there is less open door for directors to behaviorally express their dispositional inclinations (House & Aditya, 1997). Such mentally solid circumstances are described not just by confined choice making limit furthermore, extent of activity, additionally by constrained capacity to impact behavioral results. By complexity, in associations where directors are less obliged by guidelines, strategies, and regulations and have more noteworthy circumspection over their exercises, there is more open door for them to express their airs and to impact hierarchical results. Such powerless circumstances permit a more extensive scope of practices and thus grant articulation of individual contrasts by directors. Along these lines, we recommend that situational quality conservatives the relationship between pioneer qualities what's more, pioneers' affinity to take part in dependable conduct (see Figure 1). For instance, in the proximal setting at the association level, obvious measures for moral behavior and stringent control frameworks, upheld by execution administration also, remunerate frameworks that consider supervisors responsible for their choices and activities, are prone to make a mentally "solid" circumstance. In such a situation, supervisors who are inspired fundamentally without anyone else interest and individual addition are likely to abstain from taking part in reckless conduct inspired by a paranoid fear of assents. Correspondingly, beat administration groups may have the capacity to advance "do great" and "maintain a strategic distance from damage" conduct by making implied behavioral standards more unmistakable and plainly characterized for example, by obviously demonstrating dependable behavior furthermore, remunerating workers for conduct that is predictable with qualities, for example, honesty, responsibility, furthermore, reasonableness (e.g., Chatman & Cha, 2003). By difference, in associations that need clear standards, arrangements, and rules for moral behavior, and where directors have more prominent room of activity (i.e., mentally "frail" circumstances), administrators must depend all alone benchmarks and take after self-picked moral standards. An absence of hierarchical direction what's more, control does not naturally infer that directors will take part in untrustworthy practices; nonetheless, it improves the probability that administrators' airs great and terrible will be communicated in genuine conduct. Subsequently, to some degree incomprehensibly, our examination recommends that in mentally solid situations, there may be not just less open door for administrators to do hurt, additionally less chance to do great. For instance, in associations that have clear strategies furthermore, rules to forestall segregation, the part of individual chiefs in guaranteeing reasonable and evenhanded treatment of all representatives is liable to be less vital than in associations that need clear strategies and powerful procedures and projects relating to equivalent open door. In associations that are

exceedingly formalized and represented by entrenched tenets, strategies, and part desires, there may be less open door, as well as less need, for administrators to do great. Making mentally solid circumstances through clear arrangements, systematized standards, and institutionalized practices can consequently capacity as a substitute for dependable administrative conduct. Notwithstanding parts of the authoritative setting, attributes of the more extensive national and supranational connection additionally matter. In the distal setting at the institutional level, the national society what's more, lawful framework inside which directors work will probably influence the mental quality of the circumstance and, subsequently, directors' penchant to take part in dependable and unreliable conduct. Case in point, a domain where partner rights are not administered, law implementation is remiss, corporate administration structures are frail, and 246 The Academy of Management Perspectives August the part of the media is limited makes a frail circumstance that would likely not advance mindful administrative conduct. Then again, when directors work in situations where partner rights are secured through instruments like the UNGC, hearty corporate administration structures exist, and laws and regulations are stringently upheld (consequently making a mentally solid circumstance), there is both less opportunity and less requirement for supervisors to behaviorally express their attitudes, great or awful.

RESPONSIBLE LEADERAn audit of the behavioral morals and dependable administration writings demonstrates that most variables 240 The Academy of Management Perspectives August distinguished as predecessors of socially dependable decisions are individual-level qualities. They incorporate identity qualities, for example, the "Huge Five" components of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, appropriateness, and principles (Kalshoven et al., 2010); qualities and convictions (Crilly et al., 2008); psychological procedures (Green & Weber, 1997); summed up hopes, for example, locus-of-control introduction (Shapeero, Koh, & Killough, 2003); and emotional states (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006). Research on other individual-level attributes incorporates hazard observations (Fraedrich & Ferrell, 1992); phases of intellectual good advancement (Treviño, 1986); and capacities, abilities, and behavioral manners, such as dependable administration skills (Cameron & Caza, 2005), dependable administration introductions (Pless, Maak, & Waldman, 2012), and worldwide administration abilities (Miska, Stahl, & Mendenhall, 2013), as well as demographics, including sex, age, and instruction level (Franke, Crown, & Spake, 1997). Albeit the majority of the studies explored don't expressly concentrate on administration conduct, the elements recognized in observational research as precursors of people's moral decisions may be seen as potential impacts on pioneers' inclination to lock in in socially mindful or flighty behavior. These studies propose, for instance, that directors with identity qualities

and qualities that stress quest for one's own advantage, rather than the more noteworthy normal great, are more prone to take part in exercises that put partners at danger or hurt and less inclined to take part in exercises that upgrade societal welfare (Crilly et al., 2008). By difference, supervisors who grasp self-extraordinary qualities are more prone to settle on choices and take activities that advantage society and maintain a strategic distance from destructive results for others (Ashkanasy, Windsor, & Treviño, 2006; Kalshoven et al., 2010). Among the numerous individual-level elements that have been mulled over in the association are four key elements that we audit here: sympathy, subjective moral advancement, Machiavellianism, and good theories. Compassion alludes to another-situated passionate reaction consistent with the apparent welfare of another (Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckey, & Birch, 1981) and mirrors the capacity of a individual to nearly imitate someone else's enthusiastic state (Eisenberg, 2000). Sympathy related reacting has been reliably discovered to be related with prosocial conduct (Eisenberg, 1986). In spite of the fact that compassion has been generally considered in test settings (see Batson, 1991, for a survey), administration analysts are progressively perceiving its significance for administration in a hierarchical connection (e.g., Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006; Sadri, Weber, & Gentry, 2011). Researchers have recommended that compassion is a premise for connectedness what's more, charitableness (Pavlovich & Krahnke, 2012) and corporate altruism (Muller, Pfarrer, & Little, 2014). At long last, compassion has been experimentally demonstrated to diminish an administrator's inclination to go along with solicitations by power figures to participate in conduct that has destructive outcomes for workers (Dietz & Kleinlogel, 2013). Intellectual good improvement (CMD) hypothesis alludes to the phases of intellectual many-sided quality through which people's ethical activities climb (Kohlberg, 1984). CMD is made out of five successive levels that people hypothetically progress through in life, turning out to be generally steady at adulthood. The fifth or post-traditional level demonstrates an advanced level of good thinking in which people apply standards of equity and rights and consider societal great in choice making (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). People who are at the higher phases of CMD have been discovered to be less inclined to participate in dishonest conduct (see Treviño, 1992, for an audit of CMD and dishonest conduct in the work environment) and to be more inclined to participate in moral conduct, for example, whistleblowing (Road, 1995). CMD is therefore prone to impact both the "do great" and "maintain a strategic distance from damage" measurements of capable pioneer conduct. Machiavellianism, usually known as a political hypothesis, has been conceptualized in behavioral morals examine as an identity build or behavioral aura related "with irreverent activity, sharp managing, concealed plans, and dishonest overabundance" (Nelson & Gilbertson, 1991, p. 633). Taking into account a meta-investigation of the moral choice making writing, Kish-Gephart and associates (2010) found support for the connection in the middle of Machiavellianism and dishonest conduct. An inside and out case review led by Miska, Stahl, and Fuchs (2014) of 52 true instances of unscrupulous administrative conduct

uncovered that organizations included in major outrages, for example, Enron, WorldCom, and Salomon Siblings, were more inclined to have pioneers who displayed Machiavellian character attributes. At last, the fourth individual-level element that has been concentrated on in the association is moral methods of insight, which are established in standardizing philosophical hypotheses and allude to individuals' inclinations furthermore, legitimizations for particular regulating introductions. Earlier research finds genuinely reliable examples of connections between good theories and 2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 241 untrustworthy decisions. This is indicated in positive linkages in the middle of teleological and relativistic introductions what's more, negative connections for deontological and optimist ones (O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). Teleological methodologies are more result focused, considering thinking based the final aftereffect of activities, which may legitimize untrustworthy conduct. Deontological methodologies are more administer driven, underlining obligations free of outcomes, which may keep down people from participating in exploitative conduct. Correspondingly, relativism expect that regulating convictions are reliant on particular settings, while vision suggests all inclusive moral rules. From examination taking into account an example of 25 prominent business pioneers, Pless, Maak, and Waldman (2012) distinguished contrasts in pioneers' obligation introductions, alluding to pioneers' conceptualization of corporate obligation. These introductions, which are established in and driven by fluctuations in individual qualities and good rationalities, are prone to influence both "do great" also, "evade hurt" conduct. Interestingly, there is some exact proof that the "do great" and "keep away from damage" measurements of mindful pioneer conduct are anticipated by distinctive individual-level forerunners. Crilly and partners (2008) found that self-greatness values, generosity, and positive full of feeling states impact administrators' affinity to take part in exercises that have a positive effect on society, though choices to maintain a strategic distance from exercises that may incur hurt on others are represented to a great extent by more deliberative psychological procedures, for example, good thinking. These discoveries support the conclusion that "doing great" and "evading mischief" are thoughtfully unmistakable classes, with diverse mental bases.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:Research Methodology This section provides insights about the methodology used to conduct this research. The discussion describes the methodology used for this study under the headings of research approach and design, instrument development, population, sample, unit of analysis, time horizon, pilot testing, data collection procedure, data analysis technique, tests for data analysis and software used. The present research is quantitative in its approach. The research design of the present study is hypothesis testing, type of investigation is causal and cross sectional. The instrument used for the data collection was a survey questionnaire containing

structured close-ended questions. The questionnaire had two sections. Section ‘A’ comprised of demographic information such as sector (public or private) with gender, age, experience, education and managerial tier, section ‘B’ comprised the questions which enclosed of different items to measure responses on the variables. All questions were adapted using the five likert scale (Likert, 1967), form ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1 Measures Variable Population of the study was the employees from banking sector of Pakistan. The sample size of the study included workers of Telecom industry from IslamabadThe sampling strategy used for this study is convenience sampling technique. Unit of analysis for this study is individual analysis that includes the employees of telecom sector. A pilot test of 30-50 respondents was conducted from the employees. The result of pilot test indicated that all the items of the instrument were reliable with (α > 0.600) showing high level of internal consistency for all variables (Nunnally, 1978). Structured questionnaire was used as an instrument for data collection. The questionnaire was distributed to the employees of banking sector (faysal bank) in Islamabad. A total number of 356 questionnaires were distributed out of which 300 were returned back with a response rate of 75%. The tests used in this study were descriptive, correlation and regression analysis. Baron and Kenny (1986) discussed a four step regression analysis to determine the mediating and moderating effect of variables, these steps have been undertaken in order to find the mediating and moderating role of the variable. SPSS version 20 is used to perform these tests. It had been ensured that the respect and dignity of all research respondents must be maintained. It was highly guaranteed to protect the privacy of research subjects, ensuring the confidentiality of research data and also protecting the anonymity of individuals who participated. Participants were provided with an information sheet outlining the purpose of the study and given assurances that their data would be treated confidentially. Complete honesty and transparency has been maintained while communicating about the research. The content and face validity is assured for a reliable and validate scale. Content and face validity was done with the help of professional experts in the field, instrument was modified according to the recommendations made by them. The purpose of content validity is to examine that up to what extent items are addressing all dimensions of a particular construct and to ensure that items constructed in a way that all respondents can read them conveniently (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). Based on feedback certain items were deleted. The revised questionnaire was than distributed among the respondents for pilot testing with covering letter explaining academic purpose of the research.

COMBINATION OF ALL THE FOUR VARIABLES:All the four variables are related to each other that independent variable and the moderator or mediating variable rely on each other to make the responsible leader, leadership characteristics are not just enough there has to be something else in it as well like behavior of the individual thus the leader and the organizational all come up to make responsible leader.

Results:-

N 300Gender

  FrequencyMale 222

Female 78

Age20-30 years old 15631-35years old 9636+ years old 42

Experience (Working in teams)1-5 years 1146-10 years 12611-20years 60

The sample size is of 300 people from banking sector in which 222 were male and 78 were female, from 25 to 36 or more. Their experience lies from 1 year to 20 years.

Variable Number of items Cronbach’s AlphaLeadership characteristics

5 0.64

Behavioral intention 5 0.743Organizational 5 0.832

supportResponsible leader 5 0.732

Chornbach Alpha of the variables are as follows.

Responsible leader: 0.64

Behavioral Intention: 0.743

Organizational Support: 0.832

Responsible leader: 0.732

Correlation Matrix Variables Mean S.D 1 2 3 4LC 3.93 .5832 1 .38

0**.542**

.389**

BI 3.62 0.4734 .370**

1 ..488**

.506**

OS 3.24 .5654 .551**

.432**

1 ..568**

RL 3.57 .6534 .380**

.510**

.448

**1.00

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Hypothesis+37:437:40 R Square B S.E t-test F-test Sig.1:A positive relationship exists between leadership characteristics and responsible leaders. 0.160 0.411 0.51 8.36 70.36 0.002:A positive relationship exists between leadership characteristics and organizational support 0.155 0.21 0.035 8.22 70.2 0.003: A positive relationships exists between organizational support and responsible leader. 0.256 0.699 .062 11.555 133.333 0.00

Steps IV DV R R2 Β F-test t- stat Sig.1 LC RL 0.381 0.160 0.41 70.36 8.36 0

12 LC BI 0.155 0.155 0.21 70.2 8.22 0

3 BI RL 0.604 0.3250.67

4 133.333 11.547 0

4 LC+BI RL 0.456 0.256 0.699 .671 85.022 8.964, 10.012 0H4 : Creativity has negative mediating relationship between Motivation and Innovation.

Steps IV DV R R2 Β F-test t- stat Sig.

1 LC RL 0.381 0.160 0.411 70.36 8.36 0

2 LC BI 0.155 0.155 0.21 70.2 8.22 03 BI RL 0.604 0.325 0.674 133.34 11.547 04 Moderator RL 0.785 0.732 0.138 1205.522 32.49 0

H5 : Empowerment has positive moderating relationship between Creativity and Innovation.

DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS:The motivation behind this paper was to add to a superior comprehension of the individual, situational, authoritative, societal, and supranational impacts on capable pioneer conduct. To this end, we gave a union of existing and developing exploration on capable initiative and proposed a bringing together system for disclosing pioneers' affinity to lock in in two sorts of socially capable conduct: "doing great" (prescriptive profound quality) and "maintaining a strategic distance from hurt" (proscriptive profound quality). Hypothetical Implications and Future Directions Our investigation proposes that "doing great" and "maintaining a strategic distance from mischief" are two thoughtfully unmistakable classes then again sorts of pioneer conduct, with diverse mental bases and diverse precursors that foresee them. On the other hand, there is minimal hypothetical furthermore, observational clarity concerning how the variables recognized as predecessors of socially capable conduct may differentially influence the "do great" also, "dodge mischief" measurements of dependable administration. Despite the fact that the objectives of upgrading societal prosperity and maintaining a strategic distance from destructive results for society speak to repeating topics in the CSR and behavioral morals literary works (e.g., Aguilera et al., 2007; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Jones, 1991), few studies have unequivocally tended to the suggestions of these double parts for directors. A striking exemption is a study by Crilly and associates (2008), whose discoveries propose that choices

made in "do great" situations reflect both comprehension and influence (e.g., self-extraordinary qualities and positive feelings), though choices to keep away from exercises that power incur hurt on partners are administered to a great extent by more deliberative psychological procedures (e.g., good thinking). A few creators have noticed that people's moral decisions are prone to be influenced by impacts at numerous levels and have focused on the requirement for an interactionist point of view on moral choice making what's more, conduct (Bommer, Gratto, Gravander, & Tuttle, 1987; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Treviño & Youngblood, 1990), however few studies have researched different impacts crosswise over distinctive levels of investigation and classes of indicator variables. For sample, Kish-Gephart and partners (2010, p. 23) noticed that the vast majority of the studies included in their metaanalysis "researched just direct connections between a proposed determinant and unscrupulous decisions," and O'Fallon and Butterfield (2005) found that just 20 (out of 384) studies included in their audit of the moral choice making writing inspected mediators. Hence, there is a requirement for more experimental exploration that investigates the relevant conditions that direct individual distinction impacts, especially the part of situational quality. Our investigation recommends that, notwithstanding acting as a mediator variable, situational quality may intercede the connections between the relevant impacts and pioneers' affinity to participate in dependable conduct. For instance, an institutional environment where partner rights are ensured, vigorous corporate administration structures exist, furthermore, laws and regulations are stringently implemented makes a mentally solid circumstance that possible advances capable administration conduct. This is genuine particularly when pioneers work inside of the imperatives forced by an association with obvious models for moral behavior, have a corporate society that advances and supports capable conduct, and establish execution administration furthermore, compensate frameworks that hold administrators responsible for their choices and activities. In such circumstances, pioneers don't just have less open door to "do hurt," yet they additionally have more motivations to "do great." Paradoxically, however, our examination recommends that in such a situation, there may additionally be less requirement for pioneers to do great or to dodge hurt, on the grounds that settled part desires, principles, approaches, and techniques can work as a substitute for mindful pioneer conduct. Future exploration ought to test the arranging structure propelled in this paper and set up its relevance to the universal connection. Globalization has brought social and natural concerns to administration's plan, and more and more supervisors work in a worldwide domain. It is settled that when universal supervisors take part in deceptive or illicit exercises outside their nations of origin it is regularly on the grounds that they follow to an innocent type of social relativism of the "when in Rome . . ." kind (Stahl et al., 2013). The peril is 2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 247 especially intense in situations where nearby guidelines (e.g., natural and wellbeing measures) are extensively less stringent than the principles in the home nation. Such a situation, consolidated with a deficient and wrong comprehension of the nearby connection, makes a mentally frail circumstance that

conceivable advances flippant conduct. We suggest that the build of situational quality is of significant heuristic esteem in comprehension the moral problems confronting supervisors in the worldwide enclosure and how they adapt to those problems. Identified with the past point, with a couple of remarkable special cases, existing research on behavioral morals has been socially visually impaired, in that studies have generally disregarded the impact of the national social environment on socially capable conduct. As noted by Vickers (2005), "worldwide partnerships work in countries where renumeration, sexual provocation, racial separation, and a mixture of different issues are not consistently seen as unlawful or indeed, even exploitative" (p. 30). This not just infers that it is hard to unmistakably and unambiguously characterize dependable conduct for a director in a given social setting, additionally implies that supervisors workingin the worldwide coliseum need to take these distinctions into record and parity worldwide and neighborhood contemplations in settling on dependable choices (Donaldson, 1996). To further propel our comprehensionof the initiative difficulties confronting administrators of worldwide organizations, we require a more modernconceptualization of "capable authority" that is pertinent to every social gathering and an extensive variety of partners, and also research plans that permit scientists to study the predecessors of dependable also, flighty pioneer conduct crosswise over diverse nature.

CONCLUSION:The advantages of mindful initiative to society, also, the harm caused by administration unfortunate behavior, make it vital to build up structures for future exploration. Our contentions that individual-level and context oriented elements consolidate what's more, cooperate to impact capable pioneer conduct are key segments of our proposed system. Most outstandingly, the vital part of the administration choice making environment— situational quality conservatives the relationship between individual-level components and a pioneer's affinity to take part in "do great" and "evadehurt" conduct. It is our aim that this system will help others to further examinethe systems impacting dependable administration,which thusly may develop pioneers with an introduction toward obligation.

REFERENCESAgle, B. R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., Jensen, M. C.,

Mitchell, R. K., & Wood, D. J. (2008). Dialogue: Toward

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 responsibility:

A multilevel theory of social change in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 3,

836 – 863.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational

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: Building

the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managing across

borders: The transnational solution (2nd ed.). Boston:

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 Social

Psychology, 40, 290 –302.

Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L., & Scherer,

A. G. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility

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 network

perspective. Academy of Management Review,

23(1), 14 –31.

Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win–win–

win: The influence of company-sponsored volunteerism

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.

2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 249

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: BerrettKoehler

Publishers.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social

responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational

stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),

39 – 48.

Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship.

Business and Society Review, 100/101, 1–7.

Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. (2011). Business and society:

Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management

(8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage

Learning.

Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case

for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts,

research and practice. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.

Cetindamar, D., & Husoy, K. (2007). Corporate social

responsibility practices and environmentally responsible

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 corporate

culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 855–

865.

Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility

converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility

reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany.

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. Journal

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). Psychological

antecedents to socially responsible behavior.

European Management Review, 5, 175–190.

Crook, C. (2005, January 22). The good company—a survey

of corporate social responsibility. Economist,

1–14. Available at http://www.economist.com/

node/3577141

Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation

a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of

corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 23(2), 44 –56.

Dickson, M. A., & Eckman, M. (2008). Media portrayal of

voluntary public reporting about corporate social responsibility

performance: Does coverage encourage

or discourage ethical management? Journal of Business

Ethics, 83, 725–743.

Dietz, J., & Kleinlogel, E. P. (2013). Wage cuts and managers’

empathy: How a positive emotion can contribute

to positive organizational ethics in difficult

times. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 283–299.

Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2004). Globalization and corporate

social responsibility: How nongovernmental

organizations influence labor and environmental

codes of conduct. Management International Review,

44(3), 7–30.

Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility,

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 organizations

as institutional actors in international business:

Theory and implications. International Business

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 theory

of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications.

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 development.

Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–

697.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom

line of 21st-century business. Oxford, UK: Capstone.

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, intention,

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

250 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

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 practices:

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). Stakeholder

theory and “The corporate objective revisited.”

Organization Science, 15(3), 364 –369.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility

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. Organizational

Dynamics, 37(1), 86 –96.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying

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 development:

Exposing students to the AICPA code of

conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 777–790.

Haines, R., & Leonard, L. N. K. (2007). Situational influences

on ethical decision making in an IT context.

Information Management, 44, 313–320.

Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1978). Some determinants

of unethical decision behavior: An experiment.

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 Management,

23(3), 409 – 473.

Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social

responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic

and institutional approaches. Journal of International

Business Studies, 37(6), 838 – 849.

Islam, M. A., & Deegan, C. (2010). Media pressures and

corporate disclosure of social responsibility performance

information: A study of two global clothing

and sports retail companies. Accounting and Business

Research, 40(2), 131–148.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. New York:

Houghton Mifflin.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals

in organizations: An issue-contingent model.

Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366 –395.

Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A

synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management

Review, 20, 404 – 437.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job

attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel

model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1),

126 –138.

Kakabadse, N., Rozuel, C., & Lee-Davis, L. (2005). Corporate

social responsibility and stakeholder approach:

A conceptual review. International Journal of Business

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: Metaanalytic

evidence about sources of unethical decisions

at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1),

1–31.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development:

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-

2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 251

panies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative

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 activity.

Academy of Management Journal, 50(6),

1401–1422.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit”

CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding

of corporate social responsibility. Academy

of Management Review, 33(2), 404 – 424.

McCloskey, D. (1998). The rhetoric of economics. Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). Smartest guys in the

room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron.

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 development.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Mirvis, P. (2008). Executive development through consciousness-raising

experiences. Academy of Management

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 Management,

August 1–5, Philadelphia.

Miska, C., Stahl, G. K., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2013).

Intercultural competencies as antecedents of responsible

global leadership. European Journal of International

Management, 7(5), 550 –569.

Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The role of moral

intensity in moral judgments: An empirical investigation.

Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 715–726.

Muller, A. R., Pfarrer, M. D., & Little, L. M. (2014). A

theory of collective empathy in corporate philanthropy

decisions. Academy of Management Review,

39, 1–21.

Munchus, G. (1989). Testing as a selection tool: Another

old and sticky managerial human rights issue. Journal

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). Corporate

social and financial performance: A metaanalysis.

Organization Studies, 24(3), 403– 441.

Pavlovich, K., & Krahnke, K. (2012). Empathy, connectedness,

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 Applied

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 service

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 development

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). Different

approaches toward doing the right thing: Mapping

the responsibility orientations of leaders. Academy

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-

252 The Academy of Management Perspectives August

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 Personnel

Management, 38(1), 67–77.

Shapeero, M. P., Koh, H. C., & Killough, L. N. (2003).

Underreporting and premature sign-off in public accounting.

Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(6/7),

478 – 489.

Sims, R. R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethical behavior

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 development

(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 predictors

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 stakeholder

and economic values relate to subordinates’

perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative

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 responsibility

in China: A content analysis of newspapers.

Asian Journal of Communication, 22(3), 270 –

288.

Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations

of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma:

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. Administrative

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 organizations:

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 ethical

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”: Influences

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 decisionmaking

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). Responsible

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 Management

Review, Fall, 30 – 49.

Waldman, D. A., Sully de Luque, M. F., Washburn, N., &

House, R. J. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors

of corporate social responsibility values of top

management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal

of International Business Studies, 37, 823– 837.

Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative

perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational

Dynamics, 37(4), 327–341.

2014 Stahl and Sully de Luque 253

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-Economic

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