Description
Discussion Questions: What are some of the negative outcomes that many whistle-blowers have experienced? Cite a case history of a whistle-blower experiencing unfavorable action.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
J Bus Ethics (2016) 133:249–260
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2369-3
Internalized Moral Identity in Ethical Leadership
Rebekka Skubinn • Lisa Herzog
Received: 20 May 2014 / Accepted: 8 September 2014 / Published online: 14 September 2014
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract The relevance of leader ethicality has motivated ethical leadership theory. In this paper, we emphasize
the importance of moral identity for the concept of ethical
leadership. We relate ethical leadership incorporating an
internalized moral identity to productive deviant workplace
behavior. Using qualitative empirical data we illustrate the
relevance of critical situations, i.e., situations in which
hypernorms and organizational norms diverge, for the
distinction of ethical leaders with or without internalized
moral identities. Our paper takes a multidisciplinary
approach integrating insight from management as well as
humanities and social sciences toward a comprehensive
sense of ethical leadership.
Keywords Moral identity Deviant workplace behavior
Ethical leadership Internalization
Introduction
In recent years, scholarship on the relationship between
leadership and ethics has flourished (Arel et al. 2012; Avey
et al. 2011, 2012; Brown and Mitchell 2010; Den Hartog
and Belschak 2012; Neubert et al. 2013). Scholars have
R. Skubinn (&)
Faculty of Economics and Management, Institute of Human
Resource Management, Leibniz University Hannover,
Koenigsworther Platz 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Herzog
Institut für Sozialforschung and Cluster Normative Orders,
Goethe University Frankfurt, Senckenberganlage 26,
60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
suggested different notions of leadership entailing an ethical component, culminating in the discussion around ethical leadership (Brown and Trevino 2006a). One issue in
this debate that has received increased attention is whether
ethical behavior needs to be based on inner convictions or
can also be demonstrated out of utilitarian motivations to
yield desired results (Walumbwa et al. 2008; Brown and
Mitchell 2010; Den Hartog and Belschak 2012). Existing
scholarship fails to sufficiently explore the relation
between ethical leadership and moral identity, despite the
clear connection between these two concepts. As Brown
and Mitchell write, ‘‘research is needed to see if moral
identity, particularly the internalization dimension, can
serve to benefit ethics in organizations generally’’ (2010,
p. 599). Internalization includes an intuitive component,
implying non-cognitive elements of morality1 (Aquino and
Reed 2002; Haidt 2001).
Based on qualitative empirical research, we argue that
there are certain critical situations, characterized by a discrepancy between norms of a reference group, (i.e., formal
or informal organizational norms), and hypernorms (i.e.,
fundamental moral norms that individuals from different
cultures could agree on, Donaldson and Dunfee 1999).2 In
such situations, ethical leaders who lack moral identity will
fail to deliver desired results in the sense of productive
1
We use the terms ‘‘morality’’ and ‘‘ethics’’ and their cognates
interchangeably in this paper.
2
The advantage of using this concept of hypernorms is that they are
widely shared by individuals and theorists who hold different moral
worldviews. For example, a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist utilitarian,
and a virtue ethicists can agree on the rule to avoid unnecessary harm
innocent bystanders. A fully developed view of morality and the way
in which it relates to human character would, of course, have to take
into account more dimensions of morality and of moral identity. For
the purposes of this paper, however, it is sufficient to refer to
hypernorms.
123
250
deviant workplace behaviors. These critical situations
include: (1) sudden dilemmas that require spontaneous
action; (2) the defense of ethical norms despite the risk of
negative consequences; and (3) spontaneous encounters
with others who are not the typical ‘‘yes men.’’ If leaders’
ethical leadership is not based on an internalized moral
identity, they are unlikely to show appropriate conduct
themselves, or to act as appropriate role models for others,
if they encounter one of the critical situations mentioned
above. We thus contribute to closing this gap in this literature—the relation between moral identity and ethical
leadership—by arguing that, given that such situations are
unavoidable for individuals in leadership position, internalization of moral identity is a necessary precondition for
ethicality.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the degree of
internalized moral identity as a way of identifying ethical
leadership leading to productive deviant workplace
behavior, which is especially relevant in critical situations
that are characterized by a discrepancy between informal
norms and hypernorms. Our central argument is that ethical
leadership that is based on a leaders’ internalized moral
identity increases productively deviant workplace behaviors across all situations. In contrast, ethical leadership that
is based on less internalized versions of moral identity is
likely to fail to positively impact productive deviant
workplace behaviors, especially in critical situations.
We relate the notions of ethical leadership and more or
less internalized moral identity with the concept of social
role and Hannah Arendt’s theory of inner dialogue. We
understand these internalized ethical norms, and the question of whether or not a leader ‘‘lives up’’ to them, as a
question about the relation between self and role: if ethical
leadership is merely taken on as a role, without critical selfawareness and without the ethical norms being internalized
and becoming part of the self of the leader, ethical leadership is unlikely to be able to deal with the critical situations we analyze in detail below. Similarly, if a moral
identity is not internalized, an ‘‘inner dialogue’’ cannot take
place, and will consequently not motivate ethical conduct.
We thereby contribute to research on ethical leadership
(Arel et al. 2012; Brown and Mitchell 2010; Brown and
Trevino 2006a; Den Hartog and Belschak 2012; Neubert
et al. 2013) by introducing the distinction between social
role and moral identity as prerequisite for ethical leadership
fostering productive deviant workplace behaviors. Furthermore we contribute to research on moral identity by
identifying the relevance of distinct types of critical situations, in which informal and hypernorms deviate, for
pointing out the impact of internalized moral identity on
the degree of ethical leadership and consequently productively deviant workplace behaviors (Shao et al. 2008;
Aquino et al. 2009; Aquino and Reed 2002). We
123
R. Skubinn, L. Herzog
furthermore contribute to research on Machiavellianism in
ethical leadership (Den Hartog and Belschak 2012) by
emphasizing the relevance of an internalized moral identity
concerning displayed leader behaviors. Additionally, our
approach is relevant for research on deviant workplace
behaviors by identifying antecedents of productive deviant
workplace behaviors within an internalized moral identity
underlying ethical leadership behavior (Avey et al. 2011;
Robinson and Bennett 1995; Warren 2003). We furthermore contribute to this stream of research by pointing out
the relevance of situations in which the informal norms of a
given reference group and hypernorms do not overlap.
In the next sections, we provide a more detailed overview of the literature on ethical leadership and on deviant
workplace behavior. We point out the risk of an ‘‘ethical
leadership’’ attitude that is taken on merely as a social role,
maybe because of public pressures or because a leader
expects to have a positive impact on certain forms of follower behavior. In the third section we discuss qualitative
data, stemming from a series of interviews on ethical
behavior in organizational contexts. From this data we
distil three types of situations in which the relation between
self and role, and the degree of internalization of a moral
identity, make a crucial difference. In the fourth section,
we develop the model that follows from this data, drawing
on the sociological concept of a social role and on Arendt’s
notion of inner dialogue, and connect the literature on
ethical leadership to the literature on deviant workplace
behavior. In the conclusion, we summarize our results and
discuss limitations of our research, we provide suggestions
about how our model could be tested in further empirical
studies, and discuss practical implications for the recruitment process of leaders.
Ethical Leadership and Moral Identity
The corporate scandals of the recent years, including the
financial crisis of 2008, have led to an increased interest in
the ethical standards prevalent in corporations. As the
‘‘tone’’ is set at ‘‘the top’’, this has automatically led to an
elevated interest in the role of ethical leadership and its
relation to other forms of leadership, as well as to other
outcome variables. In this paper, we connect the concept of
ethical leadership to the concept of an internalized moral
identity.
Ethical Leadership
According to Brown et al.’s widely used definition, ethical
leadership has two components: (1) the ‘‘demonstration of
normatively appropriate conduct’’ by the leader himself or
herself, and (2) ‘‘the promotion of such conduct to
Internalized Moral Identity in Ethical Leadership
followers’’ (2005, p. 117). As Den Hartok and Belschak
hold, ethical leader behaviors include acting fairly, promoting and rewarding ethical conduct, allowing follower
voice, showing concern, demonstrating, consistency and
integrity, and taking responsibility for one’s actions (2012,
see also Brown et al. 2005; Kalshoven et al. 2011; Trevino
et al. 2003). Ethical leadership has been found to be correlated with a number of desirable outcomes: for instance,
work engagement (Den Hartog and Belschak 2012), the
degree to which employees behave change-oriented and
raise their voice (e.g., Den Hartog and Belschak 2012;
Rank et al. 2004), behaviors of organizational citizenship
(Brown and Trevino 2006a; Kalshoven and Boon 2012;
Mayer et al. 2009; Piccolo et al. 2010; Walumbwa and
Schaubroeck 2009) and proactive citizenship (Fay and
Frese 2001; Frese et al. 1997; Frese et al. 1996), and the
provision of meaning and motivation to followers (Piccolo
et al. 2010). Ethical leadership impacts followers’ behavior
through triggering identification with the leader, which in
turn causes motivational and social learning processes in
followers (Den Hartog and Belschak 2012).
Moral Identity
Aquino and Reed (2002) define moral identity as ‘‘a selfconception organized around a set of moral traits’’ (p.
1424). This definition is based on a trait perspective but
embraces a social cognition perspective, acknowledging
that moral behavior can be part of a person’s internalized
social self-concept. The authors base their definition on
work on general identity by Erikson (1964), who suggested
that an identity is rooted within the core of an individual’s
being, concerns being true to oneself in action, and is
related with one’s understanding of reality. ‘‘Moral identity’’ can thus be understood as those dimensions of identity that relate to moral norms and values. Hart et al. (1998)
also comprehend identity as deeply inherent in the self and
include a positive moral perspective, defining moral identity as ‘‘a commitment to one’s sense of self to lines of
action that promote or protect the welfare of others’’ (p.
515).
Shao et al. (2008) define moral identity by explicitly
combining the character perspective and the social cognition perspective, as ‘‘[b]oth emphasiz[ing] the importance
of the moral self as determining the regulatory potency of
moral identity and both rely[ing] on the desire for selfconsistency as providing the primary motivational impetus
for moral action.’’ (p. 519). The character perspective is
mainly based on Augusto Blasi’s work (1984, 1993, 2004),
which determines three components of moral identity:
judgment of responsibility, centrality of the moral self, and
the motivational potency of the desire to maintain selfconsistency. The social cognition perspective understands
251
‘‘moral identity as an organized cognitive representation, or
schema, of moral values, goals, traits, and behavioral
scripts ‘‘(Shao et al. (2008, p. 517). In order to combine
these two perspectives, Shao et al. (2008) introduce temporality as decisive element. As such, the authors argue
that the character perspective element of their definition of
moral identity determines more moral behaviors which are
oriented toward the future (foresight morality), while the
social-cognitive perspective element shapes moral behaviors which are more short-term oriented (everyday
morality).
Furthermore, Aquino and Reed’s (2002) definition
identifies two dimensions of moral identity: internalization
(the degree to which moral traits are central to the selfconcept) and symbolization (the degree to which moral
traits are expressed publicly). Aquino and Reed contend
that these dimensions serve as an individual’s benchmark
and guide of moral behavior. In addition, Shao et al. (2008)
argue that ‘‘consistent adherence to behavioral prescriptions associated with the moral self can be expected if and
only if (1) a person’s first-order moral desires are chronically accessible and therefore always likely to be experienced as part of the self regardless of situational factors and
(2) his or her second-order desire to be a moral person
occupies the highest position among a set of second-order
desires (i.e., desires about one’s desires).’’ (Shao et al.
2008, p. 520, emphasis added).
These accounts accentuate the importance of consistency across situations with respect to moral behavior. As
Aquino et al. (2009) find, situational influences can
increase or decrease the likelihood for moral behavior by
making moral identity more or less accessible. However,
across situations, higher internalization and as such centrality of moral identity always increases moral behavior
(Aquino and Reed 2002). In this sense, especially if situations provoke an intuitive reaction—e.g., because they
require quick decision making, are too complex to be
judged in rational terms, or require moral behavior that
could lead to first-order negative consequences for the
leader himself—, the deeply rooted degree of moral identity is likely to determine the degree of moral behavior.
This is in line with Haidt (2001) who finds that intuitions
have a larger impact on everyday moral functioning than
reasoning.
Of course, all situations are, to a certain degree, socially
constructed. Sometimes they are even constructed in ways
which make their moral dimensions less visible. Important
factors are, for example, the presence of persons to whom
authority is ascribed, as the ‘‘scientist’’ in the famous
Milgram experiments (Milgram 1974), or cognitive frames,
for example ‘‘euphemistic labeling’’ (see e.g., Badura
1999). The language of business has often been criticized
for omitting or suppressing the moral dimensions of
123
252
decisions (e.g., Solomon 1992).3 Nonetheless, situations do
not fully determine individual behavior. This holds true in
particular for leaders, who not only react to situations, but
also shape them. Often, they have a considerable scope of
action, and are expected, and used to, challenging the
social constructions they are presented with. Hence, for
questions about ethical leadership character may even play
a greater role than when one discusses the ethical behavior
of individuals who have less scope of action, and less
possibilities of actively contributing to the way in which
situations are socially constructed.
Ethical Leadership and Moral Identity
The relation between the concepts of ethical leadership and
moral identity that we analyze in this paper can be characterized as follows: ethical leadership which is based on
an internalized moral identity that is central to the self will
have a different impact, with respect to ethicality of leadership and its consequences, than ethical leadership based
on a less internalized and less central moral identity.4 This
relationship should be discussed more explicitly because,
given the changing climate in public discourses about
business, and given the wider dissemination of courses,
textbooks, and articles in business ethics, there is a certain
danger that ethical leadership behavior is adopted for reasons other than a genuine interest in ethical norms and
values. Leaders might, for example, be impressed by the
empirical results quoted above that correlate ethical leadership to organizational citizenship behavior or to work
engagement, and might try to use ethical leadership as a
‘‘method’’ to achieve these aims, in order to ultimately
improve economic outcomes. Such leaders would adopt
ethical behavior merely as a role. They would not act on
3
Unfortunately, we cannot here discuss how the very idea of
‘‘morality’’ is socially constructed in business, or fails to be
constructed. As Bird and Waters argued in 1989, it has often been
difficult for leaders to couch moral questions in moral terms (see Bird
and Waters 1989). Maybe this is changing, with public pressure on
corporations increasing, which also increases the risk of reputational
damages if corporations or their leaders are seen as unethical. The
language of ‘‘sustainability’’, in any case, seems to be more accepted
now than it was a decade ago. The language of ‘‘morality’’ still seems
to be met with a lot of resistance.
4
Mayer et al. (2012) theorize a positive relationship between moral
identity internalization and ethical leadership, and find this relationship in one quantitative survey study to approach and in another to
reach statistical significance. This points towards the fact that
individuals with an internalized moral identity are indeed more likely
to pursue ethical leadership. Yet, the statistical insignificance of the
relationship in one of the studies could be a sign that in some cases
(forms of) ethical leadership might also be pursued without an
internalized moral identity.
123
R. Skubinn, L. Herzog
the basis of deeply held inner convictions that are connected to their moral identity.5
Adopting a stance of ethical leadership without an
internalized moral identity does not have to be negative as
such (although it could also be abused for ethically questionable purposes). It could still have a positive impact on
subordinates, and it could be the first step toward the
development of a moral identity. But there are certain kinds
of situations in which it is likely to be insufficient. These
are situations in which individuals have to act quickly and
intuitively, so that a purely external relation to the ethical
values of one’s role is unlikely to lead to the ‘‘right’’ outcomes, i.e., have a positive impact on own workplace
behavior, and set the right kind of role model for others.
This means, in turn, that such situations can help to
delineate ethical leadership that is based on an internalized,
central moral identity, from ethical leadership based on less
central degrees of moral identity.
It is, in fact, not easy to clearly delineate ethical leadership that is authentic, in the sense of being based on a
central moral identity, from ‘‘pseudo-authentic’’ ethical
leadership, i.e., ethical leadership with Machiavellian
motives (Den Hartog and Belschak 2012). This can be seen
from a discussion that connects authentic leadership not to
ethical, but to transformational leadership. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) attempt such a delineation by arguing that
truly transformational leadership must have ‘‘a moral
foundation of legitimate values’’ (1999, p. 184), which
distinguishes it from pseudo-transformational leadership.
But it is not so clear how this distinction can be drawn in
practice. Bass and Steidlmeier hold, for example, that
‘‘followers should not be mere means to self-satisfying ends
for the leader but should be treated as ends in themselves’’
(1999, p. 185). But this might be a false dichotomy, because
leaders obviously also want their followers to do certain
things, and therefore also stand in an instrumental relationship to them. Nonetheless, it is clear that there can be
differences in how individual leaders treat their followers,
in more or less instrumental ways, showing more or less
respect for them as ends in themselves. Bass and Steidlmeier also argue that pseudo-transformational leaders are
‘‘deceptive and manipulative’’, whereas authentic transformational leaders only make ‘‘infrequent’’ use of manipulation (1999, p. 185). This, however, is not very helpful for
5
The concept of Machiavellianism is related to this question.
Machiavellianism implies manipulating others for personal gain
(Wilson et al. 1996). As Den Hartog and Belschak (2012, p. 44) find,
‘‘being high on Machiavellianism does not necessarily imply being
low on ethical leader behavior in the eyes of followers’’. However, the
questionnaire methodology used by the authors does not allow
discovering the leader’s behavior in critical situations. As Den Hartog
and Belschak point out: ‘‘[Our research] […] also calls for attention to
the authenticity of the displayed leader behavior’’ (p. 45, emphasis
added).
Internalized Moral Identity in Ethical Leadership
distinguishing one from the other. Other dimensions they
discuss, e.g., impression management and empowerment,
remain equally vague, while the examples of Socrates or
Confucius (and the references to their thought) are at quite a
distance from modern corporate contexts and hence insufficient as heuristics. The metaphors and expressions used by
Bass and Steidlmeier are marred by the problem that when
we can only observe outside behavior, we can often not
distinguish clearly what a leader’s ulterior motives and
principles are (for a critical discussion see also Price 2003,
p. 72ff). Sometimes, even leaders themselves may not know
exactly whether they acted on moral convictions or on other
motives. ‘‘Authenticity’’ is thus a notion difficult to operationalize in practice.
But as we argue in the following sections, a step toward
closing this gap in the literature on the relation between
ethical leadership and moral identity is to take into account
differences in the contexts of decision making. They can
help us to understand better whether a leader’s ethical
behavior is mere role-playing, or whether it is based on
authentic convictions. Rather than focusing on routine
behavior, in which leaders might easily adopt an ethical
attitude, it makes more sense to look at critical situations in
which the difference between an internalized ethical perspective and mere role-playing becomes obvious. Certain
behaviors are better than others as indicators of internalization of a moral identity—not in the sense of logical proofs,
but in the sense of offering a clearer picture than many other
situations, because playing a role would be much harder in
them. As the examples show, an attitude of ethical leadership
that is mere role-playing is also unlikely to achieve its aim of
productive deviant workplace behavior and being a role
model for others with regard to the question of which forms
of behavior are seen as legitimate within an organization.
Deviant Workplace Behaviors
Defining Deviant Workplace Behaviors
Deviant Workplace Behaviors in general can be defined as
behaviors that are different from the norm and, as such,
imply behavior that overcomes social norms (Warren
2003). Interestingly, both formal and informal company
norms are included in this overall concept of norms. In an
attempt toward a more general definition, Warren (2003)
differentiates between norms of a reference group and
hypernorms. The former are, for example, informal company norms, while the latter term has been introduced by
Donaldson and Dunfee for describing moral norms that are
‘‘so fundamental that, by definition, they serve to evaluate
lower-order norms, reaching to the root of what is ethical
for humanity’’ (1999, p. 46).
253
Literature on deviant workplace behaviors has followed
two main streams. One stream has focused on defining
deviance as negative departure from norms (Avey et al.
2011; De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Mayer et al. 2012).
This negative departure implies counterproductive acts by
employees such as stealing, lying, wasting resources, or
gossiping, i.e., ‘‘voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and in so doing threatens the wellbeing of an organization, its members, or both’’ (Robinson
and Bennett 1995, p. 557). This definition of workplace
deviance explicitly differentiates itself from the study of
ethical behavior in that it only evaluates behavior that
deviates from norms of the organization, which must not
necessarily correspond to ethical standards in the sense of
hypernorms. This is to say, while deviant behavior can be
unethical and vice versa, these two characteristics must not
necessarily be aligned. Robinson and Bennett (1995) discuss an example concerning dumping toxic waste into a
river. If such behavior is in line with organizational norms,
it would not be classified as deviant in the sense of their
definition. However, most people would evaluate this
behavior as unethical; as such it is deviant from hypernorms. What makes this distinction more complicated in
practice is that there can also be gaps between the ‘‘official’’ norms of an organization (e.g., sexual harassment is
not tolerated) and the ‘‘unofficial’’ norms that actually
govern its day-to-day-activities (e.g., minor sexual
harassment, if committed by a senior manager toward a
junior female employee, is covered up by everybody) (cf.
also Warren 2003, p. 624).
In contrast, the second stream of research on deviant
workplace behavior focuses on positive deviations from
norms, such as organizational dissent or exercising voice
(Avey et al. 2012; Brief et al. 2001; LePine and Van Dyne
2001; Van Dyne and LePine 1998). Examples also include
whistleblowing or functional disobedience (Warren 2003,
p. 622). These positively deviant behaviors are associated
with beneficial organizational outcomes, such as improving
quality of decisions made (Warren 2003), or increasing
employee well-being (Avey et al. 2012).
In light of these two understandings of deviant workplace behaviors, efforts have been made to consolidate
them toward a general understanding of positive or negative deviation in the sense of productively or counterproductively deviating from organizational norms. The joint
element in both forms of deviance is that both types
demand employees to resist social pressures to conform
(Warren 2003).
Moral Identity and Deviant Workplace Behaviors
Given the differentiation between degrees of internalization of moral identity outlined above, we suggest to
123
254
consolidate these views by a notion of deviance that
includes all forms of productive deviance, from formal and
from informal organizational norms. The reason for this is
that an internalized moral identity implies a positive relation to voice, implying that demanding authenticity from
ethical leaders integrates antecedents of productive forms
of deviance with ethical leadership. In turn, ethical leadership based on less internalized forms of moral identity
likely does not produce productive forms of deviance,
while it might even increase counterproductive forms of
deviance.
The distinction of different degrees of internalization of
moral identity in ethical leaders especially shows in situations where hypernorms and informal organizational norms
are in conflict. For example, sexual harassment clearly
contradicts hypernorms, and yet tendencies toward such
behavior might indeed be tolerated to some degree by the
informal norms of an organization. This is when ethical
leaders need their internalized moral identity as ethical
inner field manual that guides them through the dilemma.
In contrast, ethical leaders with lower degrees of internalized moral identity or with Machiavellian approaches to
morality are likely to weigh benefits between adherence to
organizational norms or to hypernorms differently. If
adherence to organizational norms appears more beneficial
to these latter leaders, the resulting behavior can counterproductively deviate from hypernorms.
Thus, in situations that require resisting social pressures in
organizations only ethical leaders who have a strongly
internalized moral identity, i.e., behave according to their
inner convictions, will raise their voice. Consequently, only
such ethical leaders are likely to exhibit productively deviating workplace behaviors. In contrast, ethical leaders with
less internalized moral identities, or who demonstrate ethical
leadership behaviors in a utilitarian manner, are likely to
conform to their role as leader. This conformity implies
adhering to the organizational norms which are best aligned
with the demonstration of this role. This is to say, given that
their moral identity is less strongly internalized, these ethical
leaders have less to lose if they do not raise their voice
in situations where hypernorms are transgressed but informal
organizational norms are adhered to, and especially when
they do not have anything to gain by doing so.
Given the criticality of situations in which hypernorms
and informal organizational norms conflict, we suggest
analyzing such situations in order to distinguish ethical
leadership grounded in an internalized moral identity from
other forms. Based on our empirical data, we identify three
types of situations in which formal and informal norms
conflict, leading to situations in which the degree of
internalization of moral identity can be detected: (1) sudden dilemmas, (2) defending ethical norms despite certain
risks, for example when dealing with misbehavior toward
123
R. Skubinn, L. Herzog
vulnerable agents, and (3) risking encounters with others
than ‘‘yes men’’.
Critical Cases for Ethical Leaders
The following empirical cases are drawn from a wider
sample of 32 qualitative interviews of 45–70 min on moral
agency in complex organizations, conducted between April
and December 2012. They were chosen because the interviewees were, or had been, in leadership positions and
showed a high degree of reflexive awareness of their own
position, thus offering an ‘‘inside perspective’’ of their
leadership situation. The sample covered a broad range of
industries including public service; the three cases presented here come from an IT company, a chemical company and a financial institution. All leaders have a
university education and more than 20 years of professional experience.6 The interviews have been conducted in
German and translated into English, and have been retranslated by another researcher in order to validate the
translation. The interviewees were approached by explicitly mentioning the perspective on ethical questions, which
means that the sample might be biased toward individuals
who see themselves as having high ethical standards. On
the other hand, the snowball sampling made it possible to
find interview partners based on personal recommendations, so that an atmosphere of trust and openness between
interviewer and interviewee became possible. The interviewees were not asked directly about their views on ethical leadership and moral identity; rather, the passages
analyzed below emerged from broader conversations about
ethical aspects of leadership and their experiences in
complex organizations. The qualitative method has wellknown limitations with regard to representativeness.
Nonetheless, we think that these data offer crucial insights
into important dimensions of the debate on leadership,
which might also be amenable to quantitative research.
Sudden Dilemmas
The first passage comes from an interview with the head of
human resources of a medium-size IT company. As this
manager emphasized, being authentic with regard to moral
values matters for him because it helps him to act correctly
in situations in which he suddenly encounters dilemmas:
So you for yourself also do not make a difference
between who you are in your private life and who you
are in your job?
6
In order to protect the identity of these interviewees, their gender is
not revealed and male terms are used throughout.
Internalized Moral Identity in Ethical Leadership
Well, I believe that this wouldn’t be authentic… and
then I would also be in danger of not acting consistently, and would become insecure, in certain situations. And actually it’s a
